Accent Housing Limited (202116235)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116235

Accent Housing Limited

29 February 2024

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;
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating and hot water.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears on the rent account
   4. The landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral to the local authority.
   5. The associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident resides in the property with her son. In February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss outstanding arrears on her rent account. Following significant communication between the landlord and resident, the landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on 22 June 2022.
3. On 29 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord she had not had heating or hot water for 15 days. She also stated that an energy company had attended the property and condemned the boiler, despite the landlord confirming that the boiler was in good working order in May 2022.
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 4 July 2022 regarding the delays in resolving her heating and hot water issue. The landlord advised that it would attend on 5 July 2022 to assess the boiler. However, the appointment was unable to go ahead due to the resident’s gas meter being without credit. On 7 July 2022, the landlord reattended. It determined that there were no issues with the boiler, and the resident had not followed the correct procedure to reinstate the gas to the property following topping up her meter. Following the appointment, the landlord submitted an adult safeguarding referral to the local authority due to concerns about the condition of the resident’s property.
5. With the assistance of an MP representative, the landlord conducted a meeting with the resident on 15 July 2022 to discuss her ongoing issues. The landlord stated that regarding the heating and hot water complaints, it had been unable to find any issues with the boiler on any occasion that it had attended following a report from the resident. With regards to the safeguarding referral, the landlord advised that it had a duty of care and submitted the referral due to its concern for her wellbeing, and it wished to support her. During the meeting, a payment plan to reduce the resident’s rent arrears was agreed.
6. On 17 August 2022, the landlord became aware that the resident had reported a carbon monoxide leak in the property to an energy company. On 27 September 2022, following significant communication between the resident and landlord, a fumes investigation and gas safety check were conducted at the property. No issues were found with the resident’s boiler, nor was there evidence of a carbon monoxide leak from the fumes investigation.
7. This Service advised the landlord to contact the resident and raise a complaint regarding all matters on 2 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage one response on 13 October 2022. The landlord outlined that it had made significant efforts to complete a fumes investigation for the reported carbon monoxide leak. When the test and checks were eventually conducted, it confirmed that the boiler was in working order with no risk of a carbon monoxide leak.
8. With regards to the boiler, the landlord advised that following each attendance, the boiler was found to be in working order. The landlord requested that the resident provide exact dates that the property was without heating and hot water. The landlord raised that the resident’s rent account had fallen into debt, but they were able to offer support and no further action would be taken if she was able to maintain regular payments and reduce the arrears. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the safeguarding referral, the landlord representative asked that the resident contact them directly to discuss the matter.
9. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. On 4 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It advised that following investigations, there was no evidence of a carbon monoxide leak in the property. Regarding the property not having heating and hot water, the landlord stated that it was unable to ascertain a period where the resident did not have heating and hot water. It also raised that the resident’s property had access to hot water via a cylinder with an electric emersion heater.  Regarding the resident’s rent arrears, the landlord advised that an income officer would contact her to provide support and establish a new payment plan. The landlord also determined that a safeguarding referral had been made in good faith due to staff member’s concerns, and it was satisfied that it’s safeguarding procedures had been followed.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied as she maintains that she did not have heating and hot water for a protracted period, and she does not agree with the landlord’s final response to all matters.

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. The resident has reported to this Service that her and her son have suffered with physical health issues as a result of problems with the boiler. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about hers and her son’s health. However, it is beyond the remit or this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the reported issues with the boiler and the impact on the resident’s health.
12. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so, should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy/its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating and hot water.

13. Landlords are responsible for maintenance and repairs to ensure that its residents have heating and hot water. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water, including boilers.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to attend to repairs deemed an emergency within 4 hours to at least make them safe. Repairs not deemed to pose an immediate threat to safety or possessions will be attended to within 28 days. The policy does not outline specific examples of what would constitute an emergency repair, although heating and hot water issues are often an emergency and need urgent attention. Nevertheless, the landlord’s assessment of whether the matter was an emergency may change depending on the time of year. For example, a heating repair would be urgent during winter months to ensure that a resident’s household remains warm during such a critical period.
15. The resident referred to having no heating and hot water for 11 weeks on 21 June 2022, but later stated on 29 June 2022 that she had been without heating and hot water for 15 days. The timeframes suggested are therefore unclear. However, the resident’s boiler had been checked and determined to be in working order on 13 May 2022, which goes some way in confirming that the 11 week timescale reported by the resident was inaccurate.
16. The landlord raised a repair and arranged to attend on 5 July 2022. Regardless of the accuracy of the resident’s timeframes that she stated she had been without heating and hot water; this appointment was still 10 working days after the resident had said she had no heating and hot water. This Service is aware that the resident had also stated that an energy company had attended and condemned the condition of the boiler.
17. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s reports were in summer months, therefore the landlord not treating the matter as an emergency would not be unreasonable. That being said, it is expected that a loss of heating and hot water would be treated as a priority irrespective of the time of year it was reported.
18. The landlord stated in its complaint response that the resident has a hot water cylinder with an electrical emersion heater. Therefore, regardless of failures with the boiler or gas, the resident should have access to hot water. Furthermore, the landlord determined that there was no fault with the boiler, and the lack of heating was due to the resident not following the correct procedure to reinstate the gas to the property following topping up her meter.
19. With regards to the boiler being condemned by an external gas company, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate this statement. The landlord also explained to the resident that the error code on the boiler was due to her meter being in debit, rather than an issue with the boiler itself. Whilst this Service is aware that the resident disagrees with this assessment, the landlord is within its right to rely on the assessments and findings of its qualified staff and contractors.
20. Given the landlord’s findings and the fact that the property is served by a hot water cylinder, there is no evidence to suggest that the lack of heating and hot water was due to a failing of the landlord. The delay in attending to the issue would have been frustrating for the resident but is not indicative of a service failure considering the circumstances.
21. In summary, whilst a minor delay occurred in attending to the reported issue, there is no evidence that the lack of heating and hot water was due to the inaction or failing of the landlord. However, it is recommended that the landlord reflect on this and ensure that it improves its service moving forward and attends within the required timeframes to reports of no heating and hot water.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.

