Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202001549)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001549

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

24 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 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

This complaint is about the following issues:
1. The landlord’s handling of leaks to a neighbouring property, including its handling of a forced entry into the resident’s property and the changing of the keys, and the way it communicated with the resident.
2. The landlord’s handling of disrepair to the sitting room heater.
3. The landlord’s response to reports of pests.
4. The landlord’s response to reports of mould.
5. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

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.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s responses to her reports of pests and mould are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
The role of this Service is to consider how a member landlord has dealt with a formal complaint that has been brought to it that remains unresolved following completion of its complaints procedure. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, investigations carried out by this Service are limited to those matters considered within the complaints procedure, which in this case was completed on 17 April 2020. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests and mould were not pursued or considered within the complaint procedure, and therefore have not been considered within this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 39(a)

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and her property is a second floor flat with electrical storage heating.
The resident emailed the landlord and its contractor at the time on 15 January 2020 complaining that there were appointments for the repair of the heater in her living room on 23 December 2019 and 14 January 2020, at which the works were not completed. She stated that at the first appointment, the contractor advised a replacement heater would be installed after the new year but at the latter appointment, the contractor went to the wrong property and had not ordered a replacement heater, in any event. The resident also raised concerns about the contractor’s customer service when she phoned about the missed appointment, On 17 January 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and stated that its contractor would investigate and respond within 10 working days. On 28 January 2020 the resident again emailed the landlord raising concerns about the length of time taken for the repair. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair records when the repair to heater was reported to the landlord, although the resident has advised in her correspondence that she had not heating in her living room from November 2020.
On 28 January 2020 the landlord was informed of a leak by a neighbouring flat into that property from the resident’s property. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that it made three calls to the resident about the leak that day between 9.45 and 16:00 which were not answered. The landlord also responded to the email sent by the resident that day stating that it was still investigating her complaint about the heater and additionally advising that the bathroom ceiling in the flat below had collapsed and the neighbour was at risk, therefore it needed urgent access to her property. The email attached a letter stating that it would “now undertake a forced entry into your property tomorrow Wednesday 29th January between the hours of 1.00 and 5.00pm to locate and rectify any possible leaks to your property”. The landlord referred to the resident’s tenancy obligation to provide access for emergency repairs and requested that she contact it before this time. Also, on 28 January 2020 the landlord posted the letter at the resident’s property. It is not disputed that the landlord did not receive a response and forced entry into the resident’s property on 29 January 2020. The leak was found to have come from the hot water pipe under the resident’s bath. After the landlord forced entry and rectified the leak, it emailed the resident that day stating that it had tried to call the resident on her mobile to update her and advising of the action it had taken and that the new key could be collected from its office the following day.
In an exchange of correspondence after the forced entry the resident raised concerns about being locked out of her property for a night and made allegations about actions taken by the contractor / member of staff when in her property. The landlord undertook to get statements from the contractor’s operative and the member of staff. The landlord’s internal records confirm that the member of staff on 3 February 2020 refuted the allegations and provided his version of events.
The landlord was in the process of changing its repairs contractor, the initial contractor’s contract expiring on 31 March 2020, and on 7 February 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would ask its incoming contractor to visit her the following week to investigate whether the storage heater needed replacement parts or replacement as it was initially advised an element needed to be replaced. The resident did not accept the offer stating in an email sent on 7 February 2020, “They can take their time as I certainly do not need a heater for spring”, nor is there evidence that she provided alternative dates. However, on 25 February 2020, the initial contractor advised the resident that it would be attending her property on 4 March 2020 and an email sent by the resident that day indicates that she was in her property to give access but the contractor did not turn up.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the forced entry into her property and the property being left insecure, the landlord’s communication over the matter and alleged tampering with her possessions whilst in her property. The reference number for the complaint indicates that it was received on 9 March 2020. On 23 March 2020 the landlord advised the response to the complaint would be delayed due to staff absence and the coronavirus situation, and provided a revised target response date on 27 March 2020.
On 24 March 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It advised that it had carried out a forced entry on 29 January 2020 as it had not been able to arrange access to carry out emergency repairs in relation to the ceiling collapsing in the property below. The landlord noted that on 28 January 2020 it phoned the resident three times but received no reply. It responded to an email sent by the resident advising of the leak and that it needed emergency access the following day. As it did not receive a response, it proceeded with the works in her absence. The landlord also referred to the clauses in her tenancy agreement allowing it to carry out emergency works, and stated that there was no evidence of intimidation or harassment by staff.
The landlord noted that the resident had advised that she did not read letters posted through her door until she had a day off work, but noted that it had also emailed and phoned her. The landlord noted that after the works were completed, an e-mail was sent to the resident, informing her that the job had been done and that the keys were available for her to pick up the following day, which re-iterated the message in the letter sent to her the day before (via hand delivery and e-mail). It concluded that there had been adequate contact about the repair. The landlord accepted the resident’s point that she was not given an emergency contact to collect the new keys as the new keys were brought back to the office after it had closed. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and distress, and stated that it would be looking into having an emergency contact for keys.
With regards to the resident’s claim that the landlord’s member of staff and the contractor at the forced entry went into the resident’s bedroom and loft, made a hot drink and opened the resident’s purse, the landlord denied this occurred and explained the accounts provided by the member of staff and contractor. The landlord stated both accounts were consistent and explained that the contractor turned off the stopcock in the cupboard next to the bathroom, carried out works in the bathroom, then went out to buy a lock to safeguard the property whilst the member of staff guarded the property. The landlord accepted that the contractor had used the resident’s vacuum cleaner to clear debris, which was not standard practice as contractors would usually use their own cleaning equipment.
With regards to the resident’s heater the landlord noted that the resident had reported disrepair on 25 October 2019, contractors attended on 7 November 2019 but could not gain access, then attended on 14 January 2020 and decided that there should be the replacement of the parts or the heater. The landlord understood necessary parts or a heater had been ordered but noted the repair was outstanding and the contractor was being replaced by a new contractor within a week, therefore the new contractor would need to inspect the heater. The landlord asked the resident for available dates. .
The landlord noted the resident’s request that repairs to the leak in the neighbouring flat and to the heater be carried out on the same day, but stated that this could not be facilitated as the former repair was an emergency whilst the latter was not and required different tradespersons who would have to be taken away from other emergency work. In any event, the works to the heater required the delivery of new parts or a new heater.
On 30 March 2020 the resident escalated her complaint raising a number of queries.
On 20 April 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint, addressing issues the resident had raised in her Stage 2 escalation. The landlord accepted that the resident should not have to pay rent for the one night that she could not access her flat and offered her a refund of £15.60 taking into account her rent and service charge at that time was £15.60. In addition it offered £25.00 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord noted that the resident’s heater was still faulty and offered the resident £15 for the delay and a further £25 for the inconvenience caused. The landlord noted that the previous contractor took longer than expected to carry out the repair, but that it had arranged for an alternative contractor to carry out the works. It noted that it had made a number of attempts to contact the resident in early February 2020 and that dates were offered. The landlord stated it had put the works on hold as the resident had emailed it on 7 February 2020 stating that the contractor could “take their time as I certainly do not need a heater for spring”. However, the previous contactor had confirmed in March that it had received a new heater and could complete the repair but when advised of this on 5 March 2020, the resident declined the works.
The landlord noted that the resident had stated that she had not declined repairs to the leak but simply asked for repairs to the heater to be carried out on the same day. In response, it re–iterated the reasons why it could not complete repairs at the same time. The landlord also noted that the resident had not accepted the landlord’s denial that it had accessed various parts of her property but reiterated its position that it had followed its procedure for accessing her property, with a member of staff and a contractor present, and that it had no evidence to support the resident’s complaint that they accessed parts of her property not necessary to deal with the repair.
On 29 May 2020, the resident asked this Service to consider her complaint. She advised that the heater still had not been repaired.
The landlord has advised this Service that it would be installing a new gas boilers and heating systems in the resident’s block, with new gas meters due for installation on 24 September 2020. The resident opted for gas central heating, completed on 8 October 2021, therefore the repair to the electric heater was cancelled.

