Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (201906790)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906790

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

14 December 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s concerns about a contaminated water system at her property.
  2. The installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin.
  3. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant. She suffers with rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic fatigue. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s medical conditions.

3.             In October 2013, the resident reported to the landlord that she had a problem with her hot water. On various occasions following this, the landlord carried out a number of flushes to the resident’s hot water system, in response to her reports.

4.             In November 2018, the resident said that whilst the landlord was visiting the property, she reported that she was still without uncontaminated hot water, and was still using pots and kettles to boil her hot water. She stated the staff member inspected the hot water and took photographs.

5.             On 28 February 2019, the landlord removed the hot water tank and replaced the boiler in the resident’s property. It also replaced some of the hot water pipes. This work was completed on 4 March 2019. The resident then reported to the landlord that after the works, only 1 hot tap would run at any one time. The bath tap did not run enough water, for her to be able to use the bath. She also advised the landlord that damage had been caused to her property during the works, by its contractors. On 2 April 2019, the resident’s representative asked the landlord to carry out the repair, as it had not responded to her previous letter. She stated that she was willing to take further legal action regarding the landlord’s response to her repair.

6.             On 14 May 2019, the landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident. It said it disagreed that the resident had been without hot water for 5 years. The landlord said that after it installed the resident’s new boiler, there was a pressure problem with the hot water service to the bathroom. It installed a booster pump which resolved this repair. The landlord said that it also raised a works order and the following had been completed:

  1. The new pipework under the boiler installation that had caused the resident concern was boxed in for aesthetic purposes.
  2. The bath and wash hand basin were renewed, including a thermostatic bath / shower mixer.
  3. Damage caused to the hallway, stairs, and landing during the installation works had been made good and redecorated.
  4. The bathroom and separate toilet were redecorated.

7.             On 10 June 2019, the resident responded that she ‘strongly refuted’ the landlord’s claims that she had access to hot water at her property between October 2013 and May 2019.

8.             Between June and August 2019, the resident told the landlord she had retained her correspondence regarding her complaints about the lack of hot water at her property. She told the landlord she intended to pursue legal action and believed she was entitled to compensation. The landlord sought to confirm the resident’s disrepair claim. It provided its solicitor’s details to the resident for her to pursue this.

9.             The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 August 2019 about her complaint. The Ombudsman advised the resident that she must exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure before we would carry out an investigation into her complaint. The resident asked the landlord to confirm that she had exhausted its complaints procedure, about the lack of hot water at her property. She had written letters to the landlord on the following dates:

  1. 29 July 2019.
  2. 19 September 2019.
  3. 25 September 2019.

10.        On 6 November 2019, after intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that it had received the resident’s previous letters and said that it had treated them as ‘correspondence’. This meant the resident had not yet exhausted its complaints procedure.

11.        On 21 November 2019, the resident told the landlord that her previous correspondence set out her complaint. She said it was about being without the use of hot water at her property. The resident was seeking compensation for the suffering caused to her, by the lack of hot water for over 5 years. She was also seeking the following additional compensation:

  1. £37,553.11 which was the resident’s full value of rent from 3 October 2013 to 5 May 2019.
  2. £2,000 for an increase in gas and electricity due to having to boil her water.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 December 2019. It said it needed to extend the time to provide its written response. This was because it needed to complete further enquiries, to provide a full response. The landlord said it would provide its written response by 12 December 2019. On this day, it then extended the date to January 2020. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2020. In its response, the landlord did not agree with the resident’s request for compensation. It offered to complete a survey of works it had already carried out during the installation of the new boiler.

12.        In its written response, the landlord said that it had believed the resident was pursuing a disrepair claim in her correspondence, about the hot water. This was why it had not taken the resident’s ‘correspondence’ though its complaints procedure. The landlord accepted it should have registered the resident’s complaint sooner. It awarded the resident £100 compensation, for its confusion on how she wished to pursue the matter.

13.        On 24 February 2020, the resident stated she remained dissatisfied. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and said it would escalate her complaint. It asked the resident if she wanted to attend the review meeting, into her complaint. On 20 March 2020, the landlord told the resident that she had not responded to its previous communication about her whether she wanted to attend the review meeting into her complaint. The landlord said it was closing the resident’s complaint. It said it would revisit the matter if she responded about her wishes to attend the review.

14.        On 29 July 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to state she had exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s procedure. The service intervened and contacted the landlord. The landlord explained that due to it not receiving a response from its communication with the resident on 20 March 2020, that it had closed her complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its final response to the resident by 24 December 2020. The landlord responded on 11 December 2020, that due to no contact from the resident it again closed the resident’s complaint without a final response.

15.        Between July 2021 and December 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman stating that she had still not received the landlord’s final response to her complaint. The service advised the landlord to provide its final response to the resident by 9 February 2022.

16.        On 1 June 2022, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, in which she requested compensation for being without hot water for 5 years. It said the resident had been advised by its contractors going back to 2017, that the cause of the rust was due to the resident choosing to not use the hot water taps. The water resting in the pipes caused the discolouration and she was told to use the hot water regularly. It said that it acknowledged it could have handled the resident’s complaint better and so awarded her £250 compensation in recognition of this. It said the previous offer of £100 at stage 1, would also be credited on her account. This was because it was aware she had not claimed this.

17.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 July 2022, stating her desired outcome was that the additional requested compensation be paid to her.

Assessment and findings

18.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

19.        The Ombudsman must 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 consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

20.        Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident had been reporting concerns about her contaminated hot water supply since October 2013. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent reports, from November 2018 onwards. This is because the available evidence indicates that there was a long break in the reports after September 2017 and T=the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues when they occur, or soon after, and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. Policies and Procedures

21.        The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the installation, the repair and maintenance of the supply of water, including hot water in the resident’s home. It is also responsible for the repairs to baths, basins, toilets, and water pipes. The landlord states it has 2 types of response to its repairs:

  1. Emergency repairs which it will respond to within 4 hours.
  2. Non-emergency repairs which it will respond to within 14 days.

22.        This policy states that it aims to complete all repairs on the first visit. When this is not possible, the landlord will inform the resident why, and will tell them when the repair will be completed.

23.        The landlord’s complaints policy states it describes a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction affecting an individual or group. It may be about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action, by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf. A complaint may be made in person, in writing, on the phone, and via social media. With permission of the complainant, it may be made on their behalf by a representative or advocate.

24.        This policy states that the landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 2 working days. It will provide a written response at stage 1 within 10 working days. It states it will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint. It will agree a timescale with the complainant if it requires more time to respond. The landlord refers to stage 2 of its complaints process as a review. It states it will provide its review response within 20 working days. If it asks the resident for information and does not receive a response within 4 weeks, the landlord will close a complaint.

Concerns from the resident of a contaminated water system at her property.

25.        The resident asked for copies of the landlord’s repair logs for her property in January 2019. She also informed the landlord that she was seeking legal advice for its lack of response. It was right that the landlord provided its repair logs for the property. The resident has said that following this conversation, the landlord agreed to works including:

  1. Installing a new combi boiler at the property.
  2. Removing the old water tank.
  3. Replacing some of the hot water pipework.

26.        The Ombudsman has seen no evidence from the landlord as to why it instigated these works in relation to the resident’s hot water supply. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident has stated that it may have commenced the works because she said she was seeking legal advice about the repair. It was right that that the landlord took action to complete this repair, regardless of what instigated the commencement of the works, if an issue with the hot water system had been identified.

27.        The installation of the boiler was completed on 4 March 2019, which the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period of time, from when it had agreed to carry out the works in January 2019. The Ombudsman, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a contaminated water system at her property. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this will be disappointing for the resident, but for the reasons outlined above, it is not considered fair or reasonable to investigate the handling of the historical reports about the contaminated hot water supply.

The installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin.

28.        Between 28 February 2019 and 4 March 2019, the landlord installed the replacement boiler in the resident’s property. On 6 March 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that the bath tap did not run enough hot water for her to use the bath. She said that due to her rheumatoid arthritis, she could no longer use the bucket to bathe, due to the stiffness in her fingers. The resident asked for a bath and shower that worked.

29.        On 2 April 2019, the resident used a representative to write to the landlord, to ask for it to respond to her repair. The resident should not have had to send a second letter, asking for the landlord to provide a response.

30.        The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 14 days. The Ombudsman understands the resident has stated this further delay caused her significant detriment, as well as time and trouble in contacting the landlord.

31.        The landlord completed the repair on 9 May 2019 to the hot water. It was reasonable that during these works it renewed the bath and hand wash basin, which included a thermostatic bath / shower mixer. It was right that the landlord apologised to the resident in its letter dated 14 May 2019 for the delay in its initial response to this repair.

32.        By the 1 June 2019, the landlord had boxed in the exposed pipes under the boiler and repaired the damage caused by its contractors during the original installation of the boiler. It was right that the landlord did this, and the period from 9 May 2019 to its completion date was a reasonable period of time for it to complete these works.

33.        The Ombudsman, however, makes a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin. Although the landlord apologised and eventually resolved the water pressure issue, it did not consider the impact of its delayed response on the resident. Its response also failed to consider the time and trouble taken by the resident in seeking a representative to make a further complaint about the landlord’s lack of response to the original repair she reported.

34.        The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience, the resident is awarded £200. The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation in this range where there has been maladministration by the landlord. This type of award is appropriate where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment caused to the resident.

The associated complaint.

35.        The timeline shows that the resident made a number of reports about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about contaminated hot water in her property. The Ombudsman’s view is that that landlord should have taken a formal stage 1 complaint upon receipt of the resident’s letter dated 2 April 2019.

36.        The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that ‘a complaint is a dissatisfaction affecting an individual. It may be about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf’. The letter from the resident’s representative was by definition on the 2 April 2019, a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of contaminated hot water in her property, since 2013.

