Futures Housing Group Limited (202205122)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205122

Futures Housing Group Limited

27 February 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 replacement of the resident’s communal letterboxes.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a communal block of flats.
3. Between November 2021 and March 2022, the resident exchanged email correspondence with the landlord regarding his dissatisfaction with the relocation and replacement of the communal letterboxes. He said the action had been taken without appropriate notice or consultation with the residents. The resident explained that the new location was inconvenient as his letterbox was too close to the floor, and, due to his disability, he had difficulties bending down. He raised further examples of why he deemed the new location inappropriate. The landlord made changes in light of the resident’s comments. The resident however, remained dissatisfied because the aperture of the new letterboxes was only 2.5cm (as opposed to 4cm in the old ones), and some of his parcels no longer fit through. The landlord explained that the letterboxes were of an appropriate size and style.
4. The resident and landlord’s correspondence reached an impasse in late March 2022. On 29 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord disputing some of what it had said in a previous email to him about its actions. Amongst other things, he specifically referred to the actions of the manager involved in the replacements. The landlord’s complaint team responded on 1 April saying that it had passed the matter to the same manager to respond, explaining that “This is not a matter which requires my attention therefore I cannot comment any further.”
5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 April 2022 to set out its final position. It confirmed that it would not to replace the letterboxes for new ones of bigger aperture. It stated that the new letterboxes were standard sized and widely used around the UK. Nevertheless, it offered the resident the possibility of purchasing his own private letterbox, which its repairs team could install. The letter was written by the same manager who had previously been involved in discussions with the resident, and whose actions the resident had referred to in the email the landlord treated as a complaint.
6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 April 2022. He provided emails which he did not think had been considered in the landlord’s investigation. The landlord responded on the same day saying that the manager’s position remained the same. It suggested that the resident seek independent advice, such as from the Housing Ombudsman
7. Following contact by the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 2 September 2022. We asked it to issue a response to the complaint the resident had raised with us, i.e. that there had been a lack of consultation with residents prior to making changes to the location and size of the communal letterboxes, and that the new letterboxes’ apertures were too small.
8. On 8 September 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that its letter in April 2022 had been its stage one complaint response. The same officer who had dealt with the complaint in April wrote that he had spoken with the manager who issued the first response, and that their position remained the same. He explained that they would not escalate the complaint further. The resident was referred to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
9. The resident brought his complaint to this Service, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final decision. He sought as an outcome new letterboxes with a wider aperture and compensation for the inconvenience caused to him.

