Citizen Housing (202115328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115328

Citizen Housing

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to reconnect his electricity supply.
2. Request for permission to do works at his property.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two bedroom flat in a block, and the landlord is the freeholder. At the time of the complaint the resident did not live in the property and had been renting it out. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In November 2020, the police attended the property, due to suspected illegal activity by the resident’s tenants. Due to a safety concern the police facilitated the disconnection of the electricity supply to the resident’s property.

Summary of events

On 16 November 2020 the police contacted the landlord and said that it had attended the resident’s property due to suspected illegal activity and had forced entry, damaging the front door. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 November 2020 and said that the police had secured his front door, and he would need to contact the police to get a key. The resident responded on the same day and asked the landlord to give him a quote for it to replace his front door. The landlord emailed a quote for a new front door to the resident on 14 December 2020 and said he would need to pay “upfront”.
On 24 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it for permission to install a new heating system, due to the old system having been “vandalised” by his tenants.
A contractor for the resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2021 and asked for the keys to the “electric meter cupboard”. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day and said that he did not need keys for the electric meter cupboard, as it was located within his property. Internal notes for the landlord show that it became aware on 7 April 2021 that the resident’s property had no electricity supply. It raised a job to assist the resident in getting the electrics turned on.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 April 2021 and said that it could not “touch the incoming electric”, and he would need to contact the electricity supplier to assist. Internal emails for the landlord, on 12 April 2021, show that it discussed whether it was responsible for reconnection of the electric at the resident’s property, and concluded that it was responsible.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 April 2021 and said:
1. If he wanted to have new meters installed it would need to be done by the supplier and the resident would need to pay;
2. It was aware that “extensive works” were needed at the property due to the damage caused by the resident’s previous tenants. It said the resident should provide an outline of what works he wanted to do, so it could give advice and grant the relevant permissions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 April 2021 and said that there had been no electricity supply at the property “for a few months”. He said that he had been told by the electricity distributor that the landlord was responsible for reconnecting the supply.
Following a visit from an operative for the landlord to discuss the issues at the property, it emailed the resident on 30 April 2021 and said:
1. It had identified an electric box on the floor below the property where it believed the electricity supply had been shut off.
2. It could assist with access to the meter box, when the “meter company” attended to work on the meter;
3. It agreed the resident’s heating system had been “vandalised beyond repair” and it recommended installing a new heating system;
4. It said that it would not install the new heating system and the resident would need to appoint an appropriate contractor to do the works.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 May 2021 and said that its electrical team would reconnect his electricity supply “next week”. It followed up with an email on 7 May 2021 and said that it would be reinstating the power on 12 May 2021. Records show that this visit was rearranged at the resident’s request, and the landlord attended on 14 May 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2021 to make a formal complaint and said:
1. He had been trying to get the electricity supply reinstated at his property since November 2020.
2. The advice from the landlord, about who was responsible for reconnecting the electricity, was wrong.
3. He had to ask the electricity distributor to contact the landlord to explain it was the landlord’s responsibility;
4. The landlord’s service was poor and it often took five or six days for it to respond to him;
5. Due to the delay in getting the electricity reconnected, he had paid £700 per month in rent to live elsewhere. He said it had cost him time and trouble for time off work and travelling to the property;
6. He was still waiting for a “letter of authorisation” so he could start works at the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 21 May 2021 and said it would issue its response within 10 working days. It also said that it needed a copy of the resident’s “asbestos report” for the property, so it could consider issuing permission for the works. The resident responded on the same day and said that the landlord did “not need the asbestos report to make a decision on other parts of the work”. He said no works would start until the landlord gave permission.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 3 June 2021 and said:
1. It was unaware there was no electricity supply at the resident’s property following the incident in November 2020;
2. The first record it had of the resident discussing electrics at the property was on 24 March 2021, when he asked to fit a new meter. It said the resident made no request to reinstall the electrics at that time;
3. It gave the correct advice and followed the correct procedure at the time because “the main issue was not presented” by the resident;
4. Once it had a full understanding of what was required it was proactive and made the necessary arrangements to reinstate the electricity supply at the property;
5. It would not compensate the resident for any costs, as it had not identified any failings in its handling of the matter;
6. It was still waiting for the resident to share the asbestos report before it could proceed with granting permission for the proposed works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 June 2021 and said that he was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. He said it did not “take notice” of the points he had raised in his complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 June 2021 and said it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its procedure and would respond within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2021 and said that he was yet to receive a response to his complaint. The landlord responded on the same day and said that the complaint was open and it was investigating. It apologised that it had “not yet been able to provide” a response. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2021 and said:
1. When the resident first reported a loss of electricity supply on 24 March 2021 it appeared he was reporting an issue with the meter. It said he was “correctly advised” that it was his responsibility to resolve this by contacting his supplier;
2. It became aware on 30 March 2021 that it was not an issue with the meter and it was the landlord’s responsibility to reinstate the electricity supply. The resident had then been incorrectly advised that it was his responsibility to resolve;
3. On 6 May 2021 the request was passed to the correct team to reconnect the resident’s electricity supply;
4. It said it should have raised a job to fix the electricity supply on 30 March 2021 and therefore should have fixed it by 15 April 2021. It said its failure to deal with the request in an efficient way resulted in a one month delay;
5. It had considered whether the resident should be compensated for a loss of “rental income”, because of the delay. It had decided that the delay in completing the works at the property was not because of the delay in reinstating the electrics, but was due to the resident not providing the required information for it to grant permission to do the works. It said it was unable to offer compensation for loss of rental income on that basis;
6. It said under the terms of the resident’s lease he needed permission to complete certain works, and that “additional documentation may be required” before it could issue permission to do works;
7. It offered the resident a total of £150 in compensation for the following:
  1. “Miscommunication” about the electrics;
  2. Failure to identify its failings in its stage one complaint response;
  3. Delay in providing its stage two complaint response.
The resident contacted this Service on 8 October 2021 and said that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and wanted this Service to investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states that he is not permitted to make any “alterations or additions to the structure[…] or heating system” without the written consent of the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and that stage two complaints should also receive a response within 10 working days, unless there is a valid reason for the investigation taking longer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply

When the landlord was first made aware that there was no electricity supply at the property is disputed. The resident’s communication with the landlord indicates that he was of the view he reported the issue in November 2020, when it was disconnected. The landlord’s complaint responses state that it was not aware that the resident was without power until March 2021. This Service has not seen any evidence which shows that the landlord was aware of an issue with the electricity supply before March 2021. Therefore for the purpose of this investigation, this Service considers the matter was first reported to the landlord in March 2021.
The landlord’s internal communications on 12 April 2021 evidence that it decided that it was responsible for reconnecting the electricity supply at the property. But, communications it sent to the resident on 14, 26 and 30 April 2021 stated that the resident was responsible for this. This was a failure to communicate effectively internally and ensure relevant staff were aware of its position and resulted in the resident being given incorrect information on several occasions. The result was an inconvenience to the resident, as he was then required to seek further clarification from the electricity distributor about its position. He experienced time and trouble in asking the landlord to assist him with the matter and explain its responsibilities, when internally it had already come to the same position as the resident.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response acknowledged that it failed to deal with the resident’s request properly. It said that its “miscommunication” about the matter led to a one month service delay. It stated that if it had dealt with the matter appropriately it would have reconnected the electrics by 15 April 2021, and its failing resulted in the electrics being reconnected on 14 May 2021. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord became aware of the issue before the end of March 2021.
The landlord did not accept that the resident’s loss of rental income was caused by its failures in its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply. It explained that it believed the delay, in renting out his property, was caused by the resident not providing the evidence it had requested. It said it needed that information in order to grant the resident permission to complete the works. This was reasonable in the circumstances of the case. The landlord accepted that its failings had caused a delay in reinstating the electricity supply, but clearly explained to the resident its position in relation to the resident’s rental income. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining how it had reached the decision and took a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Where there is an admitted failing by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £150 in compensation for its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply and its complaint handling. It did not provide a breakdown of how it reached this figure.
The resident was not living at the property at the time, which reduced any detriment he suffered, as a result of not having electricity at his property. Given the resident was not living at the property at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord not to treat the electricity supply issue as an emergency repair. The landlord’s complaint response said that it should have fixed the issue for the resident one month after it was reported. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this to the resident in its communication, to manage his expectations and outline why it was not attending sooner.
The landlord apologised in its complaint response and acknowledged its failings in its handling of the matter, citing poor communication and resulting delay. However, its complaint responses did not acknowledge the time and trouble experienced by the resident in needing to contact the electricity distributor and ask it to explain to the landlord’s its responsibilities. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the landlord did not explain what learning it had done from the outcome of its poor communication in relation to the matter. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. There was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to do works at his property