37.        Failure by the landlord to record the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint, caused significant delays in the handling of her complaint. It also exacerbated the resident’s frustrations at what the resident described as a lack of action by the landlord, which the Ombudsman understands has had a negative impact on the wellbeing of the resident.

38.        The Ombudsman intervened and advised the landlord to respond to the resident by 25 October 2019 to confirm either:

  1. That the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure.
  2. How she could escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy with its response.

39.        The landlord responded 8 working days later than deadline set; on 6 November 2019. It said it had taken all previous letters from the resident as ‘correspondence’. This is why it had not taken the resident through its complaint process. It was unreasonable, and not in line with its complaints policy to refer to the letters as ‘correspondence’ and should have accepted sooner and recognised that the resident was making a complaint.

40.        The landlord delayed its stage 1 written response to the resident twice. It provided its stage 1 written complaint response on 16 January 2020. A stage 1 complaint response should be responded to within 10 working days. It is reasonable in some circumstances to extend a response for a further 10 days in exceptional circumstance. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have provided its response within 20 working days at the latest. The landlord’s timescale in providing its stage 1 response was therefore unacceptable, and was set out as follows:

  1. 201 working days after 2 April 2019. This is when it should have logged the stage 1 complaint from the resident.
  2. 48 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint.

41.        The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it did not acknowledge the resident’s ‘correspondence’ as a complaint because it believed that the resident was making a disrepair claim. This is a legal process, which is separate, and does not come under the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, there had been no application submitted to the court in relation to a disrepair claim at that time. Therefore, best practice would have been for the landlord to continue to engage with the resident and acknowledge her complaint. This would have demonstrated a proactive response in handling and seeking to resolve the resident’s concerns.

42.        It was right however, that the landlord recognised that it was responsible for the confusion about the disrepair claim. It was also right that it awarded compensation to the resident. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, this was not a reasonable amount to reflect the significant delays, time and trouble and detriment caused to the resident in the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

43.        The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. It asked the resident, by contacting her representative to confirm if she wanted to attend the review into her complaint. On 20 March 2020, the landlord stated that it would close the resident’s complaint if she did not respond to its previous request about the review. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord made any further efforts to contact the resident direct, through phone calls, email, or letters. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take further steps to contact the resident prior to closing her complaint. The Ombudsman is also aware that the resident had set out in her original complaint that she would like all communication to be in witing. Therefore, in all the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to go ahead with the review after the resident had asked for it to be escalated, regardless of a lack of response to the landlord’s further request surrounding the review.

44.        The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 29 July 2020, stating the landlord had still not provided its final response. The Ombudsman advised the landlord to provide its final response to the resident by 24 December 2020. The landlord did not do this. This was unreasonable and there had already been long delays in progressing the complaint.

45.        The resident’s representative contacted the Ombudsman in July 2021, stating that she was still waiting for the landlord to provide its final response to her complaint. During this period, the Ombudsman, although not questioning the resident; would have expected her or her representative to contact the landlord during this time if she had not received any communication.

46.        The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide its final response to the resident by 9 February 2022. The landlord replied that it had received no correspondence from the resident or representative for over a year. It said it had written to the resident and had attempted to telephone her in April 2022. The resident disputes the landlord attempted to contact her during this time. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support the landlord’s statement of its attempts to contact the resident within a reasonable period. It also took too long to progress the resident’s complaint following intervention from the Ombudsman.

47.        The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 1 June 2022. This was a significant delay after the resident requested her complaint be escalated. However, the Ombudsman has also considered that this period of delay was not entirely due to the landlord, as there were delays in the Ombudsman and the resident following up on the complaint at times. The landlord awarded the resident £250 in recognition of its complaint handling. It was reasonable that the landlord awarded the compensation, although the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation is reflective of the adverse effect its poor complaint handling had on the resident.

48.        In the Ombudsman’s opinion, for the reasons described above in this report, there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the poor level of engagement and communication, failure to log the complaint at the earliest opportunity, and significant delays in responding throughout the complaint process.

49.        In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused the resident, the Ombudsman awards £150 compensation. This is in addition to the original compensation of £350 awarded by the landlord during its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints process, for its complaint handling. This is a total award of £500 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation in this range where there has been maladministration by the landlord. This type of award includes where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination (decision)

50.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a contaminated water system at her property.

51.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin.

52.        In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the associated complaint.

Orders

53.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration in the handling of the repairs and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:

  1. The installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin.
  2. The associated complaint.

54.        The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £350 within 28 days of this report. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

  1. £200 the landlord’s handling of the installation of a replacement boiler, bath, and hand wash basin.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

55.        The landlord is to pay the landlord the £350 compensation it awarded the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaints process if it has not already done so.

56.        The landlord is to carry out an internal review within 8 weeks of this report into this complaint to ensure that it takes the opportunity to identify any learning opportunities in its handling of this complaint.

Recommendations

57.        The landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that its staff understand how to recognise and handle a complaint, in line with its internal complaint’s procedure.