Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202123724)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123724

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

1 September 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord visiting the resident without making a prior appointment.
   2. Whether a landlord staff member wore the appropriate PPE when entering the property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

Whether a landlord staff member wore the appropriate PPE when entering the property

3. Following the completion of the complaint considered in this report, the resident raised a new complaint on 1 July 2022 with the landlord relating to the type of personal protective equipment (PPE) worn by a landlord staff member during a visit to the property on 26 November 2021.
4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 11 July 2022. This complaint has yet to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this report will not consider this aspect as part of this complaint.
5. The resident also raised a complaint on 11 February 2022 into how his reports of noise nuisance, ASB and harassment by a neighbour were handled by the landlord. A stage one complaint response was sent by the landlord on 11 March 2022 and a stage two response sent on 4 April 2022. The resident brought this complaint to this Service and confirmed on 2 August 2022 that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate the matter, and a new complaint was therefore registered for the resident. As such this report will not comment on this matter as it will be addressed in the new case.

Background

6. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow. The landlord has stated that it has vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident relating to mobility and mental health.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2021 and requested to raise a complaint following a visit from a member of the landlord’s staff earlier that day. The resident described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. Due to historical issues concerning staff conduct, the resident had issued a notice to the landlord relating to access to the property and also placed a notice on the front gate stating that the landlord needed to request permission before entering the property.
   2. The staff member who had visited him had arrived unannounced. The reason for the visit was unclear. The staff member made reference to the resident’s welfare, storage boxes in the back garden, and the condition of the property.
   3. He felt bullied and harassed by the staff member who had visited, did not understand why the landlord felt the visit was necessary, and was frustrated by the landlord entering the property ‘illegally’.
8. In response to the complaint, the landlord informed the resident that:
   1. It had no record of any legal or written documents sent to it by the resident relating to restrictions on right to access.
   2. As landlord of the property, it was within its rights to access the path to the property and conduct a doorstep conversation about a legitimate tenancy matter.
   3. Its visit was not meant to cause alarm to the resident. It explained that the visit occurred after a report it received about boxes outside the property. The staff member was to inquire why the boxes were there and ask if any assistance was required as to their removal. The resident raised issues relating to ASB during the conversation and the staff member suggested talking inside the property due to the sensitivity of the subject. This was declined by the resident as the landlord had given him no prior notice.
   4. The tenancy agreement stated that the landlord needs to give the resident 24 hours’ notice to enter the property to inspect its condition. In this case the staff member planned to conduct a doorstep conversation about the boxes and did not initially intend to enter the property; therefore, no prior notice was required. The staff member suggested entering the property for privacy reasons relating to the ASB matter. When this was declined by the resident, the staff member respected his decision.
   5. It was satisfied that its staff member had acted appropriately and in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
   6. It had written to the resident to offer an appointment for 26 November 2021 to conduct a property inspection and to discuss the issues he had raised during the 16 November 2021 visit.
9. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the landlord breaking the law in not providing notice prior to an appointment and that the staff member who attended on 16 November 2021 had lied to him in order to gain access to the property and undertake an inspection.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

10. Paragraph 3.4 of the tenancy agreement relates to the garden of the property and, in part, states:
    1. “You are responsible for keeping in good condition any garden which forms part of your home …. you must not allow your garden to be excessively untidy or overgrown. If you fail to do this we may, after 28 days written notice, enter your home and carry out any necessary work and charge the cost to you.”
11. Paragraph 3.9 of the tenancy agreement relates to access and, in part, states:
    1. “You must allow us or anyone working for us access to inspect the condition of your home (including carrying out a tenancy assessment visit) or to carry out repairs or other works to your home. We will normally give you at least 24 hours notice if we need access except in cases of emergency or to check your safety or welfare where there may be reasonable cause for concern.”

Scope of investigation

12. In raising the complaint with the landlord and in his correspondence with this Service, the resident has referred to historical complaints he had raised with the landlord in 2017 relating to staff conduct and in 2019 relating to ASB.
13. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
14. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to May 2021, 6 months prior to the formal complaint. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in November 2021.
15. The resident has described the adverse effect on his mental health that the actions of the landlord had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the actions of the landlord and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord
16. The resident has stated that he had sent a notice of implied right to access to the landlord and that the landlord broke several laws in entering the premises without first seeking his approval. It is not within the remit of this Service to make binding legal decisions or interpret legal documents. This position is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint further, it is advised that he seek legal advice.

The landlord visiting the resident without making a prior appointment.

17. An internal note was added to the landlord’s system on 12 November 2021 by a staff member who was visiting another property. This note informed the landlord of their concerns at the number of storage boxes in the resident’s back garden. Photographs of the garden were also provided by the staff member. As a result of this note, a staff member visited the resident on 16 November 2021.
18. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take to ensure that the resident was in compliance with the terms of the tenancy agreement relating to the upkeep of the garden. In light of the vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, it was also appropriate for the landlord to conduct a welfare check and offer support.
19. The landlord has noted that the staff member who visited was content for the conversation to take place at the doorstep and only suggested talking inside the property when incidents of ASB were raised. ASB was not an issue that was part of the reason the staff member visited, and it was reasonable for the staff member to consider the resident’s privacy, when making the suggestion of entering the property. It was within the resident’s rights to refuse this request and the staff member did not dispute this decision.
20. Following the 16 November 2021 visit, the landlord wrote to the resident and agreed an appointment to visit the property on 26 November 2021 to conduct a property inspection and discuss the issues raised by the resident. Following the appointment, the landlord wrote again to summarise the visit and to state that following their discussion, it was satisfied with the condition of the property and no further action would be taken.
21. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in either of its November visits. Both visits were made in line with the clause of the tenancy agreement on access; the 16 November 2021 visit was conducted on the doorstep and the staff member complied with the resident’s request not to enter the property, and the 26 November 2021 was agreed after written notice was given by the landlord for a property inspection.
22. Moreover, the landlord has explained the reasons why it sought these visits, informed the resident of the outcome of the visits, and it also offered additional support to him from its sustainment team and external agencies.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of it visiting the resident without making a prior appointment.
24. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the wearing of appropriate PPE is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.