The landlord’s communications with the resident about this matter were clear and consistent throughout. On 21 May 2021 said that it needed to see a copy of the asbestos report that the resident has said he had. This was reasonable in the circumstances before agreeing for any works to take place. It clearly communicated what was needed to progress with the matter and sought to manage the resident’s expectations by telling him that it could not progress without this evidence. It is noted that the resident disagreed with the landlord’s request. It is not clear from the evidence available, why the resident did not want to share report with the landlord.
The landlord used its stage one complaint response, 3 June 2021, to further explain why it had not yet granted permission for the resident to complete the works. It clearly outlined its position to the resident and sought to explain why the matter had not progressed. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as its position was consistent and clearly communicated to the resident.
The landlord used its stage two complaint response on 22 September 2021 to manage the resident’s expectations further about why it needed evidence, before granting permission to conduct works. It did not explicitly refer to the asbestos report, but had already made its position clear in relation to the matter. The stage two complaint response sought to manage the resident’s expectations of his obligations under the lease agreement and provide an explanation of why the landlord asked for evidence in such matters.
The landlord acted with consistency throughout its handling of the matter and communicated its expectations to the resident clearly. There was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for permission to do works at his property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint the day after it was made, on 21 May 2021 and said that it would respond within 10 working days. Its communication also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about its position in relation to granting permission to do works. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as it acknowledged the stage one complaint within the timeframes set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code). It also sought to manage the resident’s expectations about one of the substantive issues of his complaint, and did not wait for its formal response to make its position clear.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 8 June 2021, it said it would respond within 20 working days. This investigation has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with him, until he asked it for a response on 6 September 2021. The Code states that a landlord must send its stage two complaint response within 20 working days. If an “extension beyond 10 working days is required[…]this should be agreed by both parties”. Despite a delay in providing a response, the landlord did not communicate its need for an extension to the resident. This was a failure to adhere to the Code and manage the resident’s expectations about its stage two complaint investigation. The detriment to the resident was inconvenience, time and trouble, as he was required to ask the landlord to respond to his complaint.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s email on 6 September 2021, it confirmed that it had opened its investigation and apologised for not yet being able to issue its response. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and explain why there had been a delay and when it hoped it would respond by. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2021, 77 working days after the resident asked it to escalate his complaint to stage two of the process. This was 57 working days later than set out in its stage two complaint acknowledgment, and a failure to adhere to the timeframes set out in the Code. This led to a protracted experience for the resident and the inconvenience of not receiving a response to his complaint in a timely manner.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response identified failings in its stage one complaint response, and overturned the decision made at stage one. This is evidence of good complaint handling in its stage two complaint investigation. The landlord took a thorough and fair approach in examining the evidence and genuinely reflected on its actions up to that point. It acknowledged and apologised for its failings in relation to the substantive issue in the complaint, along with its handling at stage one, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord offered compensation its complaint handling at stage one and its delay in responding to the stage two complaint. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that it failed to manage the resident’s expectations when there was a delay at stage two. It failed to acknowledge that its communication about the delay was poor and failed to comply with the Code and agree an extension. The landlord also failed to identify what learning it had done in relation to its admitted failings in its complaint handling. The landlord’s offer of compensation failed to fully put things right for the resident, and there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply.

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permission to do works at his property.

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s failed to communicate effectively about the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply, both to the resident and internally. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations about its repair responsibilities and timeframes. It apologised and acknowledged its failing in relation to its poor communication, but failed to identify what learning it had done. Its offer of compensation failed to fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord acted with consistency throughout its handling of the resident’s request for permission to do works at his property. It communicated its expectations to the resident clearly, sought to manage his expectations and used its complaint responses to provide further explanations of its position.
There was a delay in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage two, and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the delay. The landlord offered compensation for its complaint handling, but failed to address the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident, in having to ask it for a response. The landlord failed to identify what learning it had done for its admitted failings in its complaint handling and its offer of compensation failed to fully put things right for the resident.

Orders

44. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a. Apologise for the failings identified within it;

b. Pay the resident £500 in compensation, made up of:

1. 1. The £75 it offered for its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply (if it has not already done so);
  2. A further £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply;
  3. The £75 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so);
  4. A further £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its handling of the resident’s request to reconnect his electricity supply and identify points of learning. It should share its findings with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks.