Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited (202003675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003675

Croydon Churches Housing Association Limited

18 March 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:

a)     The resident’s reports of a pest infestation affecting her property.

b)     the resident’s request regarding the renewal of the flooring between her kitchen and lounge.

c)     the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.

d)     the associated formal complaint about these matters.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is within a building containing multiple properties.
4. According to the landlord’s records, on 30 January 2019 it agreed to install a fire door to the existing kitchen opening in the resident’s property as part of fire regulation upgrades. However, it is unknown when this work was completed based on the information provided to the Ombudsman.
5. On 23 April 2019 the resident attended a “resident consultation event”. She made the landlord aware that she had an issue with mice in her property. According to the landlord’s internal correspondence, the resident believed that mice were chewing at electrical wiring and entering her property though the hall cupboard and electric cooker socket. She also reported that following the installation of the fire door, the “door strip” between her living room and kitchen had been damaged.
6. The landlord organised for an inspection of the resident’s property on 26 April 2019. However, it is not clear whether this was carried out or not.
7. The resident made a formal complaint on 10 July 2019. The landlord summarised her concerns in its complaint acknowledgement letter. She complained that the preventative work needed to address her pest problem had taken a long time to be arranged. She complained that when her fire door was installed, there had been a subsequent issue with the flooring between her kitchen and lounge, and she wanted the landlord to review its decision regarding this. She also complained about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff during a telephone conversation on 10 July 2019. However, the landlord gave no further details in its acknowledgement letter about why the resident was dissatisfied with its staff member’s conduct. 
8. On 9 August 2019 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It confirmed that preventative work had been organised for 10 July 2019 but had not been completed until 24 July 2019. The landlord said that in light of this it would consider adapting its approach to such work to ensure that, when possible, it would be completed on the first visit.
9. It said that it had reviewed its decision regarding the flooring after having discussed it with its contractor and concluded that its decision not to renew her flooring was “the correct one”.
10. It also addressed the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. It said that it was unable to retrieve the recording of this conversation so could not review it. It said that after having discussed the conversation with its staff member, it was satisfied that the individual “did not intend to offend” and that they would make a formal apology to the resident if required.
11. It concluded that the resident’s complaint had been partially upheld and advised that she could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if she was not satisfied with this outcome.
12. On 19 August 2019 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that she had expected a better response than the one she received.
13. According to the landlord’s records, it was unaware of the resident’s escalation request until 26 June 2020 when the resident contacted the landlord and “raised the subject again”. The landlord said that following this conversation, it was unsure whether the resident wanted to escalate her complaint or make a claim for compensation.
14. On 23 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the pest infestation was still ongoing. She said that the landlord had emotionally insulted and “mentally tormented” her. She said that it had refused to take responsibility or accountability for its actions and had “breached the contract that [they had] signed”. She said that the delay in the escalation of the complaint proved the landlord’s “lack of care for the situation”.
15. On 17 September 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident. According to the landlord’s records it acknowledged that the resident “want[ed] to feel justified that her complaint made last year had been taken seriously and fully investigated”.
16. On 30 September 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the delay.
17. It said that its surveyor would visit the building the following week to review any “obvious weak points which may allow vermin to penetrate it”. It advised the resident that she could have her property inspected as well in order to assess whether it was particularly vulnerable to vermin.
18. The landlord said that a new threshold would be installed between the kitchen and the lounge that would cover the area that was originally exposed when the fire door was fitted.
19. It reiterated that it did not have access to the telephone conversation which the resident had raised concerns about. According to the landlord, the resident felt that this conversation had been “inappropriate”. It said that following a further investigation into this conversation, it found that the language used by its member of staff was “ill judged”. It said that a new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy was being developed in order to ensure its staff treated all residents equally.
20. It said that it was disappointed with the level of detail and clarity that was provided in its stage one response as it had not taken the complaint “seriously”. It said that it was unsure what the resident was claiming compensation for as any damages to the resident’s belongings would be subject to a claim on her contents insurance. It acknowledged that its stage one response was not adequate and offered her £50 for this. Also, it offered her £20 as a “fixed award to reflect [its late response”.
21. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
22. On 18 January 2021 the landlord contacted this Service. It said that it had previously contacted the resident to offer her mediation in response to her staff conduct complaint, but the resident had declined this offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation affecting her property.

23. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, a resident is responsible for ensuring that their property is pest free. However, the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of internal structures, communal areas, and electrical installations. Therefore, when the resident reported in April 2019 that she believed mice were entering her property through the hall cupboard and electric cooker socket, the landlord would have been expected to investigate her concerns to determine whether there were any issues with the structure of the building as this would be its responsibility to maintain. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation of the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns until July 2019.
24. In July 2019 the landlord organised preventative work to be carried out in the resident’s property. However, the resident was dissatisfied that the work was not completed in the first instance and that there was a delay. In response to this, the landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from this complaint as it said that it would adapt its approach to pest infestation works. Then in September 2020, following the resident’s reports that mice were still present in her property, the landlord organised a visit from its surveyor to inspect the building and also offered the resident an inspection inside her property.
25. In short, it is not disputed that the landlord delayed in addressing the resident’s initial concerns of mice entering her property. However, it acknowledged that there may have been an issue with the building’s structure which would fall under its remit and took appropriate action to address and investigate this. It was also appropriate for the landlord to have offered the resident an inspection inside her property as it had recognised that this was an ongoing issue for her. An inspection would have been able to determine whether any further action would be necessary from either the landlord or resident in order to resolve her mice problem. Therefore, despite the delay, it took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports in order to respond to her complaint and monitor the problem.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request regarding the renewal of the flooring between her kitchen and lounge.

26. From the evidence that has been provided for this investigation it is not entirely clear how or when the flooring in the resident’s property was damaged. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord would have been obligated to carry out any repair work on the flooring in accordance with its repairs policy. Nevertheless, the resident initially complained because she wanted the landlord to review it decision regarding the renewal of the flooring between her kitchen and lounge. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord said that it had reviewed its decision but had decided that it would not renew the flooring. Although the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome, the landlord demonstrated that it had done as she had requested in order to respond to her complaint as it had also sought advice from its contractor. Then, in its stage two response, it said that a threshold would be installed in order to cover the exposed area on the flooring. It is not entirely clear why the landlord changed its mind in its stage two response and decided to act upon the resident’s complaint. However, it was an appropriate response from the landlord as it acknowledged the need to carry out a repair and took responsibility for this issue. As such, the landlord ultimately took steps in order to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.

27. The landlord explained to the resident that it could not retrieve a recording of the phone conversation which she had raised concerns about. Therefore, it would have been limited with what reasonable action it could have taken in order to investigate the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, despite the lack of evidence, it still spoke to its member of staff addressing the concerns the resident had raised and offered her a formal apology. It demonstrated that it had learnt from this situation with the new equality, diversity, and inclusion strategy it had begun to develop and also offered the resident mediation sessions to address her concerns. These were appropriate and fair responses by the landlord given the circumstances. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the landlord could have taken any further action to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint about these matters.

28. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that it had unreasonably delayed in escalating the resident’s complaint which, in turn, delayed her referring her complaint to this Service. Also, this delay meant that the landlord was unable conduct a full investigation into the concerns that the resident had raised whilst they were still ‘live’. Rather, it carried out its stage two investigation over a year after the resident had asked to escalate her complaint. Nevertheless, it put things right by then offering the resident £20 compensation in light of its failing. The landlord also acknowledged that its initial stage one complaint response was inadequate after the resident had said that she was dissatisfied with the initial response and wanted a thorough investigation into her concerns from July 2019. It therefore offered the resident £50 compensation for this shortcoming. These were reasonable offers, in line with its compensation policy and what the Ombudsman would expect in this circumstance.
29. Ultimately, the landlord explained that it had not received the resident’s escalation request but then took steps to investigate her concerns and progress her complaint. In light of its shortcomings it made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The offer of compensation to redress what went wrong was proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation affecting her property.
31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request regarding the renewal of the flooring between her kitchen and lounge.
32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff.
33. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation for its handling of the associated formal complaint about these matters, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.