Assessment and findings

Paragraph 15 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. “You must allow access to your Property to the Association’s employees, agents or contractors at all reasonable hours of the daytime whether to inspect the condition of the Property or to carry out repairs or other works to the Property or any adjoining property. This will include access to carry out safety checks or servicing to gas or other appliances.
2. We will normally give you 24 hours notice when we require access but if we need access in an emergency we may give you a shorter period of notice. An emergency will include but is not limited to fire or flooding.
3. In an emergency, we may make a forced entry to your Property if you are not at home or access is otherwise not given. For the purposes of this clause, an emergency may include the situation where we are concerned as to your safety or that you may be at risk or have come to some harm. If we do make a forced entry then we will repair any damage caused to the Property in making the forced entry but we may recover the costs of this from you if the reason we had to force entry was not our fault.”
The resident’s responsibility to provide access for repairs is reflected in its Repairs Policy which states that residents have a responsibility under the terms of their tenancies to provide access to allow the property to be inspected and repairs to be carried out.
The landlord’s Repair Priorities, as set out in its customer booklet states that it should attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours and complete within 24 hours. Emergency repairs include “uncontainable water leak”, “serious structural damage” and “repairs which pose a health and safety risk or significant damage to property”. Urgent Repairs should be completed within 5 days and Routine Repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy recognizes that the landlord can “offer a discretionary or goodwill gesture following a service failure or complaint”.

