Chorus Homes Group Limited (202004390)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004390

Chorus Homes Group Limited

5 February 2021

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 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The Landlord’s handling of a repair to the drain of the Resident’s property.
2. The Landlord’s communication with the Resident.
3. The Landlord’s response to the Resident’s concerns about the storage and removal of his personal data.
4. The Landlord’s complaint handling of these matters.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Health concerns

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”;

The Resident’s reports that the Landlord’s actions have affected his health is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The Ombudsman does not doubt the Resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The Resident should consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.

The Landlord’s storage and removal of personal data

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body”.

The Resident has raised concerns regarding the Landlord’s storage and removal of his personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is able to investigate complaints about possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. It is not part of this Service’s role to determine whether the Landlord had adhered to this act. It is therefore advised that the Resident contacts the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) for further information on taking this element of the complaint further should he continue to have concerns.

Further concerns

Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”;

The Resident has stated that he remains dissatisfied with the support offered by the Landlord in relation to his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours. The Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the Landlord as a formal complaint and which the Landlord has issued a final response to, under its complaints procedure. This is so the Landlord can respond to the complaint itself, before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Therefore, I am unable to consider this matter as part of this investigation. If the Resident completes the Landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he could refer the matter as a new complaint to the Ombudsman. In view of this, the current investigation focuses on the period up until the Landlord’s final response to the Resident’s complaint on 12 May 2020.

Background

The Resident is a fixed-term, assured shorthold tenant of the Landlord.
The Landlord has no known vulnerabilities for the Resident on file, although the Resident states he should be considered a ‘vulnerable tenant’ due to his personal circumstances and health conditions.
The complaint was raised by the Resident and, at times, by his representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the Resident and his representative as “the Resident”.
The Resident called the Landlord on 12 February 2020 to advise that there was a strong smell coming from the drain outside his bathroom window. The Landlord’s records show that a repair appointment was arranged for 11 March 2020.
The Resident emailed the Landlord on 18 February 2020 and stated that the smell from a blocked drain outside of his property was affecting his health. He said that he had been told by the Landlord that it would not be attending until 11 March 2020. He requested that the Landlord take action in relation to the drain as soon as possible. He also stated that he had been in touch with the local authority’s Environmental Health service (Environmental Health) for support on this matter.
On 27 February 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord and stated the following:
1. He advised that he had several vulnerabilities and felt that his concerns had been dismissed, without compassion for his individual circumstances.
2. He stated that he had been advised by the Landlord that the issue of a foul smell from his drain was not urgent, despite this making him unwell. He had contacted Environmental Health who said that the Landlord may have “committed an offence” because this matter related to health issues. He understood that Environmental Health had now contacted the Landlord and believed this had prompted some action on the Landlord’s part.
3. He requested that the Landlord provide him with its Repair Policy confirming the priority of repairs of this type as well as a copy of any customer care and commitment policy it may have.
4. The Resident also expressed concern in relation to his service charge as he believed he did not receive any services from the Landlord. He requested the Landlord to confirm its position on this matter.
The Resident raised a customer enquiry through the Landlord’s website on 28 February 2020 and stated that a contractor had attended the property that day. The contractor had advised that they could not unblock the drain as there was washing powder inside of the drain. They said that this would have come from the Resident’s washing machine. The Resident advised that he did not have a washing machine and the blocked drain was outside his bathroom not his kitchen where he stated a washing machine would usually be kept. He was advised that another contractor would attend on 2 March 2020 to resolve the matter; however, he expressed dissatisfaction that this had not been resolved sooner.
On 4 March 2020 the Landlord provided an informal complaint response to the Resident and stated the following:

It confirmed that the Resident’s repair fell under its non-urgent criteria, which it would aim to complete within 28 days. It attached a copy of its Repairs Service Standard which set out what its tenants could expect.

It stated that it would not be able to automatically upgrade the repair work to an emergency timeframe, although it said that it considered an individual’s circumstances on a case-by-case basis and it would bring repairs forward if possible.

It stated that the repair was raised for 11 March 2020 and the Resident had called on 20 February 2020 to check any availability. The repair was then scheduled for 28 February 2020. It stated that the contractor had attended and unblocked the wastewater gully and stated that the issue seemed to be a build-up of soap powder.

It noted that the Resident was not at home during this visit and had called the Landlord later that day as he did not believe that a contractor had attended. The Landlord had confirmed the attendance and suggested that the Resident use liquid rather than powder to prevent the drain blocking in the future. It attended the property again on 2 March 2020 where it removed further debris and leaves from the drain, as the Resident had reported that the smell was still apparent.

It stated it would send a form to complete should the Resident wish to share further information in relation to his medical issues. It would then be able to add these to its system in order to better understand the Resident’s needs should he require further assistance.

It apologised that the Resident felt it had been dismissive of his concerns and stated that this was not its intention. It stated that it would be willing to discuss this further with the Resident to highlight any points of learning around its communication.

It had spoken with Environmental Health who were not taking any further action in relation to the Resident’s enquiry. The Landlord confirmed that the Resident could raise a complaint with the Landlord should he remain dissatisfied and attached its Complaints Service Standard.

It advised that the Resident’s service charge was applicable to the service provided by its Neighbourhood wardens who manage issues with fly-tipping, graffiti, and visits to residents on their request. It stated that there was further information about this service on its website.

The Resident sent a further email on 5 March 2020 and stated that the version of events which the Landlord had described in relation to his repair was different to his experience; he therefore requested that the Landlord send him the audio recordings of his phone calls from 12 February 2020 to establish what had happened. He expressed concern that the documents he had been sent were not dated and that he could not determine whether they were current. He also requested further information in relation to the Landlord’s board decisions and a formal statement confirming how its Repair Policy and Service Standards were sent to the Landlord’s tenants.
On 8 March 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord and stated the following:
1. He disputed the record of events that the Landlord had described. He stated that he had called the Landlord on 28 February 2020 and had been told that the contractor had not unblocked the drain due to the soap powder. An operative attended on 2 March 2020 and confirmed that the drain was blocked; they then unblocked the drain. He stated that the advice given – to use washing liquid rather than soap powder – only served to further frustrate him.

He expressed concern that his medical issues were not already known to the Landlord as he believed that such information was recorded as part of his ‘sign-up’ process.

He stated that he had previously raised concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours. He remained dissatisfied with the support offered to him at that time. He felt that at that time, the Landlord would have gained further understanding of his personal circumstances and that this should have been recorded. He felt that the absence of such information was concerning.

He requested that the Landlord checked the records of the two repair appointments on 28 February 2020 and 2 March 2020 and provide copies of the report sheets. He also requested that the Landlord provide the audio recordings of his previous phone calls as this would provide him with clarity in relation to what was said. It also asked the Landlord to confirm the identity of the organisation who carried out the repair works as they had only been described as the contractor.