22. The landlord became aware of a reported carbon monoxide leak in the resident’s property on 17 August 2022, via its external repairs contractor. It is not known why the resident failed to contact the landlord directly to report the problem.
23. Nevertheless, the landlord took immediate action and wrote to the resident to advise that an appointment had been arranged for 19 August 2022 for a fumes investigation to be carried out. However, the resident declined to provide access. The evidence reviewed demonstrates that the landlord thoroughly explained the importance of the investigation being undertaken, and the seriousness of the reports made by the resident. The landlord was flexible and offered alternative appointments. The resident stated she required a weekend appointment, which the landlord advised it was unable to do. Given the number of appointments that the resident had been offered, and the serious nature of the reports, it is not unreasonable that the landlord did not offer a weekend appointment.
24. Following various emails from the landlord, the resident confirmed that she had arranged for a fumes investigation to be carried out by an external company on 12 September 2022.The landlord responded and asked that the resident ensured that any work was undertaken by a gas safe engineer and the resident subsequently provided completion reports and the required certificates. While this Service accepts that it would not be normal practise to place the onus on resident’s to sort gas safety checks, it is deemed that in these circumstances, the landlord accepted it due to the difficulties it had in arranging a suitable appointment with the resident. While ideally the checks would have been done by the landlord or it’s chosen contractors, the priority was having the investigation done as quickly as possible.
25. The landlord contacted the resident on a regular basis to ascertain if the required works had been carried out. Following a lack of confirmation from the resident, the landlord advised the resident that urgent action would need to be taken, which could have meant forcing entry into the property. This was appropriate.
26. The resident arranged for her own gas works to be completed, at her own expense, and provided evidence to the landlord. The works carried out did not satisfy the landlord’s safety requirements. The reasons why were explicitly explained to the resident, which was reasonable. The landlord capped the resident’s gas supply to the property, until it was able to agree a suitable appointment to complete the required investigations and services. This was reasonable action to take, as the resident’s safety in the property was paramount.
27. The landlord arranged for the required investigations to be undertaken on a Saturday. This was appropriate and evidenced that the landlord wanted to resolve the issue quickly, despite the financial implications. However, the resident was able to facilitate a weekday appointment on an earlier date, Again, this demonstrated flexibility from the landlord and its approach was reasonable. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident for her expenditure for a private gas check, despite no carbon monoxide being detected and no issues being found during the investigation. This was reasonable and courteous.
28. Overall, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from her boiler.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears on the rent account

29. The landlord operates an income and arrears procedure. It outlines that the main purpose of the income service is to intervene where necessary, understand why a customer is in arrears and put solutions in place to prevent the customer losing their home.
30. It initially contacted the resident in February 2022 to discuss the rent arrears. The resident engaged with the landlord and provided assurance that she would make payments. There was significant contact between 2 March and 1 April 2022 where different payment amounts were discussed, as well as the resident’s circumstances. The landlord acted appropriately by making regular contact with the resident to address her arrears at the earliest opportunity.
31. The landlord appointed a new income officer, who contacted the resident on 8 April 2022. During that contact, the landlord provided advice regarding Universal Credit and information about external agencies that could offer financial assistance and support. The landlord did raise the possibility of the landlord issuing a NOSP, but it is assessed that this was reasonable and necessary to address given the extent of the rent arrears. In being sympathetic to the resident’s situation, the income officer appropriately signposted the resident to explore the possibility of the landlord’s rent arrears support fund, but clearly outlined that the resident would need to pay her monthly rent as well as a contribution to the arrears to access that fund. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
32. The resident expressed that she had felt ‘threatened’ with eviction. While it is not disputed that the landlord approached her with the possibility of it issuing a NOSP, this was done sensitively and appropriately. The landlord explained that it needed to be honest with the resident, which was the correct approach.
33. The landlord maintained regular contact with the resident between April and Jun 2022. Throughout the communication, the landlord was respectful but honest regarding the arrears and offered to provide rent statements when the resident disputed the amount she owed. This was appropriate. A NOSP was issued on 22 June 2022 due to arrears amounting to £1,656.72. Given the length of time that had lapsed and the amount of arrears that had accrued, this was reasonable action for the landlord to take, despite the resident’s personal circumstances.
34. The landlord met with the resident on 15 July 2022 and agreed a repayment plan. This was reasonable and managed expectations for both the resident and landlord. This evidenced a willingness for the landlord to work with the resident to maintain her tenancy. Furthermore, when the resident later disputed the agreed payment plan, the landlord demonstrated flexibility and asked the resident to confirm what she could afford, rather than insisting that the original repayment plan was adhered to. This was appropriate and evidenced a positive approach by the landlord.
35. The landlord informed in its complaint responses that it had taken various steps to assist the resident, such as;
    1. Agreeing a repayment plan to manage her rent payment and contribute to arrears.
    2. Offering to complete affordability assessments with the resident, as well as offering budgeting advice.
    3. Offering to refer the resident for independent financial support.
36. The above actions are deemed to be appropriate and reasonable actions to assist the resident to maintain her tenancy and support her in a positive way. However, the resident failed to accept the offers put to her by the landlord.
37. The resident has an obligation, as outlined in her tenancy agreement, to pay her rent. The landlord has taken the appropriate steps to engage with the resident to provide support, as well as maintaining its responsibility to take action when rent arrears accrue. There is no evidence that the landlord’s approach and communication with the resident was unreasonable or inappropriate.

The landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral to the local authority.

38. The landlord’s safeguarding policy defines safeguarding as protecting the health, wellbeing and human rights of adults and children at risk, enabling them to live safely, free from abuse and neglect. It also outlines that as a landlord, it has a duty of care to respond, protect and support people who may find themselves in vulnerable / high risk situations and circumstances.
39. Furthermore, the landlord’s safeguarding procedure highlights that all landlord staff that come into contact with residents have a responsibility to safeguard any person at risk and be able to recognise and respond appropriately to any potential or actual threats to their or their children’s wellbeing. The procedure outlines that should a safeguarding concern come to light, the staff member should raise an alert with the Local Authority safeguarding team.
40. The landlord made a safeguarding referral following attending the resident’s property. While limited information is available to this Service regarding the full rationale for the referral, the evidence indicates that the condition of the resident’s property prompted the staff member to discuss the referral with landlord management. The landlord confirmed in its stage one response that management supported the safeguarding referral.
41. This Service is aware that the landlord attempted to discuss the referral with the resident but was unable to do so at the time due to the resident not being in a position to answer the required security questions. Nevertheless, the resident became aware of the referral at a later date, which was discussed during the meeting with the MP representative and in the landlord’s complaint responses.
42. The landlord thoroughly explained its safeguarding responsibilities and obligations to the resident and explained that the referral was made to ensure the resident received support. The landlord also exercised discretion and stated that it did not believe that its complaint response was an appropriate place to document its decision to make a safeguarding referral. The landlord asked that the resident contact her directly by telephone to discuss it further. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this demonstrated sensitivity and a willingness to explain its decision-making to the resident in a private manner.
43. Overall, the landlord acted in accordance with its safeguarding policy and procedure and fulfilled its obligation to proactively identify and appropriately respond to any safeguarding concerns.

Complaint handling

44. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation. This definition is also set out in this Service’s complaint handling code (CHC). The CHC is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints.
45. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy does not prescribe set timescales for complaint responses, but states that a complaint response would be sent to a resident when the answer to a complaint is known. Nevertheless, the CHC outlines that stage one responses should be issued 10 working days after a resident raises their complaint.
46. The resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s dedicated online complaints and compliments platform on 2 July 2022 regarding delays to resolving the heating and hot water issues. The submission was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The fact it was made via a dedicated platform just further highlights that the resident was making a formal complaint.
47. Rather than raising a formal complaint, the landlord responded to the resident via email confirming appointment times for contractor attendance. On 22 July 2022, with no evidence that the landlord progressed through its internal complaints process, the landlord closed the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate.
48. The CHC sets out that landlords must offer formal complaint responses under its complaints process. A stage one response must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
49. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and the CHC and failed to respond to the complaint via a stage one response. This meant that the resident did not have the reassurance and benefit of response timescales, the opportunity to receive a formal remedy to put things right and an awareness in how to escalate her complaint should she wish to do so. This caused the resident significant delays in being able to bring her complaint to this Service for an independent investigation.
50. The resident sought intervention from the Ombudsman. This Service then supported the resident in taking her complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord issued a stage one response on 13 October 2022, and a stage two response on 4 November 2022. Positively, the responses were thorough and addressed all issues raised by the resident.
51. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to consider the key principles of dispute resolution set out by this Service: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. However, the landlord failed to follow its complaint’s procedure and only did so with the intervention of this Service. This was inappropriate and prolonged the complaints process for the resident. Additionally, the landlord has not offered an appropriate remedy in recognition of the inconvenience to the resident.
52. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has concluded that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of;
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of having no heating and hot water.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s arrears on the rent account
    4. The landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral to the local authority.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

55. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £50 compensation for the failings identified in respect of the associated complaint handling.
56. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

57. The landlord is recommended to undertake refresher training for all relevant staff on complaint handling and responding to complaints to ensure complaints are responded to in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy.