Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202225263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225263

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 August 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. reports of an operative gaining access to the resident’s property.
2. concerns that it held a key to the property without her knowledge.

Background

The resident is a sole assured tenant of the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord that its operative forcefully accessed the property. She had a door chain fitted which was damaged. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord held a key without her knowledge.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. It explained that due to an administrative error, its operative was carrying out an inspection on what he believed was a void property. The landlord apologised to the resident, returned the key, and offered compensation of £100.
The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord did not address why the contractor entered the property when there was a chain on the door and other indications that it was occupied. She stated that it did not advise her what procedures were in place to ensure keys aren’t misused. The resident advised she was concerned about what the contractor may have done if she wasn’t in the property to challenge him, and she was unhappy that the same operative had returned to the block since the incident. She wanted the landlord to provide assurance he wouldn’t break into her flat again.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord:
1. advised that its investigations showed that the operative didn’t feel the chain engage, which it felt was supported by photographs of the chain showing that it was undamaged.
2. it had since carried out awareness training to prevent the same issue reoccurring.
3. explained that it failed in its tenancy sign up by not providing her with 3 sets of keys.
4. as a result of this complaint, it has reviewed its processes to ensure it doesn’t happen again.
5. explained that the operative returned to inspect other void properties, and apologised for not making her aware he would be back to the block.
6. advised that it has since employed a new contractor to carry out void inspections.
7. offered reimbursement of £71.87 for additional security measures, and made an increased offer of £250 compensation.
When the resident brought her complaint to this service, she remained dissatisfied as she wanted a better explanation on how the landlord allowed the incident to occur, and the landlord to explain inconsistencies in the operative’s account of what happened. The resident advised a similar incident had occurred since, and she doesn’t feel the landlord had put appropriate measures in place to address her concerns. The resident stated she has since moved from the property because of the incident. As a resolution she would like an apology and compensation to reflect the level of distress caused.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. put things right, and;

c. learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

The resident reported a similar incident to the landlord shortly after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. For completeness, and fairness to the resident, this service has extended the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s internal complaint procedure to consider this incident.

Reports of an operative gaining access to the resident’s property

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the terms of the tenancy agreement provides the resident with the right to ‘quiet enjoyment” of their home. This means the resident has a right to use her home without disturbance from the landlord or anyone acting on their behalf.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will assess claims on their individual merits. Its discretionary compensation allows for a maximum amount of £250.
The resident’s tenancy with the landlord began on 30 September 2021. The incident happened almost 7 weeks later, on 17 November 2021, when an operative for the landlord opened the resident’s door with a key and gained entry despite the presence of a chain. The resident stated that the door was forced through the chain, but the operative stated the key chain did not engage. This service is not in a position to determine the exact circumstances, however, it is not disputed by the landlord that it should not have accessed the property and that its actions were inappropriate.
The resident called the police immediately after the incident, who attended and apprehended the operative. The police took no further action. On the same day, the landlord fitted a security bolt to the door and provided the resident with the key it held. It called the resident the next day and apologised, asked for further details, and advised that it was investigating the incident. These were good responsive steps by the landlord after it received the report, and show that it was taking steps to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord contacted its contractor to get a full report on the incident. Its internal investigation noted that an administrative error occurred, which meant that the resident’s property was still listed as void, and the operative had been instructed to inspect the property. The landlord also contacted its sales team and confirmed that the resident had not been provided with all keys at tenancy sign up in line with the tenancy sign up process. This was an appropriate investigation by the landlord because it contacted all parties involved and reviewed its internal processes to find out what went wrong.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed the outcome of its investigation, apologised for its failings, and offered £100 compensation. This was an appropriate initial response, however, the offer of compensation did not reflect the distress likely caused to the resident, who has explained how frightening the incident was.
The resident remained dissatisfied.She asked why the operative entered what he considered a void property when there was evidence of occupancy, she advised that the operative had been back to her building since, and she raised concerns for her safety. The landlord held a review panel meeting with the resident and advised it would investigate the matter further and respond to her concerns as part of its stage 2 complaint response. This was a reasonable step to take to fully investigate the resident’s concerns.
After the panel meeting, the landlord asked the resident to provide receipts for additional security measures she had taken. The resident provided receipts totalling £71.87. The landlord offered to re-imburse these costs. This was a reasonable offer by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns. It advised that the operative stated that he didn’t feel the chain engage when he entered the property. He believed the property to be void and took 3-4 steps in before realising it was occupied. Although the resident disagreed with this version of events, it does indicate that the landlord appropriately investigated her concerns.
The contractor confirmed to the landlord that it would carry out awareness training to ensure this issue did not reoccur. The landlord apologised for not making the resident aware that the same operative would be attending the block during the course of his duties. It also confirmed that it had since instructed a new contractor to attend to its void inspections. These were appropriate measures for the landlord to take, and indicates that it has learned from the failure and replacing the contractor gave assurance to the resident that the operative would not be in the building again.
The landlord offered an increased compensation figure of £250 in its stage 2 complaint response, the maximum amount allowed in line with their discretionary compensation policy. It is not possible to quantify the level of distress caused to the resident, as different individuals may react to situations differently. However, in this case, there are indications that she was concerned for her security before this incident occurred, evidenced by the fact that she had installed a chain to the door. The resident called the police immediately after the incident, which indicated concern for her safety at the time, and she installed additional security after the incident, compromising, an indoor CCTV camera, a wireless door handle alarm, and a personal alarm. The resident has further advised this service that she has since moved from the property because of the incident. Taking all evidence into consideration, this service finds the level of compensation offered by the landlord was not appropriate, because it did not reflect the level of distress caused.
This Service finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of reports of an operative gaining access to the property. It is noted that the landlord was very responsive to the complaint and installed a security bolt on the same day, carried out a thorough investigation, accepted responsibility, apologised, trained staff, changed the contractor it used, and offered compensation. However, this service finds that the compensation was not proportionate to the distress likely caused and orders the landlord to pay compensation £600 to the resident. This service’s own remedies guidance sets out that compensation amounts of up to £600 and above are suitable where a landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate.
If it has not already done so, it is ordered that the landlord re-imburse the resident £71.87 for the additional security measures taken.
This service acknowledges that the landlord properly applied its compensation policy and offered its maximum discretionary payment, however, the offer was not reflective of the landlord’s failing in this case and did not consider the distress caused or the resident’s individual circumstances. It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy to allow more flexibility with discretionary payment amounts so that each complaint can be considered on its individual merits.