The Landlord responded on 9 March 2020 and confirmed that it would provide a full response to the Resident’s complaint by 17 March 2020.
The Landlord sent a further email to the Resident on 24 March 2020 and stated that due to the continued impact of Covid-19, it had prioritised emergency services for its vulnerable residents. As a result, it would take longer than usual for the Landlord to respond. It advised that it would update the Resident shortly, although it would not be able to meet the timescales set out within its service standards. It apologised for any inconvenience this may cause.
The Resident responded the same day and again requested that the Landlord send him the audio recordings of the telephone calls which had taken place. He stated that regardless of whether he had now raised a complaint, the request still stood. He stated that the request had been outstanding for a lengthy period and asked the Landlord to provide these as soon as possible. He stated that he also fell within the category of ‘vulnerable’ and that the Landlord’s assistance would be valuable.
On 27 March 2020 the Landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the Resident and stated the following:
1. In relation to the Resident’s concern that the Landlord had breached Environmental Health legislation, the Landlord stated that the Resident reported the smell coming from his drain on 12 February 2020 and this matter was rectified by 2 March 2020. It stated that this was within its timescales for carrying out such repairs.
2. It addressed the Resident’s concern in relation to how it provided its residents with information about its repair priorities. It confirmed that information regarding its repairs service was on its website. It also printed this information in its quarterly magazine which was sent out in paper format to all households.
3. It confirmed that the documents it had previously provided were up to date and had been reviewed by its customer scrutiny panel. It stated that it did not date such documents, although the policies were dated and reviewed as necessary. It did not share minutes of any board meetings with the general public.
4. In relation to the storage of the Resident’s personal information, the Landlord stated that it had removed any personal data which was not directly linked to the terms of a resident’s tenancy, to comply with data protection laws (GDPR) which came into effect in 2018. It stated that it had emailed a customer preference form to each resident at the time to request confirmation of what personal information the resident would like stored on the Landlord’s system. It apologised that the Resident believed that it was storing his personal information and would arrange for a customer preference form to be sent to him so that he could set out the information he wished to share.
5. It stated that it did not have recordings of the calls to review or share with the Resident. It confirmed that it had discussed the feedback provided by the Resident with the members of staff he had spoken to for their learning and development. It apologised that the Resident had experienced some distress as a result of its customer service and advised that this was not its intention.
6. It confirmed the details of the repair records stating that a “build-up of soap powder was evident” following the first visit on 28 February 2020; and on 3 March 2020 the contractors “cleared debris from gully drain”. It advised that the contractors were acting on information they had to hand, and it was not its intention to insinuate that the Resident was being untruthful.
7. The Landlord did not uphold the complaint as it believed it had acted in line with its policies and procedures. It advised that the Resident could escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure if he remained dissatisfied.
The Resident requested to escalate his complaint on 9 April 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He remained dissatisfied with the service he received from the Landlord when he reported his concerns about the smell from the drain and he felt that the Landlord was attempting to ‘cover up’ what had happened.
2. He expressed dissatisfaction that the Landlord had not taken appropriate steps to address his personal circumstances as a vulnerable tenant despite his earlier contact with the Landlord regarding his reports of ASB and his personal circumstances becoming apparent. He also stated that some tenants’ vulnerabilities may prevent them from sending back a form detailing said vulnerabilities, which may have a negative impact on the tenant. He requested why the Landlord took this approach.
3. He also noted that the Landlord’s timeline for repairs did not include how the needs of vulnerable tenants would be addressed and confirmed that he had not received a customer preference form to fill out.
4. He stated that the Landlord had not addressed his points in relation to public-facing documents being dated, confirmation of the process behind their publication, and information about how these would be reviewed. He requested a response on these matters and requested the Landlord explain why it would not publish board meeting minutes.
5. He stated that he remained dissatisfied with the conduct of the Landlord’s staff over the phone. He had requested call recordings and report sheets from the repair in order to establish what had happened as the Landlord’s version of events differed from his experience. He believed the telephone calls were recorded and requested the Landlord to provide these again.
The Landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the Resident on 15 April 2020 and stated that he should receive a response within ten working days. It stated that if there was likely to be any further delay due to the impact of Covid-19, it would let him know.
The Landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 12 May 2020 and stated that it did not uphold the Resident’s complaint for the following reasons:
1. It noted that the Resident felt that it had ‘covered up’ what had happened during the repair appointments and explained that there was no evidence of a ‘cover-up’.
2. It confirmed that there was no alert on its system which indicated that the Resident was a vulnerable customer. It stated that if there was a note of the Resident’s vulnerabilities, this would not affect the timescale for responsive repairs to be carried out. It confirmed that it would take into consideration a tenants’ vulnerabilities and consider these on a case-by-case basis. If a timescale would cause a particular difficulty to a vulnerable tenant, it would look to offer further support via its Neighbourhood team or through signposting to relevant external agencies. It encouraged the Resident to take up its offer of additional support should he require it.
3. It confirmed that there were no call recordings of the Resident’s telephone conversations with its staff and therefore it would be unable to provide such evidence. It apologised for any miscommunication which may have occurred and stated that it did its best to be clear and helpful.
4. It stated that it would be happy to help the Resident complete the paperwork in relation to his personal circumstances if needed. It stated that the customer preference form had now been sent. It apologised for the delay in providing this and explained that this was an oversight.
5. It noted the Resident’s comments about public-facing documents being dated and explained that it worked alongside its customer scrutiny panel – which was comprised of tenants – when reviewing customer-facing documents. These policies were reviewed as required. It also confirmed that it was not obliged to publish minutes of its board meetings and any relevant information was published on its website when documents were updated or reviewed. It stated that its internal records of works attended to were not available for external review and confirmed that its complaint investigations were carried out by reviewing correspondence and by discussions with relevant members of staff.
6. It noted that the repair to the Resident’s drain was completed within its required timescales and that there was no evidence of service failure.

