Westward Housing Group Limited (202113399)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113399

Westward Housing Group Limited

20 November 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:
1. handling of repairs to the resident’s property (flooring, hot water tank and stopcock).
2. response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor.
3. complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has it recorded that the resident does not want to be contacted by phone, only e-mail and that all repairs are to be booked by the landlord and not its contractor.

Policy and legal framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for repairs to floors and installations provided by the landlord for water heating and supply, including water heaters. The landlord will normally give 24 hours written notice of its intention to enter the property but immediate access may be required in an emergency.
The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said that emergency repairs would be carried out or made safe within 24 hours and that it would respond to routine and non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. Where possible, appointments would be made with the resident for a time and date convenient for them. If it could not gain access or contact the resident, the job would be cancelled.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy at the time said it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. It would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and call the resident to discuss why they were dissatisfied and what it could do to resolve the complaint.

Summary of events

On 8 June 2020 the resident reported that damage to the flooring in front of the hot water tank cupboard had got worse. He said that this had been caused by a leak in 2018. The landlord replied asking for pictures of the damage, which the resident sent on 21 July 2020. The resident chased the repair to the floor on 17 May 2021 and said no one had got back to him after he sent the pictures. On 24 May 2021 the landlord raised a job to inspect the floor and noted that this needed to be done as soon as possible and that the resident had reported that he had nearly broken his ankle on it several times.
An inspection of the floor was carried out on 21 June 2021. Three days later the resident asked when the repair would be carried out and the landlord replied that it was waiting on a quote and would be in touch once this was received. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 14 July 2021 to arrange an appointment to inspect the floor. He replied that this had already happened and forwarded this to the landlord to deal with. Two days later the resident chased the landlord for an update due to being given different information from the landlord and its contractor and not knowing what was happening. The resident said that the landlord replied that it was not waiting for a quote and offered an appointment for 5 August 2021 to complete the repair, which he accepted.
On 7 July 2021 the landlord raised a job for follow on works to replace the “thermo override” in the off-peak hot water tank following a repair that had been completed on 17 June 2021. The resident said he was contacted by the landlord’s contractor about this on 28 July 2021 to tell him about an appointment on 4 August 2021. He said that he responded that the tank had already been repaired and forwarded the e-mail to the landlord. It replied 2 days later and explained these were follow on works and apologised he had not been made aware at the time.
On at least 4 occasions between 31 July and 16 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord for more detail about what works were required before arranging an appointment. He reported some concerns about the operative who had carried out the initial repair and asked that they did not come back. He said that having people in his home caused him “immense stress” and that he felt anxious and wanted to know what the works involved. The landlord replied with appointment dates and the resident asked it to cancel these and respond to his e-mails asking for details about the works.
On 3 August 2021 the resident asked to change the appointment for the floor repair due to ill-health. The landlord replied with a new date of 25 August 2021. On 2 occasions in August 2021 the resident asked the landlord to confirm that this appointment was to complete the repair and not just to inspect the floor.
On 4 August 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord that he did not want to deal directly with its contractor anymore as it did not respond to his e-mails and did not know what was going on. He had blocked e-mails from the contractor and asked that the landlord make any appointments and e-mail him to confirm these. He was still waiting to hear back about what works were required to the hot water tank. He had no faith in what the landlord said and it was not properly communicating with its contractor, which had led to delays in the floor repair and him being given different information. The resident said the landlord replied asking to speak with him on the phone and he responded advising that he wanted contact via e-mail as this was his communication need and he had explained this many times.
The resident chased a response to his complaint on 12 and 16 August 2021 and, on 16 August 2021, the landlord acknowledged his complaint, which it said had been received that day. The resident replied 3 days later that he had not made his complaint on 16 August 2021 but on 4 August 2021 and asked why it had not been logged then.
On 20 August 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, which said:
1. The resident’s e-mail of 16 August 2021 was not clear he wanted to make a formal complaint.
2. An appointment had been made for 25 August 2021 for its contractor to inspect the floor without carpet and maybe carry out the repair at that time.
3. The thermo override in the off-peak hot water tank needed to be installed to avoid the water overheating and this was booked for 25 August 2021. It acknowledged that he had asked for this appointment to be cancelled until he had full details of the works required and as an explanation had now been given, it had not cancelled this appointment.
