Cornwall Housing Limited (202213342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213342

Cornwall Housing Limited

24 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

1. The resident complains about the landlord’s handling of his complaint about contractors wearing PPE.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure joint tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident is currently awaiting a lung transplant and during Covid-19, was classed as extremely vulnerable.
3. On the 8 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint regarding an operative not wearing PPE when attending his property, despite him previously advising the landlord about his medical conditions. The resident said that an operative attended his home to carry out a repair earlier that day, and he had to ask the operative to wear a mask when inside the property.
4. The landlord provided a stage one response on 12 April 2021, where it said that:
   1. It had passed on the resident’s comments to the relevant manager who would conduct an internal investigation.
   2. Its own internal policy was that operatives were required to adhere to guidelines whereby they had to carry out a risk-assessment prior to any repair. If they determined that a repair could be carried out with the appropriate social-distancing measures being maintained, they were not required to wear a mask.
   3. If any resident does not feel comfortable with an operative not wearing a mask, then they could ask the operative to wear one, who would oblige.
   4. It apologised for the distress caused and that the complaint was upheld.
5. On 16 April 2021 the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the process as he disagreed with the contents of the stage one reply. The resident said that he had asked a senior member of staff to ensure that operatives wore appropriate PPE when they attended his home. The resident explained the distress the situation had caused him and felt that the landlord had not listened to his concerns.
6. On 9 June 2021 and on the last week of June 2021, the resident chased a response from the landlord as he had not received an acknowledgement. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 July 2021 and confirmed that following the resident giving explicit consent, the resident’s record had been updated to reflect his health conditions and that all staff with a reason to access his record would see the ‘flag’ on his account. The email also said that the chair of the tenant reviews, who dealt with stage two complaints, had been contacted and as that as his complaint was upheld at stage one, it would not be escalated. The resident was given the details of this Service, should he wish to refer his complaint.
7. Following contact with this Service, the resident explained the impact that Covid-19 has had on his life and the anxiety that is linked with this. The resident also confirmed that it is ‘hit or miss’ as to whether contractors wear appropriate PPE. The resident confirmed that when questioned, staff confirm that the relevant flag is on the resident’s account and do adhere to the resident’s request to wear a face mask.

Assessment and findings

8. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
   2. put things right, and.
   3. learn from outcomes.
10. In April 2020 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued guidance for landlords in relation to gas safety checks. This noted, ‘Current guidance from HM Government states that work can still be carried out in people’s homes where necessary, e.g., for reasons of safety, provided that the GOV.UK guidance on social distancing is followed. Each property should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
11. The landlord’s personal protective equipment (PPE) for the COVID-19 pandemic, guide for staff working in local authority, education, community and social care settings, dated May 2020, confirmed the landlord’s position regarding the use of PPE in resident’s homes, which included:
    1. Unless in a situation where the risk of COVID-19 is very high (for example in clinical and some social care settings or when responding to a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19), the role of PPE in providing additional protection is extremely limited and thus it is unlikely to be required.
    2. The key issues governing requirements for employees to wear PPE in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic is the risk of exposure to someone with symptoms of COVID-19, and the likelihood of transmission.
12. The landlord has also informed this Service that operatives were informed about the landlord’s approach to PPE via team meetings and toolbox talks, but as these would have been verbal interactions, there is no documentation to support this.
13. The landlord’s complaint policy, dated April 2020, states that it operates a two stage complaint process. Stage one is investigated by the landlord and if the resident remains dissatisfied with the response, the complaint can be escalated to stage two. Stage two complaints are investigated by a tenant appeal panel. No timescales are documented within the policy.
14. This Service has been provided with copies of emails that show that the resident had informed the landlord on various occasions of his health conditions and that he requested that staff wear PPE when visiting his home. Although the landlord received the information, it did not take steps to add this information onto the relevant part of its customer record management (CRM) software. Whilst the landlord said that the resident did not ask specifically for it to update its system with his medical vulnerabilities, this was not a reasonable response from the landlord. It should have steps to ensure its records accurately reflect its residents’ vulnerabilities.
15. Although this Service has been provided with repair records which show that the landlord listened to the resident and updated repair notes with details that reflect the need for operatives to wear PPE, it has not been provided with any records relating to the visit on 8 April 2021. The landlord acknowledges within its stage one complaint that it would carry out an internal investigation into the actions on the day, but in line with its guidance operatives were not required to wear a mask. Whilst this would have been good practice in a normal situation, the landlord has apologised for the distress that this caused the resident. As the HSE guidance set out, each property should have been considered on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the landlord should have taken into account the resident’s vulnerable status.
16. Whilst the landlord appropriately apologised for the distress it caused, there is no evidence of an internal investigation being carried out, and it did not take steps to put things right for the resident, nor did it take steps to update his CRM record to reflect his vulnerabilities. It was not until the resident chased a response to his stage two escalation in June 2021 that the landlord updated its CRM system. This Service has seen information which confirms that the record was updated on 8 July 2021, some three months after his initial complaint.
17. The resident experienced a further delay when he tried to progress his complaint to stage two on 16 April 2021. He had to chase the landlord on 9 June 2021 and in the last week of June, of which this Service has not been provided copies of which may indicate an issue with record keeping. It was not until 2 July 2021 that the landlord acknowledged emails that the resident sent the landlord, and responded stating that as his complaint had been upheld at stage one of the process, it would not be escalated to stage two and that details of how to escalate should not have been included in his stage one response.
18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code April 2020 (the Code), point 3.5, specifies that if the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure and the timescales set out in this Code. Point 4.13 specifies that where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman.
19. Whilst the landlord did provide the resident with a reason as to why it would not escalate his complaint to stage two, it did not do so within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, as it had identified an error within its stage one response the landlord should have taken the opportunity to put things right for the resident, and this Service would have expected the complaint to be escalated in line with its complaint policy. The landlord should have confirmed that the internal investigation was carried out, and updated on any actions that would be taken as a result of this.
20. This Service acknowledges that the events which occurred were at the start of the pandemic and a highly anxious time for many people, especially given the resident’s medical condition and vulnerability and the landlords should have taken steps to put things right. Failing to do so was a missed opportunity for the landlord to try to rebuild the landlord and tenant relationship.
21. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has tried to put things right, and if it has resolved the complaint satisfactorily. When considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
22. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it can make payments in recognition of distress caused. The policy gives the following guidance for payments:
    1. Low impact – £50 to £100.
    2. Medium Impact – £100 to £250.
    3. Major Impact – £250 – £500.
23. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident but has had no permanent impact, a payment of between £100 and £600 is recommended.
24. Whilst the landlord appropriately apologised within its stage one response, it did not take reasonable steps to try and put things right when it did identify failings with the complaint handling. Further, as there is no evidence of an internal investigation being carried out, there is also no evidence that it ‘learned from outcomes’. Overall, it took the landlord an unreasonable amount of time to update the resident’s record with his vulnerabilities and the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. This has led to time and trouble to the resident in pursing the matter, and frustration that his concerns have not been fully addressed. Therefore, in line with both the landlord’s guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint about contractors wearing PPE.

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident a total of £300.
    2. provide a written apology to the resident, and outline actions that have/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of failings in this case (both in terms of the PPE issue, and the complaint handling)
27. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the complaints policy to ensure it documents timescales reflected in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Code and provide this Service with a copy within six weeks of the date of this report.