Aster Group Limited (202012522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012522

Aster Group Limited

7 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the emergency assistance pull-cord service in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system at the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in sheltered accommodation. Her tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord provides her with access to a 24-hour emergency assistance service, accessed through a pull cord inside the property.
The resident reported to the landlord on 24 February 2020 that her hot water from her immersion heater was not working and the water produced was either too hot or too cold. The landlord attended on 2 March 2020 to reset the thermostat.
The resident reported again to the landlord on 3 June 2020 that her water from the immersion heater was too hot or too cold. The landlord’s notes from the call recorded that she did not have access to an electric shower so she had no other means of bathing. The landlord attended this job the following day and replaced the thermostat.
The resident reported a lack of hot water again on 21 June 2020 to the landlord; it attended the same day to reset the thermostat.
Following a further report of no hot water from the resident on 28 June 2020, the landlord attended the following day to reset a tripped thermostat. It advised her on this visit that she had access to a “booster switch” to provide her with access to hot water. The landlord recorded her reluctance to use this switch due to the cost.
On 3 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water in the property. It attended the same day and advised her that it would need to get a replacement part and it would book an appoint the following week to install this. The landlord installed the new part on 13 July 2020. It attended again the following day after a report from the resident that the hot water was not working. It found that this was because it had not been switched on.
Following a further report on 22 September 2020 from the resident to the landlord of no hot water in the property, it attended the following day to replace the thermostat. It arranged for the replacement of the hot water cylinder, which it installed on 30 September 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2020 to report her distress after using the emergency pull cord to speak to its emergency assistance service on 5 October 2020. She said that she was asked by its emergency assistance service to stop using the emergency pull cord to report to them that she was fine. The resident said that, following an incident of her previously needing to be resuscitated, an arrangement had been put in place for her to use the pull cord every day to report that she was fine. If she did not report in, the landlord would attend the property to investigate. The resident said that she had not been made aware of any change to this arrangement.
The resident said that the stress of the prospect of a serious incident happening to her and her being undiscovered, coupled with “nine months of stress” due to the intermittent loss of hot water, had caused her to suffer a “mini stroke”.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 October 2020 to attempt to agree a new procedure with her whereby it could call her each day to check on her wellbeing. It advised that this would incur a charge and offered to carry out a benefit check referral to see if the cost of this could be paid for through benefits. The resident refused this proposal and stated her preference to call in each day herself. The landlord advised her that there was no procedure in place for if she did not make this daily call as this was not a service offered by the emergency assistance service.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 19 October 2020 as she believed her previous correspondence was not treated as a complaint. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with the conduct of the emergency assistance operator, who she described as “rude and brusque”, when asking her not to call the emergency assistance line to report that she was fine. The resident noted that there had been a change of contractors operating the emergency assistance service and highlighted that she had not been informed of this change. She relayed to the landlord that she had been informed by a member of its staff that to provide a service to her where a welfare call was made to her everyday would incur an additional charge; which she would need to pay from her benefits.
The resident added that she had experienced nine months of distress from the intermittent loss of hot water to her property, necessitating her to carry kettles of boiling water to the bathroom to allow her to bathe. She noted that a new boiler had been fitted but said that this should have been done sooner than the nine months taken by the landlord. The resident also reported that she had recently reported a loss of hot water pressure to her kitchen tap to the landlord on 16 October 2020 and had been told it would be responded to within two days, but it did not attend until 20 October 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage one of its procedure on 23 October 2020 when it informed her that it had been in process of formulating a response to her earlier contact on 8 October 2020.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2020. It confirmed that it has recently changed the contractor which handled its emergency assistance service and, in response to her concerns about their call handling, it had reviewed the call recordings between the contractor and herself. The landlord said that it was satisfied that the call handler had been “professional and polite”.
The landlord suggested to the resident that, to provide an alternative service to her previous arrangement to call into the emergency assistance line once a day, it could make a daily wellbeing call to her at a time to be agreed. It advised that it would arrange for any escalation actions to be agreed with her, in the event that the wellbeing call was not answered, to provide her with an arrangement which was acceptable to her.
Regarding the resident’s hot water issues, the landlord said that this started on 7 January 2020 when she experienced a loss of power to the property. It attended the property the same day and found that she had “reset the protective device” which had tripped due to the loss of power, which prevented it from carrying out further testing that day. The landlord noted that the loss of hot water was reported again on 24 February 2020 and several visits were undertaken between then and 7 July 2020 before the issue was resolved. It said that she had the use of an electric shower and the peak immersion heater during this period but acknowledged that it should have identified the problem on 3 June 2020, on its third visit. For this delay the landlord offered compensation of £50 to the resident.
