One Vision Housing Limited (202116972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116972

One Vision Housing Limited

10 October 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. Components of the resident’s service charge.
2. The landlord’s conduct towards the resident in carrying out its housing management functions.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. The resident has advised this Service that he has an ongoing case with the First Tier Tribunal in relation to the rent and service charge for the property. As part of this he has raised his concerns around components of his service charge which relate to communal areas and services in the retirement housing scheme located in a separate building to his home.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Components of the resident’s service charge.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, whose tenancy at the property began on 6 June 2016. The property is a one bedroom bungalow which is supported by the landlord’s ‘independent living service’. As part of this the resident has an allocated ‘independent living officer’ who conducts morning welfare calls and tenancy sustainment work.
The resident is of pensionable age and reports a number of physical health conditions including arthritis and irritable bowel syndrome as well as declining mobility.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident advising that it had scheduled an appointment for 21 May 2021 to carry out an electrical test of the property. The letter advised the test was necessary to ensure his home remained safe, and that the resident was obliged to provide access under his tenancy agreement. It warned that refusal to give access could result in the landlord applying to court for an injunction and the resident being recharged for the associated costs.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident again, scheduling the electrical test for 8 June 2021. The landlord has advised this was due to a request from the resident to reschedule the previous appointment.
The resident says that, on 25 May 2021, he sent the landlord what he referred to as a “cease and desist letter”. This accused the landlord of causing him stress and anxiety, and impacting his enjoyment of his home, by contacting him over the past several months demanding access to the property and to discuss his rent account. He asked the landlord to stop any actions which could be deemed as harassment, or else he would seek legal advice on the matter.
The resident also says that on 16 June 2021 he received a phone call “demanding” access to the property the following day (providing less than 24 hours notice) to complete the electrical test.
An internal landlord email of 22 July 2021 states that the resident’s independent living officer had spoken with him about the electrical test, and that he “does not feel safe enough” to allow it to go ahead.
On 1 August 2021, the landlord sent out a bulk text message to residents whose rent account did not go into one weeks worth of credit when their weekly or monthly payment was made. It said that “In accordance with your tenancy agreement, your rent account needs to be one week in credit. Currently your rent account is not one week in credit and we would like to help you with this.” It invited residents to text back in order to receive a call to discuss options, or to visit its website for more information via a link.
On 3 August 2021, the resident says he received a call from his independent living officer (separately to the daily welfare check) to discuss arranging access to his property for the electrical test.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord due to concerns that the text message of 1 August 2021 may have been a ‘scam’. The landlord confirmed that the text message was legitimate and had been sent to all applicable residents. It said that the one week’s credit was a requirement of the tenancy agreement and offered to increase his monthly direct debit for the remainder of the financial year in order to gradually build this up.
On 4 August 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He complained that:
1. Due to his involvement in a previous matter – which he said he had referred to this Service, the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, he felt that the landlord was now harassing him and preventing him from peacefully occupying his home.
2. The landlord had made an “unprofessional” demand in its text message of 1 August 2021, and behaved unreasonably in requesting such money ‘out of the blue’, with no prior notice, from residents on a limited income.
3. There was nothing in his tenancy agreement requiring him to grant access for an electrical test, but the landlord was continuing to insist there was and ask him to make an appointment (most recently in a voicemail left earlier that afternoon).
4. Current government guidance around covid-19 stated that it was up to residents to allow access for repairs and maintenance if they felt it safe to do so, and the landlord was not adhering to this.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 August 2021. It said that:
1. A condition of its tenancy agreement was that payment should be made on the Monday of each week, covering that week’s rent.
2. It was reviewing all rent accounts that were not one week in credit and contacting them via text message – the resident’s was one of these and it was happy to discuss ways for him to make payment.
3. It needed to carry out an electrical test of his home to ensure it met safety requirements and to protect him, the property and his neighbours.
4. It understood his concerns about allowing operatives into the property due to the covid-19 pandemic and his vulnerability, but it was important that the electrical test was completed. It asked him to contact it to arrange a date for this.
On 17 August 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It said that further to its stage 1 complaint response, it wished to explain why he had received the text message about his rent account. It repeated that the text message was sent to all residents who currently paid their rent in arrears in order to make them aware that rent was required in advance under their tenancy agreement, and encourage them to contact it to discuss their circumstances. It said that it had reviewed his recent correspondence, and as a result would no longer be requesting that he bring his account one week into credit.
The resident responded the same day asking to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. He said that its most recent email contradicted its stage 1 complaint response, gave him the impression the landlord would continue to pursue threats against residents who did not challenge it, and made him question the legitimacy of its demand. He asked why the landlord was suddenly asking for this payment in advance when it had not done so in the previous 5 years of his tenancy.
The resident also claimed that “legislation for yearly electrical checks was only introduced last June”, and so was not in his tenancy agreement. He accused the landlord of trying to override covid-19 guidance by coming into his home, and stated that this was a continuation of him being ‘bombarded’ by the landlord on a weekly basis for access for a gas safety check, payment of arrears he did not owe and threats that he was breaching his tenancy agreement.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 August 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had recently sent the resident a text message asking him to contact it to make arrangements to pay his rent in advance.
2. This was in accordance with his tenancy agreement which said “the payment of rent (including any service charge) is due in advance on the Monday of each week”.
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement allowed the landlord to give 24 hours notice to access the property, and said that the resident must allow it access to the property to “inspect the condition or use of your home (including gas, electrical and water appliances” and to “carry out repair, service or improvement work”.
4. It could make individual arrangements with residents with specific needs, such as those self-isolating or shielding during the pandemic, but would require verification of these. If residents were unable to provide verification it would continue with its no access process, which could end in court action.
5. The electrical test was necessary to ensure the safety of the resident and his neighbours. It requested that he contact it to arrange for the test to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

The resident has complained that the landlord’s conduct towards him in carrying out its housing management functions constitutes harassment and unreasonable interference with his occupation of the property. This report will asses the landlord’s actions in the two examples specified by the resident in his formal complaint – collection of rent in advance, and gaining access for an electrical test, in order to determine whether the landlord could be said to have behaved unfairly or unreasonably, or have treated the resident in a heavy-handed or inappropriate manner.
As the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response, the resident’s tenancy agreement contains a clause that “the payment of rent (including any service charge) is due in advance on the Monday of each week”. Whilst it is noted the resident has contested he was not made aware of this during the signing of the tenancy, and that rent in advance was not demanded at that time, the historic nature of this means it is outside the scope of this investigation, and not relevant to the landlord’s conduct some 5 years later.
The resident also questioned why the landlord requested he bring his account into one week’s credit when it had not done at any point previously during his tenancy. The landlord is entitled to enforce the terms and conditions of its tenancy agreement at any point in time. It cannot be said to be unreasonable for it to do so purely because it has not on previous occasions.
The landlord states that a bulk text message was sent out to all residents whose rent was not being paid in advance – as required under the tenancy agreement. The content of the text message was generic, making no reference to the resident’s name, address or details of his rent account. Based on this it is evident that the landlord contacted all residents whose rent account was not compliant, and that the resident was not unfairly targeted by this communication.
After the resident emailed it to query the legitimacy of the text message, the landlord confirmed it had sent the message and appropriately provided further information as to why it had been sent and offered him payment options to bring his rent account in-line. There is no evidence of any heavy-handedness in this communication, and the contact was initiated by the resident’s email rather than the landlord pursuing him.
The landlord also attempted to telephone the resident on 4 August 2021, prior to him making his complaint, to discuss his concerns. An internal landlord email in relation to this call states that “I tried to call this gentleman earlier due to requests to contact him…following the responses from the text message sent for RIA (rent in advance). I must stress that the vm (voicemail) message left was polite and of a reassuring tone reiterating that I wanted to help answer any questions and resolve any outstanding issues he may have. I also left him my direct number as a point of contact.”
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response served only to reiterate the information previously given and state that there was ‘potential’ for the resident’s tenancy terms to be breached should he not make payment in advance. It did not threaten any enforcement action in relation to this ‘potential’ breach, and said it was happy to discuss ways for the resident to avoid being in breach of his tenancy – indicating a level of flexibility and reasonableness in its approach.
Shortly after the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it had reconsidered his case and made the decision not to request payment of his rent in advance. Although the resident accused this of being contradictory and “unprofessional”, it demonstrated the landlord appropriately using its discretion, and giving reasonable consideration to his individual circumstances, rather than blindly following policy.
In summary, the landlord made a reasonable request to the resident, along with other residents in similar positions, to bring his rent account in line with the terms of his tenancy agreement. There is no evidence that its communications with him on the matter were excessive, heavy-handed or unfair, and the landlord appropriately considered his individual circumstances which led to it later rescinding the request.
In correspondence relating to the electrical test, the resident referenced legislation introduced in June 2020. In June 2020, regulations came into force for landlords in the private rented sector requiring them to inspect and test their electrical installations at least once every 5 years. These requirements did not extend to social landlords. Nevertheless, it is reasonable, and good practice, for social landlords to operate in adherence with these requirements to ensure electrical safety in their tenanted properties.
Under section 2.2 of the tenancy agreement the landlord agrees “not to interrupt or interfere with [the resident’s] right to peacefully occupy [their] home except where access is required subject to reasonable notice, to inspect the condition of the property of [the] property, to carry out repairs or other works”. Section 3.11 states that residents must allow the landlord, its staff and contractors access to their home to “inspect the condition…(including gas, electrical and water appliances)”. It is therefore clear that the landlord’s request for access to complete the electrical test was in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
On 17 May 2021 – shortly before the first scheduled appointment for the electrical test, the government published updated covid-19 guidance for landlords and tenants. This stated that residents who were not self-isolating or clinically extremely vulnerable could allow landlords and contractors to access their home to carry out works including routine inspections, essential and non-essential repairs and maintenance, and planned maintenance.
The guidance recognised that some tenants may still want to exercise caution, and be reluctant to allow access to their homes. It said that landlords should respect this when engaging with residents, and should work with them to help them understand why the work was necessary, the risks of not carrying it out, and to try and find a way to carry out work safely if possible. Where a tenant is not self-isolating or clinically extremely vulnerable and persistently refuses to allow access, the guidance confirms that landlords still have the power to obtain an injunction via the courts.
The landlord has provided this Service with a risk assessment document dated 4 January 2021 relating to attendance to a property “to carry out a work activity where social distancing control measures are required”. This sets out control measures in place to mitigate the risk of the spread of covid-19 infection including use of relevant PPE, maintaining social distancing and ventilating enclosed spaces.
The landlord’s contractor’s initial appointment letter of 10 May 2021 made reference to the fact that failing to grant access for the electrical test could result in the landlord applying for an injunction through the courts, and potentially recharging the resident “in the region of £1,500 in court costs”. Although this could be considered heavy-handed for an initial appointment letter, it is clear from the identical content of the second appointment letter sent 10 days later that this was a generic ‘template’ letter and not specific to the resident.
The resident has referred to a telephone call received at 5pm on 16 June 2021, where access was “demanded” the following day and which he referred to as “rude”. The landlord’s records do not contain any mention of such a call, and it is possible this was made by its contractor without its oversight or knowledge.
The resident’s independent living officer contacted him on 22 July 2021 and 4 August 2021 to enquire about access for the electrical test. As the member of staff with most frequently in contact with the resident, and with whom he describes a positive relationship, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to engage with him via the officer in this way. These instances were nearly 2 weeks apart and could not be considered excessive, especially when the officer was in daily contact with the resident via the welfare call service.
During the contact of 22 July 2021, the resident relayed that he did not feel safe enough to allow access for the electrical check. This does not appear to have been followed up on, and represents a missed opportunity for the landlord to engage with the resident, explain‘ covid-safe’ measures it was taking for these appointments (as described in its risk assessment document), and discuss any reasonable adjustments it could make to provide further reassurance for him.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also failed to provide any information on how the landlord was mitigating the risk of covid-19 when carrying out works – despite acknowledging the resident’s hesitance in providing access was due to concerns around this. It also failed to clarify the sections of the tenancy agreement on which it relied to gain access. However, both of these areas were addressed by its stage 2 response just 2 weeks later, and so the detriment caused by this was limited.
The landlord’s position that it required verification of a resident’s status as self-isolating or shielding – and would otherwise continue with its no access process if access was refused, was reasonable and in keeping with the government guidance in place at that time.
In summary, the landlord’s request for access to the property in order to complete an electrical test was reasonable, enforceable under the tenancy agreement and in keeping with government guidance at that time. Although it missed opportunities to fully explain the requirement for access, and reassure the resident about measures it was taking to prevent the spread of covid-19, these were addressed in its final complaint response. The landlord’s contact with the resident on this matter could not be said to be excessive in nature, or targeted in such a way that he was treated unfavourably.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about components of the resident’s service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s conduct towards the resident in carrying out its housing management functions.

Reasons

The landlord attempted to carry out its housing management functions, as supported by the tenancy agreement. It evidenced recognition of the resident’s individual circumstances and attempts to cater to these. There is no evidence that its conduct was unfair, unreasonable, heavy-handed or inappropriate, or that the resident was treated unfavourably compared to those in a similar position.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord works with its contractor to review the first appointment letters for electrical safety inspections to ensure these could not be considered heavy-handed or unduly threatening in tone.