Assessment

Landlord’s handling of the replacement of letterboxes

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for the structure and outside of the dwelling, including letterboxes. The landlord has explained to the resident that the communal letterboxes were replaced as a result of residents’ reports of their poor condition. It also explained that its decision to install the new ones inside the building was due to the damage caused to the previous ones by weather conditions. It said in its September complaint response that it was not obliged to consult with residents about replacing the letterboxes.
11. From the evidence provided, the resident first reported his concerns about the location and size of the new letterboxes around November 2021. The evidence shows that the landlord exchanged correspondence with him throughout November and December 2021, responding to emails in a reasonable manner and attempting to find a solution to his concerns.
12. The recently installed letterboxes were relocated from below the stairs to the communal hall in November 2021, due to the resident’s difficulties accessing them, and privacy concerns. The landlord acted reasonably by considering the resident’s requests and attempting to address the accessibility issue they presented for the resident.
13. By the end of March 2022,it is clear that no agreement was likely to be reached about the aperture size, resulting in the landlord treating the resident’s email of 29 March as a formal complaint. It did not in any way explain to the resident that it was doing so, either in its acknowledgement, or in its response itself (this, and other failings, are considered in detail below).The landlord explained in its written response that it would not replace the letterboxes. It stated that the new letterboxes were standard sized and widely used around the UK. It did not explain specifically what standard it was referring to (and there appears to be no one specific standard for the UK). It also did not explain if there were any particular reasons why the letterboxes could not have been replaced like-for-like. No evidence of the relevant standards the landlord was referring to has been provided for this investigation. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was therefore not clear, informative, or reasonable.
14. The resident complained that the landlord did not consult tenants about the letterbox changes. The landlord, in its final complaint response (in September 2022), stated that it did not need to consult tenants for this type of issue. Although landlords are entitled to change communal areas or services (such as letterboxes) when deemed necessary, consultation with residents is obviously important when any change could impact on their use of a specific service. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents have the right to be consulted about important changes to their housing service, and that landlords are expected to ask for residents’ views about any of its housing plans if they substantially affect residents. Although the replacement and relocation of the communal letterboxes could arguably be described as only a minor alteration, the resident explained to the landlord the considerable impact the change had on him (including impeding the receipt of medical prescriptions). Accordingly, while the landlord may have considered the aperture size a minor issue, the resident clearly believed differently, and had explained why. He (and the other tenants), not the landlord, were the ones directly impacted by the change, so it was not reasonable for the landlord to say simply that it was not obliged to consult. It was not in line with the spirit of the relevant tenancy obligation, or the requirements of the Regulator of Social Housing’s “Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard”, which calls for social landlords to, amongst other things, “provide choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants in the delivery of all standards.”
15. It may be that the landlord did not identify the aperture difference until after the new letterboxes were installed and it was too late to communicate the change, or seek different replacements, or that it was simply impossible to have like-for-like replacements. If that was the case, the landlord had the opportunity to remedy matters using the complaint process to acknowledge the difficult situation, explain how it arose, and explain clearly why the change could not be reversed. The landlord did none of these things, insisting instead that the new letterboxes were of ‘the standard’ (of which no evidence has been shown), and that it did not need to consult tenants anyway (which is not sound thinking, as set out above).
16. As a partial remedy the landlord offered the resident the option of obtaining his own private letterbox, which it would install. It explained that the resident would be responsible for the private box’s repairs and maintenance. If it is the case that there was no way the new letterboxes could have had the same aperture as the old ones, this may have been the only pragmatic option available. If the landlord had handled the matter reasonably there would have likely been the opportunity to discuss the option, and consider the resident’s understandable concern about being potentially liable for future repair and maintenance costs. As it was, there was no such discussion. The landlord’s offer was therefore not well developed, and not a sufficient remedy.
17. It is important to understand that nothing in the landlord’s policies, or the resident’s tenancy agreement, states that the landlord was obliged to provide letterboxes of any specific dimensions. Also, it does not appear to be disputed that there was a need to move the letterboxes, or that the landlord had previously attempted to accommodate some of the resident’s concerns about their height and placement. Accordingly, this investigation does not consider the merits of those decisions, and acknowledges the landlord’s efforts. Rather, it has considered how the landlord handled communication around the change, and responded to the resident’s final concerns. In that regard, for the reasons set out above, there were significant failings.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as well as with its internal complaints policy, on multiple aspects of the complaint process. The most significant of which are detailed below.
19. The first complaint response was dealt with by members of the landlord’s staff previously involved in the case, having exchanged email correspondence, and therefore having already discussed the issue with the resident. As per the Code, complaints must be handled impartially, effectively and fairly. The first complaint response was issued by the same manager whose actions and decisions the resident had referred to in his complaint email. Complaints should be handled and investigated by officers who have not had prior involvement in the substantive issue, as otherwise, impartiality and fairness is undermined.
20. On one occasion, internal correspondence between some of the landlord’s officers showed an unreasonable focus on the resident’s actions, such as his confusing use of an officer’s name, or his overall persistence with his concerns. There is no suggestion that the correspondence was unprofessional. Nonetheless, its tone and wording implies a sense of frustration amongst the officers, which emphasises the importance of complaint investigations remaining independent of the landlord’s primary service operations and delivery, in order to reinforce a landlord’s complaint handling impartiality and fairness, and to work towards the Code’s goal of creating a positive complaint handling culture.
21. The landlord’s first complaint response did not confirm the complaint stage (or make any reference to it actually being the landlord’s formal complaint response), or provide details of how the resident could escalate his complaint. Both of these are requirements under 5.8 of the Code.
22. The resident’s email of 11 April 2022 was in reply to the landlord’s complaint response, and provided some further information which did not think had bene considered. The landlord responded by stating that the officer in charge of the complaint was already aware of the emails and his decision had not changed. If the landlord’s letter to the resident was indeed its formal complaint response, then the resident’s correspondence should have been treated as a request to escalate, and dealt with accordingly. Instead the same officers who had been involved in both the substantive issue and the complaint decided that there was nothing further to add, and closed the matter down. Under the Code, if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, landlords must escalate it, unless an exclusion clause applies and it communicates in writing its reasons for not escalating. Furthermore, it is never reasonable for the person making the decision whether to escalate a complaint is the same person who both wrote the first complaint response and was named in the original complaint.
23. Following this Service’s request that the landlord investigate the resident’s complaint the landlord demonstrated the same behaviour. The same officers who were originally involved again decided that there were no grounds on which to escalate the complaint.
24. Overall there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint was considered impartially at any stage of the process, meaning the landlord missed all the opportunities to robustly consider and assess the reasonableness of its actions.
25. The landlord’s policies, as well as the Complaint Handling Code self-assessment published on its website, state that it complies with the Code. However, its actions, as well as the information provided to the resident throughout the complaint process, evidenced a clear misalignment with the Code’s aims and requirements. The failure to escalate the complaint appropriately and to handle it in a fair and impartial manner prevented the opportunity to provide the resident with a fair resolution to his complaint.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the replacement of the communal letterboxes.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

28. In light of the failures identified, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £500 within four weeks of this report. This amount breaks down as follows:
    1. £200 for the lack of communication with the resident prior to the replacement of the communal letterboxes, as well as for the time and trouble incurred by the resident in chasing the complaint.
    2. £300 for complaint handling failures.
29. Within six weeks, the landlord must provide for the Ombudsman (and a copy to the resident) a case review of how its complaint handling was so poor in this case, and more importantly, how it intends to ensure compliance with both its own complaint policy and the spirit and requirements of the Code going forward.
30. Given that it is not apparent whether there were or were not realistic options for the landlord to replace the letterboxes with ones of a similar aperture, and that the landlord was not obliged to provide letterboxes of a specific size, it is not possible to order the landlord to meet the resident’s specific requirements in this regard. The failings identified in this report revolve around the landlord’s poor communication about the matter, and its poor complaint handling. The orders are intended to redress those specific matters.