The resident responded the same day asking for copies of his e-mails sent on 4 August and 16 August 2021. He chased the landlord for these on 3 occasions and on 3 September 2021 the landlord provided these and acknowledged that his original complaint of 4 August 2021 had been overlooked.
On 24 August 2021 the resident asked that all appointments be cancelled and said this was due to a decline in his mental health caused by the landlord and its contractor’s actions.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord provided a second stage 1 complaint response which apologised that the resident’s complaint of 4 August 2021 had been overlooked and offered £25 compensation. It asked him to provide dates for the 2 outstanding repairs to be carried out.
The resident asked the landlord to rebook an appointment for the floor repair on 31 August 2021 and it replied the following day with an appointment for 30 September 2021. The job was recorded as completed on this date; however, the resident has said this was not fully completed and that the contractor left the property in a “dangerous state”. On 13 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that it was on its way to inspect the flooring works completed on 30 September 2021. This Service has seen no records to confirm whether this inspection went ahead or the outcome of this.
Five weeks later the landlord provided a scope of works required to the flooring and hot water tank and offered an appointment for these to be completed on 26 November 2021, which the resident accepted. A job was raised for these works on 24 November 2021 and completed 2 days later.
In early September 2021 the resident asked the landlord to rebook the follow on works to the hot water tank with its inhouse repairs service and the landlord recorded the original job as “abandoned”. Another job was raised to its inhouse repairs service on the same date and recorded as completed on 10 September 2021. The resident said that the operative who attended was confused about why they were there and said no works were required.
In late August and early September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 and for it to address the issues raised in his complaint made on 4 August 2021. The landlord responded with a third stage 1 complaint response on 3 September 2021, which said:
1. It apologised if it had not responded to all the issues he had raised.
2. Its normal process was to raise repairs and book the appointment but if additional works were required then its contractor would book these. As the resident had asked for this not to happen, it would put a note on his account and advise the contractor that all appointments should be booked by them.
3. There had been miscommunication by the contractor regarding the repair to the floor. The e-mail from the contractor said it needed to do a further inspection but this was incorrect and it actually needed to revisit to complete the repair. It apologised for the miscommunication.
4. It would not escalate his complaint to stage 2 as it was still in the process of responding to the issues raised.
Three days later the resident asked when a full response to his complaint would be provided as he wanted to escalate to stage 2. The landlord replied on 10 September 2021 with a fourth stage 1 response that explained it did not raise a formal complaint on 4 August 2021 because of an oversight by a new member of staff. It confirmed that training had been provided to ensure this did not happen again. It upheld the complaint and offered £50 compensation for any upset and distress caused.
On 20 September 2021 the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Over the following 3 week period there were several e-mail exchanges between the landlord and the resident, in which he provided further details about his reasons for escalating his complaint, including:
1. He asked it to raise a new complaint regarding its failure to follow its complaints policy. He asked the landlord to confirm it had done this on 30 September 2021 and it responded that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
2. Staff had refused to respect his communication needs and responded to his communications with calls rather than responding via e-mail as requested.
3. It had disregarded his requests to deal with the landlord directly and kept passing him back to its contractors despite agreeing not to do this. He did not believe that a note on its system would resolve this as staff appeared unable to follow these types of instructions.
4. It had not provided details about what works were required to the immersion heater and had refused to cancel an appointment made for 25 August 2021, despite him asking it to do so.
5. Its actions had caused him severe anxiety and resulted in him cancelling all appointments due to panic attacks about the situation. He felt he had lost control of who could come into his property and that its response lacked a basic level of respect.
6. He had no faith that it would not send back an operative from its contractor who had previously acted inappropriately in his home.
7. It had not properly explained how or why there was a lack of communication with its contractor regarding the flooring repair and had given conflicting explanations for this.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, which said:
1. His complaint about complaint handling was linked to his original complaint so it had investigated this alongside the original complaint but had raised it separately to allow him to escalate to stage 2 if desired. It had not responded to his complaint in line with its policy and the stage 1 response did not adequately address his concerns. It should have provided a full and final stage 1 response in one letter rather than sending separate e-mails because all points had not been addressed. It had explained why it would not escalate his complaint as it was still in the process of responding so did not believe it had unreasonably refused to escalate his complaint. It apologised for the difficulties this had caused him.