Assessment

Drain repair

The Landlord’s Repairs Service Standard states that it would aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days and that the majority of repairs would be carried out by external contractors. The Landlord has stated that it would consider offering further support to vulnerable tenants who may be affected by such timescales, although it did not have a separate policy when it came to the needs of vulnerable tenants.
The Resident initially reported a smell from the drain outside his property on 12 February 2020. The Landlord raised a repair appointment for 11 March 2020. The Resident then called the Landlord stating that the smell was affecting his health. The repair appointment was then moved to 28 February 2020. A contractor attended the property on 28 February 2020. The Resident reported that the issue was still apparent, and a further appointment was carried out on 2 March 2020 which resolved the matter. He also stated that he had been told that the drain was not cleared at the initial appointment due to visible soap powder which the Landlord has stated was from his washing machine. The Resident states he does not have a washing machine
The Landlord has acted reasonably as the repair work to the Resident’s drain was carried out within 19 calendar days. It is understandable that the need for multiple appointments may have caused the Resident some inconvenience, although there is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord acted outside of the timescales laid out in its Repairs Service Standard. It was reasonable that this would not be considered an emergency repair as the safety of the Resident was not at any immediate risk. Although the resident reported an impact to their health, this was not supported by an independent or expert evidence such as a doctor’s letter.
As stated above, we cannot investigate the Resident’s comments concerning the storage and removal of his personal information, although it is noted that the Resident believes that the Landlord should have had a record of his vulnerabilities. There is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord had not taken the Resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when handling the repair of his drain once it had been made aware. Following the comments made by the Resident regarding his health, the Landlord took steps to bring the repair appointment forward. This was reasonable as the Landlord is not obliged to prioritise its repair timescales for vulnerable tenants beyond its obligations under the Equality Act, although it was reasonable for it to do so pending availability of its contractors. The Landlord would need to take into consideration the availability of its contractors before agreeing appointments with its residents, and it has confirmed that any adjustments would be on a case-by-case basis.
In short, there has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s repair. The evidence shows that despite two separate appointments being needed to resolve this issue of the smell from the drain, the Landlord has resolved this mater within the timescales laid out in its Repair Service Standard. It has also taken steps to provide a customer preference form to the Resident in order to gain greater clarity about the Resident’s personal needs in relation to any vulnerabilities and offer support.

The Landlord’s communication with the Resident

The Resident has stated that the version of events which the Landlord described differed from his own experience of the repair to his drain and what had been discussed over the phone. There has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its communication with the Resident. Ultimately, the Landlord has relied on the records of its contractors in relation to the repair in order to inform the Resident. The record left following the appointment on 28 February 2020 states that the Resident was not at home, the contractor had unblocked the gully, and stated that ‘old washing machine powder’ was the cause of the smell. The contractor had no way of knowing that the Resident did not have a washing machine as the Resident was reportedly not at home during the appointment. The Landlord’s reliance on a contractor’s records is reasonable. The landlord’s obligation is to then investigate any dispute with these records/conclusions, which it did with the second appointment.
As part of his complaint the Resident had requested the audio recordings of the telephone calls which had taken place following his report of a smell from his drain on 11 February 2020. The Landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why these could not be provided and stated that it had not recorded the calls. This is reasonable as the Landlord is not obliged to record phone calls. The Landlord would be expected to keep notes in relation to what had been discussed in any telephone correspondence for audit purposes and for use in any investigation. The evidence which the Landlord has provided to this Service clearly documents the notes left following the phone calls and confirms that the Resident was informed that the appointment on 28 February 2020 had gone ahead, and that the Landlord had arranged a further appointment as a result of the ongoing smell.
It was reasonable that the Landlord’s staff would rely on its contractor’s records when informing the Resident that the appointment had taken place as the Landlord would not be expected to oversee such work itself. It is appreciated that, in some instances, the Landlord and Resident’s records of events may vary, and this may be frustrating. In such circumstances it is reasonable to initially rely on the conclusions of appropriately qualified experts (such as contractors) and to then investigate with follow up visits as required (which the landlord also arranged in this case).
The Landlord has taken steps to investigate the Resident’s reports of poor staff conduct during telephone conversations related to the handling of his repair and apologised for any miscommunication which may have occurred. It has also taken reasonable steps to address the matter with the relevant staff members to ensure miscommunication is limited in the future which is reasonable. Ultimately, since there is no specific evidence of what had been discussed on the calls, there is no evidence to suggest that the Resident had been informed that the repair work did not go ahead. Therefore, the Landlord’s response was appropriate.

