Swan Housing Association Limited (202221979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221979

Swan Housing Association Limited

25 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of an interruption to the resident’s gas supply.
2. The associated compensation request.
3. Staff conduct.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner with the landlord since 2012. The property is a flat in a block.
On 14 September 2022, the landlord discovered a fault with gas installations serving 4 properties within the block. The landlord requested Cadent (gas network distributor) attend whereby Cadent deemed the 4 gas installations to be ‘Immediately dangerous’ and disconnected them.
After this discovery, the landlord organised an inspection of the rest of the gas installations in the building. This inspection took place on 22 September 2022. It was agreed by the parties that the gas supply to the resident’s property (and the whole block) should be disconnected due to the same issue.
The landlord attempted to engage with the original installer of the gas pipework on rectifying the issues but was unable to do so. It then appointed its in-house gas contractor to carry out the works needed to reinstate the gas supply to the building and to the resident’s property.
The gas supply to the resident’s property was restored on 18 January 2023.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter and made a stage 1 complaint. This was that she had not received the financial assistance that was offered for staying with family and friends, the landlord did not respond to her enquiry about the temporary accommodation, the landlord did not give a timeline for works to be completed, and the landlords staff member was rude in a virtual meeting. The resident also requested a reduction in the rent for the time the property did not have a gas supply.
In its stage 1 response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaints, apologised, and informed the resident that it would send her a payment of the monies due to her. It also informed her it was unable to offer a rent reduction but would make a one-off payment of £10 and then £2 per day until the gas supply was restored. It also informed her it would pay £30 per month to cover additional electric costs arising from the use of the electric heaters it had provided and to cover the gas standing charge. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised again for the issues, referred to the compensation payments it had already made to the resident and maintained its position that it was unable to offer a reduction in the resident’s rent.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and escalated the complaint to this Service. To resolve the issue the resident would like a rent refund for the time the property had no gas supply.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of an interruption of gas supply to the resident’s property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides an obligation on landlords to maintain the exterior and structure of the property. This includes installations for the provision of water, heating systems, drainage, sanitary appliances and gas and electricity.
Additionally, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 as amended, places a duty on the landlord to ensure that gas installations and pipework serving the premises are safe.
The landlord was aware on 14 September 2022 that 4 gas installations had been deemed dangerous. The landlord proceeded to organise an inspection of the remaining installations. The Ombudsman considers the landlord took this course of action because it held a reasonable view that the remaining installations may also be affected.
The Ombudsman considers it would have been wise to begin communicating the concerns on 14 September 2022. This would have allowed the resident and the landlord to work together for several days to prepare for the disconnection of gas on 22 September 2022.
The landlord’s position is that it immediately informed all residents about the disconnection of the gas supply but has not described how it did this or provided any evidence of this. In contrast, the resident told this service she was at work and learned of the situation of the disconnection earlier in the day through a neighbourhood ‘what’s app’ group. The resident states this was distressing and confusing.
In the afternoon, the landlord attended the building and informed the residents who were at home of the situation. The landlord offered alternative accommodation options such as hotel and other temporary accommodation, and compensation of £30 pound per night if she chose to stay with family or friends.
The documents provided show the landlord maintained a presence on the estate for five days. The documents also show the landlord was clear in informing the resident that the gas supply to the building would remain disconnected for a minimum of six weeks. It also offered a choice of virtual meetings during the day and evening. This was good and demonstrates the landlord understood the need to be visible and communicate with its residents about the situation.
The documents indicate that Director level staff members had responsibility for the landlord’s response to the disconnection of the gas supply and led the virtual meetings to provide information and updates to the resident. As this was a previously unencountered situation for the landlord, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord provided the resident with a ‘frequently asked questions’ document and provided the contact details of a dedicated support team. During September and October, the landlord provided weekly email updates to the resident and twice-weekly drop-in surgeries on site. This demonstrates the landlord made good efforts to ensure the resident was kept updated on progress of repairs.
While the landlord’s engagement with residents about the repairs was good, the Ombudsman has not seen any documentation that indicates it made any enquiries directly with the resident about how she would manage without heating, hot water, and cooking facilities.
In the circumstances the landlord had a duty of care towards the resident that extended beyond the provision of monetary payments and repairs progress reports. No documents have been provided that demonstrate the landlord conducted a risk assessment or vulnerability assessment of the resident, her household, and individual circumstances. This means the landlord did not have a clear picture of how the resident was personally impacted by the situation.
On 19 October 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the situation and informed it that she left the property to stay with family on the day the gas was disconnected and stayed with family for 9 days. The resident requested a rent reduction until the gas supply was restored.
The resident also complained the landlord did not respond to her query about the temporary accommodation on offer, it had not provided the payments it said it would, and it had refused to give a timeline for the gas to be reinstated. The resident also complained about comments made by the landlord’s staff member at a virtual meeting. (This matter has been investigated later in this report)
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised that it did not respond to her query about temporary accommodation, apologised she had not yet received the compensation payments due to her, and apologised for the comments made by its staff member.
In response to the resident’s complaint about the timeline for works, the landlord informed her it would continue to provide weekly update letters. However, it overlooked the commitment it made in its ‘frequently asked questions’ document of 26 September 2022 wherein it said it would create an action plan with clear milestones and publish and share this with the resident. There is no evidence it did this and this undermined the residents trust and confidence in the landlord.
In relation to the resident’s request for a reduction in rent, the landlord informed the resident it could not reduce the rent as per her request but did not explain why. (The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reduction in rent is covered in the next section of this report)
The landlord offered temporary heaters and a temporary electric shower to the resident on 11 October 2022. It is unclear when the temporary solutions were actually provided to the resident, however, an offer was made 19 days after the gas supply was disconnected.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord delayed in offering the temporary solutions and this meant the resident was without heat, hot water, and cooking facilities for a further 10 days (after the initial 9 days spent staying away with family). The situation of no heating, hot water or cooking facilities for 10 days caused the resident serious hardship.
The landlord did not complete a risk assessment or vulnerability assessment of the resident and her household when it knew the resident would have no gas supply for several weeks or more. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter especially as the situation occurred in winter.
The landlord did not communicate early enough about the issue when it became aware of it on the 14 September, and it was unacceptable that the resident first heard about the disconnection of gas to her property through a neighbourhood what’s app group.
While it is acknowledged the landlord cannot stop residents communicating with one another through various platforms the landlord could have considered utilising its internal software systems to send a text message to affected households.
At times, the landlord did not provide the level of customer service it should have during a difficult and stressful time for the resident. The documents provided show the resident had to chase the landlord or make a complaint to get the payments promised in the landlord’s newsletter.
It waited too long to offer temporary heating and other temporary solutions and significantly, the landlord offered temporary accommodation but then did not respond to the resident’s enquiry about it. The resident felt ignored and this undermined the residents trust and confidence in the landlord.
Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an interruption to the gas supply at the resident’s property.

The associated compensation request.

At complaint stages 1 and 2 the resident requested a rent reduction for the time the property had no gas supply. The Ombudsman finds this was a reasonable request. The landlord declined on both occasions stating it was unable to do this.
The landlord’s compensation policy statement at 6.1 states, “Swan is constantly striving to provide excellent standards of service to our customers. We acknowledge that when these standards are not met residents can be inconvenienced or suffer a loss as a result of our action or inaction, in some instances compensation may be the most appropriate remedy.
The documents provided show the landlord’s contractor did not install the gas pipework according to the manufacturer’s instructions leading to the gas supply to the property being disconnected.
The Ombudsman finds the situation had a high impact. The resident was displaced from the property for 9 days and had no gas supply, heating, hot water or cooking facilities until mid-October when the landlord provided temporary solutions. The situation caused the resident upheaval, worry and uncertainty.
The works required to put the matter right were extensive, intrusive, and resulted in loss of amenity and loss of enjoyment of the property for at least 14 weeks.
The communal areas and parts of the resident’s flat had to be deconstructed and rebuilt to run new gas pipework resulting in disturbance and disruption to the resident for over 3 months.
The dust levels created by the deconstruction and reconstruction works caused the lift to break down (the landlord compensated the resident for this) and in its weekly update 12, the landlord acknowledged the disruption caused and apologised for the ongoing noise and mess in the communal area.
The resident informed this service that at times the landlord’s contractor would knock at the front door speculatively seeking access to her home which she felt obliged to accommodate. The resident spent many hours providing access to the property for inspections, actual works, and post inspections. The resident told this service she could not relax and was on a constant state of high alert which increased her anxiety levels to the point where she had to seek support and advice from her GP.
The landlord’s contractor had a duty to install the gas pipework in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, but it did not do this. As a result of this, the resident’s property and wider surroundings were defective for at least 14.5 weeks. The temporary solutions offered by the landlord mitigated the situation, but the Ombudsman’s view is that the resident through no fault of her own, did not get proper value for the rent paid for the premises.
The landlord offered the resident £10 plus £2 for each day until the gas supply was restored. The landlord appears to have relied on the compensation amounts set out in its Right to Repair Scheme, however the landlord did not explain where its compensation methodology came from.
The landlord’s approach was not transparent enough and was puzzling for the resident as evidenced by her request for clarification and further details on the compensation amounts offered made in her stage 2 escalation request.
The situation had a high impact on the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord had a duty to carefully consider the resident’s request for a reduction of rent and provide detailed reasons for its position that it could not offer a rent reduction.
No evidence has been provided that it gave the request any proper consideration, and it did not provide any reason for its position that it was unable to offer compensation in the form of a full or partial rent refund. This was unreasonable and did not align with its compensation policy and procedure.
Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated compensation request.

Staff Conduct

The landlord convened a virtual meeting with residents of the block on 14 October 2022. The resident complained about the attitude and remarks made by the landlord’s staff member at the meeting.
The landlord’s complaints policy states “complaints against individual members of staff will be recorded and dealt with by the line manager and supported by the People Team where appropriate”.
The Executive Director investigated the complaint which was appropriate in the circumstances. The Executive Director reviewed the meeting in full and upheld the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses the landlord apologised and acknowledged the residents upset and frustration.
The matter was discussed with the staff member concerned who conveyed his sincere apology to the resident. The Executive Director also reiterated expected standards of respect and communication to the staff team and made a customer pledge on the issue.
The documents provided demonstrate the landlord addressed the issue in its 18 October 2022 newsletter to all affected residents and again apologised that its communication had not been to the standard expected.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of the matter was appropriate and its apologies to the resident were sincere.
Accordingly, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the interruption of a gas supply to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated compensation request.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident a total of £962.40 in compensation broken down as follows.
1. £362.40 for the loss of use of the property calculated at £18.12 per day for 20 days between 22September and 11 October 2022(the date when temporary solutions were offered).
2. £600 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and failure to communicate its decision-making process for compensation, and its failure to respond to the resident’s request for information on temporary accommodation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should apologise for its handling of the resident’s compensation request.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are ‘be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes’. The landlord has not provided a lessons learned report to the Ombudsman or evidenced that it has applied any learning from the event or the subsequent complaint to improve its service delivery. The Landlord must provide its lessons learned report to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider preparing a suite of emergency planning documentation which should include template forms for capturing the relevant personal information of its residents.