The resident replied to the landlord on 7 November 2020 to accept the compensation payment in respect of her dissatisfaction with the hot water issue only. She stressed that, for health reasons, she would not be able to predict when she may or may not be awake to receive an incoming call from its emergency assistance service. The resident also highlighted that the landlord had not explained why her previous arrangement could not continue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2020 to explain that the pull cord which activated the call to the emergency assistance service was designed to be used in the event of an emergency and was not designed for residents to report on their wellbeing. It acknowledged that she had a previous arrangement to call in to the emergency assistance contractor, but it explained that, as there had been no pre-agreed time for her to call in, there was no escalation process in place should she not call.
The landlord explained that it was offering an alternate arrangement where it would agree a time with the resident to call each day and it would have a clear procedure in place to escalate the matter if the call was not answered. It said that the process would be discussed with her, and it could arrange the call for the most convenient time for her when she least likely to be asleep.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 November 2020 to repeat her dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the emergency assistance contractor and questioned its standards of professionalism. She stressed that its proposed arrangement of receiving a wellbeing call from the landlord each day was not suitable for the reasons she had previously stated and that she had not needed to pay extra previously to be able to call in each day to report in.
The resident also disputed the landlord’s assertion that she had access to the peak immersion heater and electric shower during the period when she had problems with the hot water. She said she did not have any kind of shower and the peak immersion heather was too expensive for her to use. The resident also stressed that the hot water problems were not due to problems with electricity but rather due to “faulty equipment”.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure on 19 November 2020 and issued a stage two complaint response to her on 24 November 2020. In this it repeated that its emergency assistance service was not designed to accept calls from her daily to report on her wellbeing; however, it told her that if she wished to continue this she could, although it could not implement an escalation process if she chose to do this.
The landlord re-offered to arrange for a pre-arranged phone call with her each day to allow it to set up an escalation process in the case that could not be contacted. It apologised again for the length of time it had taken to resolve her hot water issues and acknowledged that she had accepted the £50 compensation it had previously offered her in respect of this issue.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2020 to contend that it had not grasped the severity of her health problems. She held that it had caused her recent stroke by “putting [her] through nine months of stress with the constant loss of hot water”. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had changed the contractor which handled its emergency assistance service without notification and removed her emergency pull cord system which she had access to at no extra cost to her. She said that it had yet to explain to her why her previous arrangement of reporting in each day could not continue. The resident repeated that her health conditions required her to rest frequently made it unviable to receive a telephone call from the landlord each day.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to the final stage of its complaint procedure on 11 December 2020. It responded to her on 24 December 2020 to advise that it would not be progressing the complaint to the final stage of its internal procedure as it found no new evidence to suggest that it could deal with the complaint differently.
The landlord acknowledged that after the resident had a medical incident in 2001 an arrangement was set up with the previous emergency assistance service for her to make a daily call to advise them of her wellbeing. It noted though that this was set up for her reassurance and there was no formal process to follow up on this if she did not make that call. The landlord stressed that the purpose of the service was for users to request help. It repeated that it could not offer an escalation procedure if she wished to continue calling in each day and re-offered to set up its previously proposed arrangement for a daily call to be made to her. The landlord confirmed that there would be no additional charge for either arrangement.
The landlord explained that it changed its emergency assistance contractor due to being unable to extend its contract with the previous contractor. It apologised if the notification letter about this had not reached the resident.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 2 June 2021 recorded that the resident had been calling the emergency assistance service every day for several years to report on her wellbeing. If it did not receive a report from her, it would either call her or attend the property to carry out a welfare check. The landlord noted that this had stopped with the departure of its support team, and it no longer provided this service. No date for this was recorded.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of any installation it provides for water and space heating in her property.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that emergency repairs are those which pose an urgent risk to health, safety, or security. As an example of an emergency repair, it provides “no water in your home”. This handbook states that emergency repairs are to be attended and made safe within 24 hours or the next working day. Non-emergency repairs are to be attended by an appointment booked in with the resident and completed within an agreed timescale.
The landlord’s ERC procedure manual provides for multiple scenarios in which a resident may contact the emergency assistance service for help. There is no provision for handling daily wellbeing check in calls and no procedure in this for such calls.
The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for up to four stages where the stage two response is a further response from the investigating manager at stage one, and stage three is an assessment of whether the complaint will be reviewed at the final stage of the procedure. At stage one and stage three of the procedure, the landlord is to provide a response to the resident within ten working days.