The landlord’s handling of leaks to a neighbouring property, including its handling of a forced entry into the resident’s property and the changing of the keys, and the way it communicated with the resident

The resident was obliged under her tenancy agreement to provide access to the landlord for the completion of repairs. The tenancy agreement confirms further that in the case of emergency repairs, the landlord is required to provide 24 hours notice for access (or less at its discretion). In this case, there was a clear emergency situation as the neighbour’s ceiling had collapsed which was significant damage and presented a health and safety risk, which the landlord was obliged to make safe within 24 hours under the Repairs Policy. The landlord took appropriate steps to carry out the necessary emergency repair insofar as it contacted the resident on 28 January 2020 to arrange access to her property. By phoning, emailing and posting a letter on this date the landlord took a variety of reasonable steps to ensure the resident was aware of its need to access her property.
The landlord by advising the resident explicitly that it would force entry on 29 January 2020 provided her with the notice stipulated in the tenancy agreement whilst also having regard to complete the emergency repair within this timeframe. As the resident did not contact it within this timeframe, it was entitled to force entry to complete the emergency repair, having provided the required notice. This Service notes the resident’s reasons for not responding to the landlord; however, this was beyond the knowledge and control of the landlord and in investigating this complaint the Ombudsman is concerned with assessing how the landlord dealt with the situation it faced at the time.
The landlord after the lock change promptly updated the resident, making clear that the forced entry had occurred, the locks had been changed and how she could pick up the new keys. When the resident returned home, after office hours, she was unable to enter her property due to the lock change. Whilst an emergency, out of hours arrangement for the provision of the new keys may have averted this, the landlord no obligation to have had such an arrangement. The landlord would be expected to consider a request for assistance from the resident at the time: however, there is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord’s emergency service on her return home to get access to her property or to request alternative accommodation. Ultimately, the landlord had provided appropriate notice for the repair and consequently it was the resident’s responsibility to, in response, either arrange access and/or make arrangements for picking up the new keys.
With regards to the resident’s allegations that the contractor and member of staff took unnecessary and inappropriate actions in her property, it is not within the role or capacity of this Service to determine exactly what occurred. In assessing this aspect of the resident’s complaint, it is pertinent to consider how the landlord handled the forced entry and how it responded to the subsequent complaint. Ultimately, by ensuring that there was two people at the forced entry who could witness each other, the landlord ensured there could be a corroborated record of the visit. In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate what happened at the forced entry by seeking the version of events from the staff member and contractor. The landlord took steps to allay the resident’s concerns by explaining its version of events and in the absence of supporting evidence provided by the resident, these actions were sufficient.

The landlord’s handling of disrepair to the sitting room heater

It is unclear from the landlord’s repair records when the resident reported disrepair to sitting room heater but the landlord in the stage 2 response advised the report was made on 25 October 2019. Although the landlord has timeframes for completion of repairs, it is understood that the contractor could only attend at a time convenient for and by arrangement with the resident. The parties’ versions of events differ insofar as the resident made reference to a visit on 23 December 2019 which the landlord did not acknowledge but it is not disputed that the contractor, at some point, identified that a new part or heater as a whole needed to be ordered.
The resident had an expectation that the repair to the heater would be completed on 14 January 2021 whilst the landlord stated in the stage 1 response that it was on this date the need to order new parts or a heater was identified. The resident’s formal complaint provided the landlord with the opportunity to clarify the sequence of events then identify whether and to what extent there were any unreasonable delays and/or failures in communication. The landlord’s acknowledgement of 17 January 2020 indicates that the contractor had responsibility for responding in the first instance but there is no evidence that it provided a response, indicating that the landlord did not maintain sufficient oversight and management of the complaint. As a consequence, the landlord in its later responses to the complaint was not able to fully establish the facts of the case – including confirming exactly what parts was ordered and when, and whether the resident’s expectations were managed – and therefore fully and fairly assess the handling of the repair. The landlord has advised this Service that it does not have access to its previous contractor’s repair records and a recommendation has been made in this regard.
The landlord’s offer for the incoming contractor to assume responsibility for the repair was pragmatic. Nonetheless, the initial contractor’s contract had not ended at this point therefore it was still responsible for carrying out the repair and updating the resident with timeframes as far as possible, in particular when the parts would arrive. It is not evident that this contractor provided such an update until 23 February 2020 indicating that the landlord also did not have sufficient oversight and management of the repair at this point.
Despite her earlier response to the landlord on 7 February 2020, in her email of 4 March 2020 indicated that she did want the heater replaced and had arranged a visit by the initial contractor on that date. She advised that the contractor did not attend but the landlord did not consider this when responding to her complaint. Indeed, it focused on its understanding that she had declined the repair, again indicating that it did not take into account the full circumstances of the case and contributing to the resident’s perception that she had not been heard.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord

In respect of the forced entry, the landlord offered a rental rebate of £15.60 and a further £25.00 for the inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident being locked out of her property was undoubtedly distressing. However, offers of compensation by a landlord must be assessed in relation to the service failure it is trying to put right. In this case, there was no identifiable service failure on its part.
Furthermore, its offer to reimburse the resident the equivalent of one day’s rental payment was logical and reasonable as it reflected the fact that the resident did not have the keys to access her property for one night. The offer was also consistent with the fact that under the Compensation Policy, the landlord offers a partial rental rebate when an individual room becomes uninhabitable due to a repair problem. Taken altogether, the landlord’s offer of compensation for the resident’s complaint about the forced entry was reasonable.
The landlord offered £15 for the delay to the sitting room heater and a further £25 for the inconvenience caused. It is evident from the landlord’s offer that it accepted there were failings in the handling of the repair. However, as noted above the landlord did not fully establish and consider the extent of the delays and failures in communication. The landlord also did not consider the resident’s report of a missed appointment on 4 March 2020. It is also noted that the repair occurred in winter. The landlord exercised the discretion allowed for by its Compensation procedure, but in assessing whether it exercised the discretion reasonably, the Ombudsman has considered the award in relation to the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which recommends compensation of at least £50 “for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.” Taken altogether, it is not considered that the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of disrepair to the sitting room heater

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate steps to carry out the necessary emergency repair insofar as it contacted the resident on 28 January 2020 to arrange access to her property. By phoning, emailing and delivering a letter on this date the landlord took a variety of reasonable steps to ensure the resident was aware of its need to access her property.
The landlord by advising the resident explicitly that it would force entry on 29 January 2020 provided her with the notice stipulated in the tenancy agreement. As the resident did not contact it within this timeframe, it was entitled to force entry to complete the emergency repair, having provided the required notice
Ultimately, by ensuring that there was two people at the forced entry who could witness each other, the landlord ensured there could be a corroborated record of the visit. In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate what happened at the forced entry by seeking the version of events from the staff member and contractor. The landlord took steps to allay the resident’s concerns by explaining its version of events and in the absence of supporting evidence provided by the resident, these actions were sufficient.
The landlord also offered the resident compensation that was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of disrepair to the sitting room heater

After the landlord registered the resident’s complaint on 17 January 2020, the contractor had responsibility for responding to the complaint; however, there is no evidence that it provided a response, indicating that the landlord did not maintain sufficient oversight and management of the complaint. As a consequence, the landlord in its later responses to the complaint was not able to fully establish the facts of the case – including confirming exactly what parts was ordered and when, and whether the resident’s expectations were managed – and was not able to fully establish and consider the extent of the delays and failures in communication.
The initial contractor remained responsible for obtaining necessary parts and completing the repair, providing updates as necessary. It is not evident that this contractor provided such an update until 23 February 2020 indicating that the landlord also did not have sufficient oversight and management of the repair at this point.
The landlord did not consider the resident’s report of a missed appointment on 4 March 2020 when responding to her complaint.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord

Whilst the landlord offered compensation for the handling of the repair to the sitting room heater, its award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation for the delay to the sitting room repair and for the inconvenience caused. (This supercedes the landlord’s offer of £15 for the delay to the sitting room heater and a further £25 for the inconvenience caused. If this amount has already been paid the landlord should pay an additional £10).
The landlord should pay the resident a further £50 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to fully establish and consider the extent of the delays and failures in communication in respect of the repair to the sitting room heater, including the reported missed appointment of 4 March 2020.
The landlord should pay the resident the £40.60 offered in response to her complaint about the forced entry to her property, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should provide confirmation that the above orders have been completed by 24 March 2021.

Recommendation

The landlord takes step to ensure that it maintains oversight of the actions of its repair contractor in response to repair requests and that it has access to the records of the actions taken by the contractor. If the contractor is responsible for responding to formal complaints, the landlord is recommended to ensure that it is provided with copies of the response at the time it is sent.