Complaint handling

The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, the Landlord should provide a written complaint response within ten working days. If the Resident remains dissatisfied with the Landlord’s response, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the Landlord should provide its complaint response within a further ten working days. It states that if there is likely to be any delay in providing a response it would contact the resident and explain the reasons why. The Landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the Resident’s complaint in its responses.
The Resident raised a formal complaint on 8 March 2020, and the Landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 March 2020. It is noted that this response was issued four working days outside of the Landlord’s complaint handling timescales, although the Landlord has acted appropriately as it made the Resident aware of a potential delay due to the impact of Covid-19 and therefore the Resident was not significantly impacted by this delay.
The Resident requested that his complaint be escalated on 9 April 2020; the Landlord acknowledged his escalation on 16 April 2020 and provided its formal complaint response on 12 May 2020. This response was issued 11 working days outside of the Landlord’s complaint handling timescales. There is no evidence to suggest the Landlord advised the Resident of this specific delay, although the Resident’s expectations had been sufficiently managed in the Landlord’s email on 24 March 2020, where it stated that it would be unable to provide complaint responses within its set timescales due to the impact of Covid-19. It would have been helpful for the Landlord to provide a further update in relation to this delay, but, ultimately, the Resident was not significantly disadvantaged as the Landlord’s stage two response did not change the outcome of his complaint.
The Resident has expressed concern that his further comments regarding the Landlord’s publication and dating of documents had not been addressed in his stage one complaint. The Landlord satisfactorily noted the Resident’s comments in relation to its policy regarding the review of public-facing documents in its stage two response and explained that its documents were reviewed when needed, and that it was not obliged to make the minutes of its board meetings public. Whilst it would have been helpful for the Landlord to address these matters in its stage one response, the Resident was not significantly disadvantaged as these aspects were not in relation to the Resident’s complaint about his repair or staff communication. The Landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation in relation to his further queries.
While there has been some minor delays to the Landlord’s issuing of its stage one and stage two responses, there has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling of these matters. The evidence suggests that the Resident was informed of potential delays due to the impact of Covid-19, which is outside of the Landlord’s control, and had been made aware that the Landlord would not be able to respond within its complaint handling timescales. The Landlord has addressed the Resident’s concerns in relation to the repair of his drain and its communication with the Resident satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of a repair to the drain at the Resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its communication with the Resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling of these matters.

Reasons

The Landlord has acted appropriately as it has completed the repair work needed to the drain within the timescales laid out in its Repair Service Standard. There is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord had ignored the Resident’s vulnerabilities once it had become aware of these. It has also taken reasonable steps to move the repair appointment forward after considering the availability of its contractors.
The Landlord has relied on the records left by its staff and contractors when communicating with the Resident. It was reasonable that the Landlord could not provide any call recordings as it has stated that these were not recorded. The Landlord would not be obliged to record its calls. The Landlord has also taken steps to address the Resident’s feedback with its staff members for their learning and development and apologised for any miscommunication which may have occurred.
The Landlord has satisfactorily managed the Resident’s expectations of any delays in its responses due to the impact of Covid-19. Whilst it is noted that the Landlord had not responded to the Resident’s comments regarding the Landlord’s public-facing documents until stage two of its internal complaints process, the Resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this as these comments did not relate to the repair of his drain or staff communication.