2. It acknowledged there had been communication failures and that his requests for the landlord to be the direct point of contact should have been addressed sooner. It would provide staff training and had added a note to its systems stating that all repairs were to be booked by them and not its contractor and to communicate by e-mail only.
3. It agreed that more detail on what works were required to the hot water tank could have been provided as the information given was very general. A more specialist member of staff should have made contact with him to provide this information and a staff briefing would be given to remind the front line team about how to deal with these types of requests in the future.
4. An explanation of works required to the hot water tank had been given on 20 August 2021 and gave him the option for these works to continue if he felt the level of detail provided was acceptable. As he later advised it was not an acceptable level of detail, the works were cancelled. It did not consider this to be an unreasonable refusal to cancel the works.
5. It had arranged for its inhouse repairs service to complete works rather than its external contractor due to his concerns and anxiety about a specific staff member returning. It would like to facilitate all future works being done by its inhouse service however, it may not have the resource available to do this, particularly in an emergency. It wanted to discuss this with him to come to an agreement about this as it did not think it could do this for every repair.
6. There was an error in the information provided by the contractor regarding the flooring repair as it said a further inspection was required when it should have been a repair. It would resolve this by ensuring it was clearer with the information it shared with its contractor and communicating directly with him on repair issues going forward.
7. It agreed there were communication and service failures. It identified learning as a result of his complaint and reoffered the £50 compensation previously offered.
The following month the resident asked if this was the landlord’s “ full and final response” to his complaint. The landlord replied asking for contact to allow it to understand the scope of his request to have all repairs carried out by its inhouse repairs service. The resident responded that the scope of his request was “all works”. The landlord replied on 26 November 2021 that it had put new processes in place to ensure any future communication came via itself and not its external contractor. As a result of this it was reasonable that the external contractor would attend, particularly in an emergency as they were its nominated contractor and it would not have the availability for an alternative contractor to attend. It said that his request for the external contractor not to attend in the future was unreasonable and it could not agree to this. It confirmed this was its full and final response to his complaint.
On 18 December 2021 the resident reported that the stopcock in his property was leaking. A job was raised by the landlord and its external contractor arranged an appointment for 4 January 2022 and informed the resident of this in writing, but the resident said he did not receive this. It noted that it attended but no access was given. A further appointment was arranged by the external contractor for 28 January 2022 and the resident was informed in writing but he said that he did not receive this either.
The contractor attended and noted that the resident refused access and was verbally aggressive. The resident has said that the contractor attended without an appointment and was confrontational towards him and tried to stop him from leaving his property. As part of e-mail exchanges between the resident and the landlord in February and March 2022, several appointments were offered and arranged but did not go ahead. The job was recorded as completed on 28 January 2022; however, the resident has said that the repair was not completed until early April 2022. The landlord has confirmed that the stopcock was overhauled as part of another job raised and completed on 5 April 2022.
On 14 January 2022 the resident made a second complaint about the landlord’s external contractor attending his property that day without an appointment and persistently asking for his contact details. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 January 2022 and apologised for any inconvenience and upset caused. It explained that its contractor had a job for ducting work in the attic of another property, which had previously been completed at his property. It had visited “on the off chance” of being able to view the previous works done. The operative did not have access to his contact preferences as the job was raised to another property. It had identified a gap in its process and asked the contractor to record his preferred method of contact on its systems and note that all appointments must be confirmed with him before attending. It offered him a video call to discuss his concerns and asked for suitable dates and times to arrange this.
The resident made a third complaint on 19 January 2022 about a delay in the landlord repairing the leaking stopcock. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 January 2022, saying that appointments had been arranged but the resident had not responded or given access. Where possible it would contact him directly to inform him of appointments but this was not always possible and to try and get repairs completed as quickly as possible its contractor may e-mail him directly, which was what happened on this occasion. It asked him to confirm whether he was receiving the contractors e-mails. It informed him of an appointment scheduled for 28 January 2022 and asked him to confirm this or provide alternative dates and times.
