Tower Hamlets Council (202221997)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221997

Tower Hamlets Council

5 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a suspected leak in the resident’s property.
The resident has also made allegations about:
1. The landlord’s handling of their personal information.
2. Harassment.
3. Discrimination.
4. Breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. They occupy a 2-bedroom flat on the 3rd floor of an apartment block. Their daughter is also a resident of the flat.
The resident has told us that they suffer from stress, anxiety, sleep difficulties, and migraines. They also said their daughter is deaf.
On 1 May 2022, the leaseholder of the flat below the resident’s reported a leak into their property. The landlord raised a repair request to visit the resident to identify the cause. According to the resident, no leak was found at this time and so the matter was closed. On 3 May 2022 the leak was reported again and the landlord contacted the resident to arrange access. The resident said that the landlord had already inspected the property, and so they would not provide access again. The resident sent a video to the landlord instead. The resident also informed the landlord of their vulnerabilities and asked that sufficient reason is given as they did not like being “harangued by strangers”.
Between 6 May 2022 and 10 May 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident twice to ask for access to the property. Having reviewed the video, it had determined there was an active leak that needed to be repaired. On 11 May 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident stating that it would be visiting 2 days later. The letter also said that the landlord was consulting its solicitors in respect of taking legal action against the resident in respect of the leak.
On 10 May 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They said that the landlord’s actions were destabilising and causing the resident to experience high blood pressure. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord was accessing their online portal without permission. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 May 2022 and attempted to call the resident on 12 May 2022. In an email the landlord said that the water leak was causing damage and encouraged the resident to allow access. The landlord also said that it understood the resident’s concerns in respect of stress and anxiety and would take account of these.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord visited the property but the resident refused access. There are no notes in the evidence as to why access was refused. The landlord’s notes suggest that it was because the resident did not believe access was required as they had already sent a video of the leak and provided access previously.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 18 May 2022 stating that they had breached their tenancy by failing to provide access. The landlord also said that it was entitled to force entry into the home if required and would consider obtaining an injunction from the courts. The resident responded by requesting an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. In that email the resident said they were unhappy with:
1. The landlord’s threats of forced entry.
2. The landlord accessing their online account to request repairs.
3. Harassment from the repairs team.
4. The landlord allegedly using the resident’s vulnerabilities to coerce entry.
5. The landlord’s alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act and the General Data Protection Regulations.
The complaint was passed to a complaints manager on 20 May 2022. The landlord responded to stage 1 of the complaint on 24 May 2022 stating that:
1. The first contractor did not identify a leak.
2. The landlord requested further inspections and repairs following reports of a leak from the neighbour.
3. This was not a data protection breach as the landlord is the data controller.
4. The video from the resident shows an active leak.
5. It still required access to the flat to rectify the leak.
On 30 May 2022, the resident disagreed with the landlord’s response. They claimed that the landlord did not address why the original contractor did not identify a leak if there was one there. They also raised concerns about how the landlord defined the complaint and why a repairs manager responded, rather than the complaints team. As a result, the resident wanted an independent inspection. The resident also made further allegations that the landlord:
1. Rang from a private number and threatened court action.
2. Contacted the resident’s daughter directly to attempt to gain access.
3. Refused to email the resident.
The landlord initially refused to consider the email sufficient to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its process. However, an email and letter were sent by the resident on 20 June 2022. The landlord accepted these as being sufficient to escalate the complaint and acknowledged the escalation on the following day. The repair was completed on 22 June 2022.
The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 18 July 2022. It said that:
1. It did not consider raising a repair request to be a data protection breach.
2. The notice of action letter on 11 May was “unfortunate”.
3. The resident should have granted access to the property sooner.
4. Due to these factors, it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint to this service in December 2022. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions and considers the landlord to have breached:
1. General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
2. Human Rights Act 1998.
3. Equality Act 2010.
4. Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
5. As well as committing harassment and breaching the tenancy agreement in respect of the right to quiet enjoyment of the home.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has raised complaint points as breaches of various acts of parliament. While this service must have due regard to the law, we are unable to determine whether a breach of the law has occurred. That responsibility is properly left to the courts. Equally, compliance with GDPR legislation is also outside our jurisdiction and is instead a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.
With this in mind, and in line with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaint point 2 as part of our determination.
We will however consider the overall treatment of the resident and whether this amounted to maladministration as part of complaint point 1.

Handling of suspected leak

The landlord’s leaks procedure considers any leak which causes damage to neighbouring properties to be an emergency. Generally, this requires attention within 24 hours of notice. According to the tenancy agreement, tenants are expected to grant entry in all cases where a repair is required. The procedure specifies that the landlord may attend alongside any contractor where a leak is considered “complex”. The landlord may also force entry where it deems appropriate. This clause is also reiterated in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord acted appropriately when first notified of the leak, by sending a contractor to inspect the resident’s flat. The resident has complained that the contractor was unprofessional, in terms of how they entered the building and showing identification. It is not possible for us to know exactly what happened on this first visit, but we would expect anyone acting on behalf of the landlord to act professionally and carry appropriate identification when attending a repair.
The landlord has not investigated why the first contractor did not identify a leak at the resident’s property. No inspection report has been provided to this service except a log which confirms the job was “completed”. It is unfortunate that the landlord did not find the source of the leak on the first visit, but it was not unreasonable to make further attempts to inspect the property. Although we understand it would have been disruptive to the resident, the landlord does have an obligation to do the repair, however many visits it may take.
However, the landlord is expected to be fair to residents where a leak is suspected. From the evidence available, the landlord resorted very quickly to sending legal letters threatening forced entry and an injunction. Despite telling the resident that it would take their vulnerabilities into account, there is no evidence that it did so. The landlord recorded in its own notes that the leak was not severe enough to require forced entry, and so it was unreasonable to tell the resident that it might.
The landlord should have acted with compassion and, especially where the resident is unwell, taken account of the resident’s needs. The resident asked for contact primarily by email, however the landlord continued to ring the resident instead. The landlord has told us the content of these calls is no longer available. While this is not ideal, the content of the letters and emails we do have would suggest that the landlord was acting in a heavy-handed manner. Contacting the resident’s daughter in an attempt to gain access was wholly unprofessional.
The landlord did log repair jobs to the resident’s account. We do not think it was unreasonable for the landlord to take such action, and do not agree it amounts to “unauthorised access”. Repair jobs are primarily associated with an address, rather than a person, so it is common for both a landlord and a resident to request a repair to the same address. This does not mean that it would appear as though the resident made the request.
In mitigation, we do think it was unreasonable for the resident to refuse access on multiple occasions. The landlord would have been concerned that the leak could have gotten worse and therefore it felt it needed to act quickly. However, it had a duty to work with the resident to arrange access, rather than impose access on its own terms.
Taking all these factors into account, we have determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response. It failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and acted in a heavy-handed and unreasonable fashion. It failed to consider the resident’s concerns and made threats of forced entry, despite recording in its own notes that forced entry was disproportionate. In its complaint response, the landlord did not consider how its actions would have impacted the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the handling of repairs to the resident’s property. This is because it acted in a heavy-handed manner and failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is hereby ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to pay £200 compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by its actions. This is based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failing by the landlord and no effort has been made to put things right.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its policies and consider making it clear to staff that they should take account of a resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging emergency or unexpected repairs.
The landlord’s retention policy only retains call logs for one year. The landlord should consider retaining details of calls for a longer period to ensure it is able to account for recurring, systemic, or long-standing issues. This would also assist when investigating complaints.