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

Brentwood Borough Council (202223856)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223856

Brentwood Borough Council

4 September 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 response to the resident’s report of its contractors entering her property unannounced.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she experienced a negative impact on her mental health following the events that led to the complaint. It is beyond the remit and authority of the Ombudsman to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and any subsequent detriment to the resident’s health.
  3. If the resident considers that her health has been impacted by the landlord’s actions or inaction then she may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury insurance claim or pursue a claim through the courts.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. On 30 September 2022, the landlord’s gas engineers attended the resident’s property to carry out work to the gas flue. Its multi-trade operative was also present at the property at the same time, carrying out repairs to the front door. The gas engineers entered the property, completed work, and left.
  2. The resident subsequently raised a complaint with the contractor, on 3 October 2022, that the engineers had gained access to the property and completed work without making themselves known to her. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 14 November 2022 which upheld the complaint. It said that its gas engineers had mistaken the multi-trade operative for the resident and apologised for them entering without ensuring they had spoken to her. The landlord said that staff training would be undertaken to prevent any reoccurrence of the error, and its contractor would be writing a letter of apology to the resident.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for the apology letter on 15 November 2022 and subsequently escalated her complaint. It acknowledged this on 25 November 2022, noting that she was unhappy that she had yet to receive any communication from the contractor to admit its error, or acknowledge any learning from the incident.
  4. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 21 December 2022. This again upheld her complaint, acknowledging that it was not acceptable for its contractors to enter her property unannounced. The landlord explained that it had received an apology letter from its contractor, but considered that this did not adequately address all the issues raised. It confirmed that this would be sent once all points had been addressed.
  5. The landlord’s contractor issued its apology letter to the resident on 6 January 2023. This relayed an account of events that differed from the landlord’s previous stance; that there had been a person present inside the property which the gas engineers had announced themselves to. It offered its “sincere apology” and confirmed that training would be provided to its staff to ensure that correct procedures were followed.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 20 January 2023 that the incident had affected her mental health. She was unhappy that the contractor’s apology letter had contradicted the landlord’s earlier account of events, saying that a person had been inside the property as opposed to outside at the front door. The resident wanted a full public apology to resolve her complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the case of complaints about staff conduct, it should be clarified that the role of the Ombudsman is not to determine the exact events that occurred i.e. what was said and to whom. The role of the Ombudsman is to assess whether or not the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the issues, and whether or not it took appropriate action based on the evidence available.
  2. The landlord’s “generic term brief” document sets out its expectations for the behaviour of contractors. This states that its contractors are to ensure that staff show due respect to residents, present their identification to them, and explain what work will be carried out. Contractors’ staff should obtain the resident’s signature to confirm when work is completed, and explain what has been done, before leaving a property. This document also states that “Whenever possible, work should be carried out or access obtained to the premises when the tenant or tenant’s representative is present.”
  3. While the resident was obliged, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, to allow the landlord to enter the property to carry out repairs, this did not eliminate the need for it and its contractors to introduce and identify themselves to the resident upon arrival. As there was no evidence of the gas engineers acting in accordance with the generic term brief, above, to identify themselves to the resident and inform her of the intended work, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that its contractors had acted inappropriately.
  4. The landlord initially offered a reasonable resolution in its complaint responses to the resident. In these, it provided assurances about the standard of conduct it required from its staff, and proposed to provide the resident with a letter of apology. However, it was unreasonable that it took so long to provide this apology. The landlord first confirmed that it asked its contractor to write the apology letter in its stage 1 response on 14 November 2022. Its final stage response, on 21 December 2022, said that it had been unhappy with the content of the letter and had asked the contractor to redraft this. The letter was eventually provided to the resident on 6 January 2023. This was approximately 2 months after it first agreed to apologise to her and 3 months after she first reported the issue to the contractor.
  5. The landlord’s final complaint response explained that it had received an apology letter from its contractor which did not adequately address the issues. The apology letter that was subsequently issued to the resident on 6 January 2023 was not consistent with the landlord’s earlier account of events and did not provide an explanation of why these accounts differed. This was unreasonable as this served to confuse the issue and deflect responsibility for the error by the contractor, leading to further dissatisfaction for the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman would expect a letter of apology to attempt to repair the tenant-landlord relationship, when an event has led to a complaint, by seeking to reassure the resident that it has taken their concerns seriously. It was unreasonable that the delayed apology letter raised inconsistencies at a late stage of the complaint which contradicted its earlier responses. This indicated that the issues had not been investigated thoroughly, leading to frustration for the resident.
  7. The landlord should therefore pay £100 compensation to the resident for the failures in respect of the response provided to her concerns. This compensation is also to recognise the distress and inconvenience she experienced, and her expenditure of time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  8. This award of compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, which provides for awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there has been failure leading to detriment for the resident over a short period, but which did not ultimately have a permanent impact on her. This award is also in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance, which provides for awards of up to £100 when the resident “has just cause but has not suffered significant inconvenience or distress as a result of the events”.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of its contractors entering her property unannounced.

Orders

  1. That within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100.
    2. Provide a revised apology letter to the resident which explains why there were differing accounts of events on 30 September 2022.
    3. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to ensure refresher training is carried out with its staff and contractors to stress the importance of communicating clearly with the resident, before and during repairs visits.