On 3 February 2022 the resident requested to escalate his second complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord did not follow its processes and did not adhere to his communication need to have written communication rather than telephone. He asked it not to give his contact details or preferences to the contractor as it had agreed to make appointments directly with him. Even if the contractor had this information, it would not prevent an operative from attending his property “on the off chance”. He reported a further incident with a contractor who had attended his property on 28 January 2022 with no appointment and was aggressive and argumentative towards him.
On 9 February 2022 the resident requested to escalate his third complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had failed to contact him to make an appointment for the repair to be carried out. He had previously told it that he had blocked the contractors e-mails because of previous issues and the landlord had agreed to book appointments directly with him going forward.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the second and third complaints on 22 February 2022. It reoffered him the option of a video call to discuss the issues raised. It acknowledged there had been miscommunication regarding its contractor contacting him directly to arrange appointments for the stopcock to be repaired. Its failure to follow its previous communication agreement meant there had been a delay in the repair being completed. It would contact him directly going forward via e-mail and request that any other external contractors did not contact him. It would investigate his allegations about an operative that attended his property on 14 January 2022.
A further stage 2 complaint response was provided on 9 May 2022 in relation to both complaints which reoffered the resident the option of a video call with the landlord and its contractor to discuss his concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s actions have had a negative impact on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While this Service cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The floor repair was the landlord’s responsibility as per the terms of the tenancy agreement and it should have carried this out within 20 working days as per its repairs policy. When the resident first reported this in 2020 the landlord asked for pictures, which was appropriate to enable it to make an initial assessment of the issue. After the resident provided these, there is no record that the landlord took any further action until 10 months later when the resident made further contact about this.
When the landlord raised a job for the floor to be inspected in May 2021, it noted that this needed to be done as soon as possible; however, this was not done for a further 4 weeks. As the resident had reported that the floor was posing a risk, the landlord should have prioritised the inspection to ensure this was completed sooner. This would have allowed it to assess what work was required and to ensure it could complete the works in the required timeframe. Its failure to do this meant that it did not carry out the works within the 20 working day committed response time set out in its repairs policy, as detailed above.
After the inspection there was a further delay of over 3 weeks before the job was booked in. During this time the resident was given conflicting updates from the landlord and its contractor. The landlord acknowledged there was miscommunication between itself and its contractor regarding this, which was appropriate. The resident asked for an explanation of why this occurred; however, from the records provided this is not clear and so the Ombudsman is unable to comment further on how or why this miscommunication occurred.
The resident asked the landlord for reassurance on more than one occasion that an appointment on 25 August 2021 was to complete the repair to the floor and not an inspection. There is no record that the landlord responded to these queries or provided any reassurance to the resident regarding this. This, along with other communication concerns resulted in the resident asking for all appointments to be cancelled due to a decline in his mental health, which meant that the works were further delayed. Had the landlord done more to answer the resident’s queries and provided reassurance about the purpose of the appointment, it may have been able to complete the works sooner.
The landlord has said, and its records indicate, that the floor repair was completed on 30 September 2021, however, the resident has told this Service that it was not fully completed until 2 months later. The landlord’s records are not clear what happened or why over this 2 month period, which is a concern. The records suggest that an inspection took place in October 2022 and had this been properly documented, may have provided further clarity on this issue. It is important that the landlord keeps detailed records of its actions so it can be accountable to residents and this Service, if necessary. With that in mind, an order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on record keeping in relation to repairs and the importance of keeping good records.
Whether the floor repair was completed in September or November 2022, this took over 1 year to complete. This was significantly over the 20 working day committed response time in its repairs policy, as detailed above. While some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control, a large period of the delay was avoidable. This extended and unreasonable delay amounts to maladministration and would have been extremely upsetting for the resident, particularly as he had told the landlord that the flooring posed a risk to him.
Follow on works to the hot water tank were the landlord’s responsibility as per the terms of the tenancy agreement. This was raised in July 2021 and should have been completed within 20 working days as per its repairs policy. The works order was raised 3 weeks after the main repair had been completed and it was then a further 3 weeks before the resident was contacted to arrange for these to go ahead. As the main repair to the hot water tank had been completed, it was not unreasonable that follow on works may take slightly longer than the 20 working day timeframe to complete. However, in September 2021, the landlord told the resident that the works required were a health and safety concern and needed to be completed as soon as possible. It is, therefore, concerning that there was a 6 week delay in the landlord raising and making contact to arrange the works.
