Broadland Housing Association Limited (202200995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200995

Broadland Housing Association Limited

2 November 2022

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:
   1. reports of issues with her boiler and a mouse infestation;
   2. concerns about its staff member’s conduct, in particular the advice provided on the condition of her property.

Jurisdiction

2. What we may not consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

4. The Ombudsman considers there to be a distinction between reports and discussions about an issue, and a formal complaint. For the Ombudsman to carry out a fair and impartial investigation, the landlord must first be given the opportunity to present its position and put the issues right.
5. In her communications with this service, the resident has expressed her dissatisfaction regarding her discussions with the landlord about her boiler, and about mice at the property.
6. While the resident has had discussions regarding these issues, it is not evident they have been considered or responded to as formal complaints by the landlord.
7. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler and a mouse infestation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
8. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her concerns about these elements of the complaint.

Background

9. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a terraced house. The resident has recorded mental health vulnerabilities.
10. In February 2022, the resident reported that a staff member of the landlord had “cold door knocked” (visited unannounced) and asked her about a drinks crate on the stairs inside her property, which the staff member considered to be a trip hazard.
11. The resident disputed the drinks crate was a trip hazard. She was also dissatisfied that the staff member had implied her home was untidy. She further advised that the incident had impacted her mental health. She requested compensation as a result.
12. The landlord apologised and enquired if the resident had mental health support in place. The resident confirmed she had support from her GP and that she was satisfied with this support.
13. The resident raised a formal complaint in early February 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident reiterated that she disputed her stairs were cluttered, or were otherwise a hazard. She advised that an apology alone was unacceptable because of the way the landlord had made her feel and how the incident had impacted her mental health. The resident further advised she believed she had been treated unfairly and asked for £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
14. In its formal response, the landlord advised it had spoken with its staff member, who had reported their version of events. The staff member had reported they had entered the resident’s property with her permission. The staff member had subsequently given general advice about keeping the property in a tidy state. The staff member also advised that storing items on the stairs could become a trip hazard, which the resident had acknowledged. The landlord subsequently apologised that the resident had felt differently about the advice, and further apologised that this had impacted her mental health.
15. In a further communication, the landlord advised that with two different accounts of the interaction, and no third-party witness, it was unable to conclude the circumstances surrounding the informal advice about the drinks crate on her stairs. The landlord said that it encouraged its staff to actively engage with residents, as well as to provide informal advice, especially where circumstances could result in an accident. The landlord concluded that it was reasonable and expected that any officer that identified a potential health and safety risk, such as items stored on stairs, should advise any resident how to reduce risk of injury by ensuring stairs are clear of obstructions. The landlord advised that it considered its staff member had acted in a professional way and gave reasonable advice. It therefore declined the resident’s request for compensation.
16. The resident brought her complaint to this service and repeated her concerns about the staff member’s comments on the condition of her home, impacts on her mental health and request for compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

17. The resident has advised that the landlord’s comments about the condition of her home impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s advice in this regard; however, this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on mental health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
18. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Staff conduct

19. The landlord does not have policies and procedures pertaining to staff conduct. However, when concerns about staff conduct are raised, a landlord would be expected to investigate such issues, and explain its position as to whether or not its staff member’s behaviour was appropriate.
20. Following the resident’s complaint on 2 February 2022 about the staff member’s conduct, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation by discussing the resident’s comments with its staff member and taking a report of their version of events.
21. In its formal response, the landlord appropriately explained the staff member’s perspective and intention. It also appropriately explained its approach to such visits, namely, that informal advice was given where a potential safety issue had been identified. The Ombudsman considers that such advice is reasonable and does not necessarily amount to an accusation about the tidiness of the resident’s property. The landlord’s approach is also in line with the government’s guidance (health and safety executive) on health and safety, which details precautions to reduce the risk of falls on stairs, including keeping stairs free from trip hazards or obstacles.
22. The resident also raised concerns about the staff member attending her property unannounced. While it would be best practice to give prior warnings for any visits, the Ombudsman does not consider this to amount to service failure. Having attended the property, the staff member reported that the resident consented to them entering the property. There is some dispute over the nature of this interaction. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened, without sufficient evidence to support either account, it is not possible for the Ombudsman as an independent and impartial arbiter to establish which account is correct.
23. Similarly, the landlord noted there was differing perspectives in the accounts of the interaction, however, it appropriately acknowledged that the interaction had impacted the resident’s mental health, for which it apologised. The landlord also appropriately made enquiries to ensure the resident had the necessary support for her mental health vulnerabilities.
24. The resident requested compensation for the impact the staff member’s advice had on her. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the staff member acted maliciously in providing advice, or enforced any action against the resident. The staff member’s advice was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, there was no service failure identified. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for any upset caused, and to ensure that the resident had the necessary support.

Determination

25. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s reports of issues with her boiler and a mouse infestation is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about its staff member’s conduct, in particular the advice on the condition of her property.

Recommendations

27. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and enquire about her concerns regarding her boiler and a mouse infestation at her property.