Concerns about the landlord holding a key to the property without the resident’s knowledge.

The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will give the resident possession of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. During its complaint investigation, it confirmed that its policy is to provide the resident with all keys at tenancy sign up.
After the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident asked the landlord to provide her with details of its procedures to ensure keys aren’t misused and asked if its procedures were followed.
The landlord stated that its policy is to provide the resident with all keys at tenancy sign up and it accepted that it failed in its tenancy sign-up. As a result of this failure, the resident’s property was still recorded as a void property and the landlord held 1 key. This failure led to the substantive issue of the landlord’s employee gaining access to the resident’s property. The landlord stated that it provided the resident with the key when it realised its error, it installed a security bolt, and it changed the locks to the property. These were appropriate steps to take after it became aware of its failure.
As a result of this complaint the landlord has amended its voids inspections procedure to ensure that when a new tenancy is agreed it will instruct the void inspection team to immediately stop carrying out void inspections and return the key it holds. This was an appropriate amendment to the policy by the landlord to ensure the same issue was unlikely to reoccur, and shows that it has ‘learned from outcomes’ in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
On 16 March 2022, the resident reported a further incident in which another operative attempted to enter her property. The resident reported that she heard a key in her lock and the handle being pushed. She called the police to report the incident. As part of the landlord’s investigation, the operative reported that he did not attempt to enter the resident’s flat but confirmed he was outside to inspect a neighbouring void property. This service cannot make a determination on this incident, especially given the conflicting versions of events reported. The evidence does indicate that the landlord appropriately investigated the report of this further incident by taking a statement from the operative, speaking with the police, and advising the resident that it found no evidence its operative attempted to access her property.
This service finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to concerns that it held a key without the resident’s knowledge. This is because it was responsive in putting things right for the resident by returning the original key, installing a security lock, and changing the locks. It also amended its policy to ensure the same issue doesn’t likely reoccur.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to reports of an operative gaining access to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to concerns that it held a key without the resident’s knowledge.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pay compensation of £650 to the resident for the distress caused. If its previous offer of £250 has already been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from this amount.
If it has not already done so, it is ordered that the landlord re-imburse the resident £71.87 for the additional security measures taken.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its compensation policy to allow more flexibility with discretionary payment amounts, so that each complaint can be considered on its individual merits.