The resident was not told about the works to the hot water tank until the contractor contacted him to arrange these. He was understandably confused and referred this back to the landlord who explained these were follow on works. It would have been useful for the landlord to explain this prior to the contractor making contact with him to avoid any confusion or upset, particularly in light of the previous communication difficulties.
The resident asked the landlord on at least 4 occasions for details of the works required and explained how this was impacting his mental health. Despite this, the landlord failed to provide any explanation until after a formal complaint had been raised and chased on 2 further occasions. When the landlord provided further details of what was required, this was very brief. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have arranged for a technical member of staff to respond to him, which was appropriate. Had it done so at an earlier stage, the repair may have been completed in a shorter timeframe.
The follow on works were ultimately completed 12 weeks after the main repair had been completed and 47 days after the works order was raised. This was more than double the committed response time set out in its repairs policy, as detailed above. Considering the works were deemed to be a health and safety concern, this was an unreasonable and avoidable delay, which amounts to maladministration. The resident has said that no works were completed at the appointment on 10 September 2021 and, while the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, the landlord has said that works were completed. In the absence of any further evidence regarding this point, the Ombudsman is unable to make any further comment in relation to this.
When the resident asked that all repairs in his property be completed by the landlord’s inhouse repairs service, it explained that it could not agree to this and the reasons why. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was thorough, and reflected the need for it to carefully consider the application of its limited resources when managing its repairs service. The landlord was not obliged to provide a wholly inhouse repairs service to the resident, and its response to his request was reasonable in the circumstances. Landlord’s need to ensure that any repair arrangements can meet its committed response times, particularly in the case of emergency repairs, which are often high-risk or urgent. It would be irresponsible of a landlord to agree to an alternative repair arrangement where it knew that it did not have the capacity to provide an emergency response, if required.
However, while the landlord’s response was reasonable, it could have done more to reassure the resident that it would address his concerns regarding its external contractor and ensure, where possible, that previous issues would not be repeated. An order has been made below for the landlord to confirm that its contractor has the resident’s specific communication needs and arrangements documented and that training is provided to its contractor on the importance of checking and following these.
When the resident complained about poor communication from the landlord’s contractor, the landlord agreed to be the main point of contact for all appointments, which was appropriate and showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It made a note of this on its systems to ensure consistency by its staff, which was sensible. However, 3 months later when the resident reported that the stopcock was leaking, the landlord’s contractor contacted him to arrange appointments. This went against the contact arrangement that had been put in place and resulted in the resident not receiving the contractor emails. This was not identified until after the resident had made a formal complaint and the landlord acknowledged that its failure to do this resulted in a delay of the repair being progressed. In addition to the delay, this would have been very frustrating for the resident and would have left him with little faith in the landlord that it would do what it said. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of checking and adhering to any communication needs or arrangements in place.
The landlord was responsible for the repair to the stopcock as per the terms of the tenancy agreement and it should have completed this within 20 working days, as per its repairs policy. This repair was actually completed in around 4 months, which is significantly over the committed response time in its repairs policy, as detailed above. While some of this delay was outside of the landlord’s control, its failure to follow the agreed contact arrangement contributed to the delay. This amounts to maladministration and would have caused upset and frustration to the resident. The records indicate that the stopcock repair was completed on 28 January 2022, which was not accurate as the repair was not completed until 5 April 2022, more than 2 months later. This inaccuracy is a concern as it means the landlord cannot properly monitor and report on its performance against its committed response times.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property. There were unreasonable and avoidable delays to all 3 repairs, with the repair to the floor taking over 1 year to complete. The resident asked at least 4 times for more detail about the follow on works to the hot water tank and only after he made a complaint and chased this 2 more times did it respond. The landlord agreed and noted a communication arrangement for appointments to be made but 3 months after doing so, failed to follow this. This was frustrating for the resident and would have resulted in him losing faith in the landlord. The resident told the landlord how these issues were affecting his mental health but there is no record that it considered this when managing the repairs.
The landlord acknowledged there was service failure in respect of its handling of the repairs and its communication as part of its complaint responses. It apologised and identified learning, which was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. It offered £50 compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident when considering his personal circumstances. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of his repairs and pay him the £50 compensation already offered and an additional £550.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor

When the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s contractor visiting him without an appointment on 14 January 2022, the landlord provided an explanation of why this happened. While helpful to understand the context, the response was not clear as to whether the landlord viewed this as appropriate or not. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that written notice will be given for appointments, although this may not be possible for emergencies. From the explanation given by the landlord, it does not appear that this was an emergency based on the nature of the work required and their description of the visit as being carried out “on the off chance”. In light of this, it was not appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to carry out the unannounced visit on that occasion. The impact of this on the resident was more significant due to his personal circumstances and would have been extremely frustrating considering he had told the landlord how this affected him.
The landlord said it identified a gap in the information its contractor had about his communication need. While the resident asked the landlord not to share this with the contractor, it was reasonable that it did, so that the contractor could be aware of this. However, the resident raised concerns about how this would have prevented the operative from attending “on the off chance”, which was an understandable concern that the landlord failed to address and this amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training to its contractor operatives on when it is acceptable to carry out unannounced visits and the importance of checking a resident’s communication needs before doing so.
The landlord said it would investigate the resident’s allegations about an operative’s inappropriate behaviour on 14 January 2022, which was appropriate. It is understandable that the landlord would be limited in what feedback it could give in respect of this investigation. However, it would have been appropriate and reassuring for the resident to be updated that this had happened and, in so far as possible, what the outcome was or actions taken as a result of this. From the records provided, there is no evidence that the landlord did this, which would have left the resident feeling uncertain about whether any investigation was carried out or that it took his concerns seriously.
At the stage 2 escalation request, the resident raised further concerns about the conduct of an operative during a visit on 28 January 2022; however, there is no record that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this. It was under no obligation to include this as part of its stage 2 investigation as it was a new issue. However, it should have explained its position to the resident and raised a further complaint for this to be investigated, if it was not going to deal with this as part of the ongoing complaint. The landlord’s lack of any response to the resident’s allegation would have been upsetting and left him feeling ignored.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor. The unannounced visit on 14 January 2022 was inappropriate and its response failed to properly address his concerns. It was aware of the impact that unannounced visits had on the resident and should have done more to reassure him that it took his concerns seriously. While the landlord committed to investigate one allegation of inappropriate behaviour, it did not provide any update or feedback on the outcome of this, which would have resulted in the resident feeling like his concerns were not being taken seriously. It also failed to respond to a second allegation, which would have resulted in him feeling ignored. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its response to his concerns and pay him £300 compensation. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to implement staff guidance on investigating and responding to concerns about inappropriate conduct by contractors, if it does not already have this.

Complaint handling

When the resident first complained on 4 August 2021, there was a delay in the landlord picking this up and acknowledging the complaint. The landlord provided its response over 4 e-mails, with the fourth provided 27 days after the complaint was made. This was more than double its committed response time, as per its complaints policy detailed above, and only after the resident had chased this up on at least 6 occasions. This amounts to maladministration and would have been confusing and frustrating for the resident.
When the resident asked to escalate his first complaint to stage 2 in August and September 2021, the landlord provided a third stage 1 response, which included a refusal to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It gave the reason that it was still in the process of responding; however, it gave no explanation of what issues still required a response or when this would be provided. Based on the lack of explanation given for this refusal, this was an unreasonable approach which does not represent effective complaint handling. It was only after a further request from the resident that the landlord provided the final stage 1 response, which allowed the resident to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
In its stage 2 response in October 2021, the landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in its complaint handling and that it had not followed its policy, which was appropriate. It apologised and identified learning, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The landlord offered £25 compensation at stage 1; however, it does not appear that this was reviewed at stage 2, which would have been appropriate considering the number of failures identified and the impact this had on the resident.
In the second and third complaints made by the resident in January 2022, the landlord responded promptly and in line with its complaints policy detailed above, at stages 1 and 2. Within the stage 2 response provided on 22 February 2022, the landlord did not set out the resident’s escalation rights as required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Failing to provide this information is unfair and can leave residents unsure about how to progress their concerns if they remain dissatisfied. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling with reference to its policy and the Code.
Throughout the 3 complaints raised by the resident the landlord offered to speak with him over the phone and via video call. While this can be useful in some circumstances, in this case, the resident had said on a number of occasions that he had a need for written communication rather than calls. He set out his concerns in writing to allow the landlord to provide a meaningful response and told the landlord why he needed written communication. The landlord acknowledged this by adding a note to its systems for staff, which was appropriate and showed that it gave due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of making reasonable adjustments.
Despite this, the landlord persisted in offering phone and video calls to the resident when it knew this did not meet his needs. This was insensitive and would have left him feeling like his personal circumstances did not matter. An order has been made below for the landlord to carry out a review of the resident’s case to identify how and why his communication needs and arrangements were not followed.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its stage 1 response to his first complaint was delayed and sent across 4 e-mails. He had to chase this on at least 6 occasions and when he initially asked to escalate his complaint it refused with no explanation provided. When it provided the stage 2 response it acknowledged and apologised for the service failure and identified learning but did not review the compensation offer to reconsider and address the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Its responses to his second and third complaints were prompt and in line with its policy but it failed to advise him of his escalation rights in the stage 2 response. Throughout the complaints it repeatedly suggested speaking over the phone and via video call, when it knew this did not meet his communication needs. This was insensitive and would have been left him feeling like his personal circumstances were being disregarded. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling, pay him the £25 compensation offered and an additional £375 and to provide staff training on the importance of checking and adhering to communication needs.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were unreasonable and avoidable delays to the 3 repairs, with one taking over 1 year to complete. The resident repeatedly asked for details of follow on works to the hot water tank but only received this after making a complaint and chasing at least 6 times. The landlord agreed a communication arrangement to make appointments but did not follow this and this resulted in a delay to repairing a leak to the stopcock. The landlord knew how the resident’s mental health was being effected but there is no evidence that it considered this as part of its management of his repairs. Overall, its communication was poor, which caused frustration and distress to the resident.
The landlord explained why its contractor visited without an appointment but was not clear on whether it viewed this as appropriate. It failed to properly address the resident’s concerns or do enough to reassure him that it took his concerns seriously. It gave no update or feedback in relation to a committed investigation into one of the resident’s allegations about inappropriate behaviour by an operative and failed to acknowledge or respond to a second allegation at all.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s first complaint was delayed, which resulted in him chasing for a response on at least 6 occasions. It unreasonably refused to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as no detailed explanation for this was given. Its stage 2 response acknowledged service failure, apologised and identified learning but did not review the offer of compensation to take into account the impact this had on the resident, in light of his individual circumstances. The landlord’s persistence in offering telephone and video calls to the resident when it knew he needed written communication was inappropriate and insensitive.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Confirm with its contractor that it has the resident’s specific communication needs and arrangements centrally recorded in a way that staff can easily access.
2. Apologise to the resident for:
  1. its handling of repairs to his property.
  2. its response to his concerns about the conduct of its contractor.
  3. its complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident £1300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 already offered for its handling of repairs to his property.
  2. an additional £550 for its handling of repairs to his property.
  3. £300 for its response to his concerns about the conduct of its contractors.
  4. £25 already offered for its complaint handling.
  5. an additional £375 for its complaint handling.
4. Carry out a review of the resident’s case to establish how and why his communication needs and arrangements were not followed in respect of the repairs and complaint handling. A written update to be provided to the resident with the outcome of the review to explain how and why this occurred and what steps it will take going forward to ensure his communication needs and arrangements are followed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide staff training:
1. on record keeping in relation to repairs and the importance of keeping accurate and detailed records. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management for best practice KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. to its contractor operatives on when it is acceptable to carry out unannounced visits and the importance of checking a resident’s communication needs before doing so.
3. on complaint handling with reference to its complaints policy and the Code.
4. to landlord staff and its contractor on the importance of checking and adhering to a resident’s communication needs or arrangements.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to implement staff guidance on investigating and responding to concerns about inappropriate conduct by contractors, which should include regular updates to residents.
The landlord to update this Service with its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks.