The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Beyond Housing Limited (202209764)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209764

Beyond Housing Limited

15 October 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct;
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a two bedroom flat.
  2. The resident regularly wrote to the landlord in the year proceeding his stage one complaint. He informed the landlord of issues with the refuse area, rubbish being dumped at his property, the communal door being left open and perceived anti-social behaviour.
  3. The resident complained on 31 May 2022 about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff following a break in to his garden shed. He said that he had reported that the gate was broken previously, and if it had been repaired earlier his shed would not have been broken into. He also complained about staff conduct after his application for rehousing was cancelled.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 June 2022. It said that it was initially unable to source a lock for the gate with sufficient keys to distribute to all residents who required access, and the job was incorrectly marked as completed which caused the delay in attending the repair. It apologised to the resident and explained the member of staff in question was not to blame.  It advised the resident any potential criminal activity regarding the break in to his shed would be the police’s responsibility to investigate, though it would consult with the police about any anti-social behaviour and speak to residents in the community.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and escalated his complaint on 13 June 2022. He reported another repair to the gate, advising the landlord it had been damaged again and the communal door was still being left open, which was a safety concern.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 11 July 2022. It said it fully investigated the resident’s allegations about staff conduct and found them to be unfounded. It found all members of staff had acted in line with policy and procedure in respect of the issues raised. The landlord stated it had previously addressed the resident’s concerns in the stage one response, and a further gate repair was scheduled for the 15 July 2022. The landlord also advised it had written to all residents with a reminder to ensure the communal door remained closed, which it did on 12 May 2022.
  7. Regarding the resident’s application for rehousing, the landlord explained this was again not the fault of the member of staff in question, but was cancelled because the resident failed to respond to the annual review. It followed this by confirming the resident had an appointment booked on the 19 July 2022 so his application could be reinstated, allowing him to bid for suitable properties. The landlord confirmed it was liaising with the police regarding any anti-social behaviour, and was confident it had followed the correct process overall.
  8. This Service understands that the resident has moved from the property since he brought his complaint to us, which largely achieves a resolution to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to attend as soon as possible, and to complete a repair in a single visit. The policy states it will award priorities to repairs based on the level of urgency.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. It states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate the allegations made by the resident of misconduct against the member of landlord staff in question. What the Ombudsman can investigate is how the landlord responded to his reports regarding staff conduct in general and whether it did so reasonably and fairly.
  2. The resident complained about staff conduct as he felt repairs were not being completed and he had an ongoing issue with rubbish and fly tipping outside his property. In May 2022, he asked the landlord for an independent person to investigate his complaint. In its stage one response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the repair to the gate, and explained the reason for the delay as the job being incorrectly marked as completed. The evidence provided shows the gate repair was marked as complete on 31 March 2022,  which appears to be the error the landlord was referring to. It said it had reviewed the member of staff’s actions and was satisfied they had given appropriate advice in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  3. In the stage two response, an independent member of staff, not previously affiliated with the complaint, investigated the resident’s allegations and found them to be unfounded. It explained the reasoning for the resident’s application for rehousing being cancelled, confirming the member of staff in question was not involved. No evidence has been provided to support the landlord’s reasoning for the resident’s application for rehousing being cancelled, therefore it is unclear what transpired. However, from the evidence that is available it is apparent the resident’s housing application was reinstated as he moved from the property in July 2023. From January 2023 onwards, the evidence shows the landlord was liaising with the resident’s advisor in order to support him in finding a new property suitable for his needs. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and shows the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns about rehousing.
  4. It appears the resident’s concerns about staff conduct are largely founded on outstanding repairs or ongoing issues, which have since been addressed by the landlord. Records show that on 1 June 2022, the landlord arranged for discarded waste to be removed and it later contacted the local authority regarding the rubbish issue and arranged for an additional bin at the property. It also explained it would liaise with the police regarding any anti-social behaviour, as it would reasonably be expected to do so. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, finding them to be unwarranted and addressing the issues at the root of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate

  1. The resident informed the landlord the gate needed to be repaired on 28 March 2022. On 5 May 2022, he chased the landlord for a repair. In response, the landlord raised another job for the work to be completed and an operative attended the same day and ordered a new lock and keys. The resident chased this repair on 2 further occasions, before his shed was broken into on 13 May 2022. On 20 May 2022 the gate was repaired, 54 days after it was first reported by the resident. It is understandable the resident was frustrated by the time taken to repair, and reasonable to suggest his shed would not have been broken into had the repair happened sooner.
  2. In its stage one response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay, explaining that the job was incorrectly marked as completed and therefore another appointment was not raised as it should have been. Though it is unknown what priority the landlord awarded the repair, it could have reasonably been expected to attend a routine repair within 28 days. The repair took 54 days to be completed, which exceeds expected timescales and constitutes an unreasonable delay. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. On 10 June 2022, the resident reported that the gate had been damaged again and that he was concerned about anti-social behaviour. In the stage two response, the landlord advised it had spoken to the perpetrator and work to repair the gate was scheduled for 15 July 2022. The duration from the resident reporting the issue to be the scheduled repair is 36 days. Though there was a minor delay in expected repair timescales, given the resident had previously expressed his concern about the gate and experienced a break in and vandalism to his shed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to act sooner than it did. Opportunities were missed to address the resident’s concerns earlier and this was therefore a failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. Overall, there were delays in repairing the communal gate, which may have contributed to the resident’s shed being damaged. A finding of service failure is made and orders are made for compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme , there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal gate.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the failings identified in its handling of repairs to the communal gate;
    2. Review the delays to the repair in this case, to identity the reasons for these and what actions has/will be taken to avoid a recurrence. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.