The landlord’s handling of the emergency assistance pull-cord system in the resident’s property

As confirmed by the landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident, it had an obligation to provide access to an emergency assistance service. The ERC procedure manual details various situations in which a resident may request help and it is clear that the service is intended to be a responsive service, to be called upon in serious situations.
It is evident that the resident had a prior arrangement set up with the landlord for her to report to the emergency assistance service each day with the reassurance that there would be a follow-up if she did not call. From its correspondence on 2 June 2021, it is unclear when this ceased or whether she was informed of this change, but it is evident that the arrangement was offered outside of its obligations. Therefore, while there may have been a failure by the landlord to communicate that the arrangement had ceased, which is evident from the resident appearing unaware of any change until her call on 5 October 2020, there was no evidence of a failure on its part to provide the service which the resident was entitled to as part of her tenancy agreement.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident an alternative arrangement whereby it could make a daily call wellbeing call to her and agree a potential escalation procedure if she were not to answer. This offer was made in excess of its obligations, which it confirmed on 11 December 2020 there would be no additional charge for and was a reasonable response to her to provide the reassurance that she previously had from making daily calls. The landlord demonstrated here that it took her circumstances into account by offering an alternative, which it was not strictly obliged to do.
The resident has raised concerns about the way in which the emergency assistance operative spoke to her when she called to confirm her wellbeing. The landlord took reasonable steps to address her concerns by reviewing the calls and explaining to the resident that it considered the operative had been polite. The question of whether someone has been rude or polite is somewhat subjective and whilst the Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s distress following this conversation, the landlord has taken appropriate action to investigate the matter and would not be expected to do anything further in this regard.
Therefore, there was no evidence of any failing on the landlord’s part in its provision of the emergency assistance service to the resident. The landlord has explained that it was unable to renew its contract with the previous provider of its emergency assistance programme and the arrangement with the resident would not have automatically continued once the new contractor took over.
It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain why it could not offer the same terms of the arrangement that she previously had with it, but ultimately it was entitled to withdraw this arrangement at any time because it was not obliged to offer this service.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water at the property

When considering a landlord’s handling of repairs, the Ombudsman considers whether it carried out repairs in accordance with its obligations and whether it carried out work in a reasonable and timely manner. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the hot water system at the property, therefore it was appropriate for it to respond to her reports of a loss of hot water between 24 February and 22 September 2020.
The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that it regards a complete loss of water to be an emergency repair, otherwise repairs are to be offered by appointment. The resident did not report a complete loss of water in her reports, only a loss of hot water; therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord not to respond to these reports as emergencies. Nevertheless, her reports on 3, 21 and 28 June, 3 July and 22 September 2020 were attended by the landlord the next day, within the timeframe for an emergency as specified by its repairs handbook. The resident’s initial report on 24 February 2020 was attended within five working days. These were all reasonable response times from the landlord on each occasion.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 November 2020 that it should have identified the fault with the hot water system sooner, on 3 June 2020. The landlord offered £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by this delay Whilst the landlord acted reasonably in acknowledging its failings and attempting to put things right, the Ombudsman does not consider that £50 compensation is adequate, taking into account the impact of the delayed repair on the resident. Although the hot water was restored within a couple of days on each occasion, the resident experienced inconvenience while it was not working as she had to use kettles of hot water for bathing purposes. She also had to repeatedly contact the landlord to report the problem. In view of this and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), the landlord should pay the resident a further £150 compensation. This would mean that the total compensation payment would be £200, including the £50 offered previously by the landlord.
The resident has said that she suffered a “mini-stroke” as a result of stress caused by the problems with the hot water system over a nine-month period. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond our service’s expertise to assess whether there is any direct link between a landlord’s actions or inaction and a resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to pursue a personal injury claim against the landlord if she feels her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and the resident may want to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

a. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the emergency assistance pull-cord service in the resident’s property.

b. service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system at the property.

Reasons

There was no obligation by the landlord to offer a service outside of that which was specified in the tenancy agreement. The landlord responded reasonably by considering the resident’s circumstances and offering an alternate arrangement to offer her reassurance.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of loss of hot water promptly on all occasions, in accordance with its obligations, although it has accepted that it should have fixed the problem sooner, in June 2020. The landlord should offer an additional £150 compensation in view of this delay and the inconvenience it caused to the resident.

Order

47. The landlord should pay the resident £150 in addition to the £50 it offered previously. Therefore the total compensation payment would be £200 in respect of this complaint.