Great Places Housing Association (202339026)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339026

Great Places Housing Association

31 July 2024

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 communication instructions.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 1998. The property is a 3-bedroom mid-terrace house. The landlord is a housing association. Due to a language barrier, the resident’s son acts as her representative (hereinafter referred to as the representative).
On 20 September 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out a gas safety check at the property and identified a missing hob plate and cooker knob. This was categorised as ‘immediately dangerous’ and not safe to use. As a result, the gas supply to the cooker hob was capped off.
The contractor communicated to the resident with ‘hand gestures’ that there was an issue with the cooker and the gas supply had been isolated as a result. The contractor did not contact either of the numbers provided on the pre-entry survey form during or after the visit.
On 21 September 2023, a series of phone calls, texts, and emails were exchanged between the representative, the landlord, and its contractor. The representative asked the contractor a number of questions; mainly why the gas supply was ‘terminated’, why he was not updated on the day, and why the contractor had not adhered to the communication instructions provided previously. During these exchanges, the representative was informed that the gas supply was isolated because of a missing hob plate. One of these calls between the representative and the contractor was terminated.
On the same day the representative asked the contractor for all future communication to be only via text with him to avoid further misunderstandings, and to ensure a clear trail of correspondence. He requested the deletion of contact numbers held by the landlord and its contractor for anyone besides him.
The representative made a complaint to the landlord on 21 September 2023 about its communication failures. He said the contractor had previously been notified on multiple occasions of the resident’s vulnerabilities and advised to communicate only with him. He said the contractor should have called him on 20 September 2023 to explain the issue.
The representative added to the complaint following an unsuccessful return visit by the contractor on 22 September 2023. Following the visit the representative was informed that there was a missing cooker knob and 2 additional faulty knobs that also had to be repaired before the gas supply could resume. He said when enquiries were made on 21 September 2023, the contractor gave partial information about the reason for the gas isolation, which led to further delays in getting the matter resolved. He said this was the result of poor communication.
The representative arranged to repair the cooker and for a gas engineer to restore the gas supply in the week ending 29 September 2023 (exact date not known).
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. It said the gas supply was isolated as a safety measure, and this was communicated to the resident by the contractor using hand gestures, and he felt that she had understood. The contractor left corresponding paperwork with the resident (which set out the faults and action taken) and noted that she had access to an air fryer, microwave, and electric fan oven. Therefore, the engineer did not feel the situation was an emergency and could be dealt with the next day.
The landlord went on to say that the contractor called the representative the next day and explained the gas isolation issue. The contractor then contacted the landlord to clarify communication arrangements as the resident’s son was not listed as a representative on their paperwork. The landlord said that, due to a system change in April 2022, the resident’s communication instructions had been lost. As a result the landlord had not notified the contractor of them.
The landlord apologised for the unclear communication by the contractor and its own failure to pass on the communication instructions to them, and offered £100 for the poor communication and its data transfer error. It said the system had now been updated with the communication instructions and all future communication would be with the representative where possible.
The landlord went on to say that, as it had no vulnerabilities listed for the resident, it would still directly communicate with her either through an available family member or a speaker of her first language. It advised that the resident would need to write and request for the representative to be an advocate if she wanted him to deal with the landlord exclusively on her behalf.
The representative was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to stage 2. In summary, he was pleased the landlord acknowledged its service shortfall but felt the contractor had shown no accountability or acknowledgement of their role. He said service shortfalls could be understood as long as companies took steps to rectify matters, but to ignore or not acknowledge service failures was unacceptable.
The representative further said the contractor’s claim to be unaware of the resident’s vulnerabilities was puzzling as they had been informed during previous conversations that she was diabetic with mobility and memory issues, and there were physical signs within the property such as a stairlift which they would have seen during the visit.
The representative said that the contractor had been informed on at least 3 separate occasions prior to the visit about the communication instructions which they had ignored (dates of the contact were provided). He said that he had also given instructions previously to the landlord to remove the contact number it held for the resident’s granddaughter and that she had also asked the contractor to do so in a call of 8 August 2023.
The representative went on to say that he understood the need to isolate the gas supply because it was a safety risk but it was unacceptable that, despite instructions to contact only him, this was not done, and the contractor had still not acknowledged its failing in this regard.
The representative further expressed concerns about how the contractor handled the phone call of 21 September 2023, which was terminated. He said the contractor called after a voicemail had been left. During the phone call, when the resident’s medical condition was mentioned, there was an attempt to minimise its impact by the contractor who said that they too were diabetic.
There was further dialogue during the call where the representative felt that statements were deliberately misconstrued by the contractor to minimise or dispute the impact of the hob isolation. He believed the contractor terminated the call not because his behaviour was unacceptable but because the operative did not like the questions being posed and they were not able to provide clarification.
He said at no point in the correspondence of 21 September 2023 was he advised that the issue was not just a missing hob plate but also the cooker knobs. And it was due to this partial information that then necessitated further calls to be made later. He said that, had the full information and explanation been provided to him on 20 September 2023, all the correspondence that followed would not have been necessary.
The representative said the contractor had also returned to the property on 22 September 2023 without confirming with him via text as explicitly requested, and so no one had been present when they arrived (they later gained access). He said, not only did they fail to confirm the visit, they then did not contact him with an update despite the standing instructions, and even after the relative present at the property asked them to do so. The representative found out about the visit when he called the landlord to enquire when things would be resolved.
He said the contractor had failed to acknowledge the inconvenience resulting from their poor communication. He wanted the landlord to reevaluate the offered compensation and the contractor’s involvement with future works at the property.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 November 2023, it said it would discuss with the contractor their failure to record the resident’s advised vulnerabilities and apologised for this. It said the representative’s contact details were noted on the pre-entry form as an emergency contact and were available to the contractor (if they had checked the form) despite the system error that had removed them from the landlord’s records.
The landlord apologised for the breakdown in communication and the failure to follow instructions. It said it had taken steps to put things right by providing feedback to the contractor, requesting a ‘toolbox talk’ to prevent the issues from reoccurring for future works, reviewing its systems to ensure the correct contact information was recorded and made available, and undertaking a case review and sharing feedback internally and with contractors.
The landlord said it would further make arrangements to collate feedback from adjoining customers on its contractor’s performance on the recent investment works, and review how it could improve its service delivery and customer experience. It reiterated the offer of £100 compensation.
The representative remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman in November 2023, when he advised that he sought further compensation from the landlord for its failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The representative has told this Service that he is also unhappy with the replacement work for the downstairs bathroom, for which he says the landlord’s contractor had to return 3 or 4 times before it was completed to the required standard. While the landlord’s stage 2 response briefly mentioned snagging issues with the bathroom amongst other things, the replacement bathroom work did not form part of the complaint investigation. This would need to be logged as a complaint with the landlord in the first instance. Once the landlord has completed its complaint process, and if the representative remains dissatisfied with its response, the matter can then be referred to the Ombudsman (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).

The landlord’s handling of communication

The landlord has accepted its own and its contractor’s poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before this Service is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.
The landlord’s remedies and resolutions policy (drafted with consideration of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance) says it considers a variety of remedies to reach appropriate and proportionate resolutions. It lists non-financial remedies such as apologies, acknowledging service failures, demonstrating it has learned from what went wrong, and plans for future improvements.
The policy also sets out when the landlord pays compensation to residents. Under its discretionary compensation, it says compensation may be awarded in response to dissatisfaction, inconvenience, and/or where it is considered necessary to acknowledge poor service.
Under examples of scenarios where compensation may be offered it lists, amongst others, the provision of incorrect or inadequate information and/or explanation, and where there is evidence of unprofessionalism by colleagues or representatives working on behalf of the landlord. The policy further says compensation is paid at an amount of £50-£150 where the impact on the resident of its failure was not significant and was short-term. Short-term is defined as between one day and up to 3 months.
Under the tenancy agreement, the cooker is a ‘white’ appliance and the responsibility of the resident to repair and maintain. However, where health and safety risks are identified, the landlord is entitled to take action necessary to make such appliances safe. The action undertaken by the landlord’s contractor on 20 September 2023, therefore, was in line with its tenancy obligations. This is not in dispute by the representative who has been clear in his understanding of the reasons for the isolation.
In investigating the complaint, this Service has seen communication where the contractor said their operative ‘waved his arms over the cooker’ to show it was faulty, and that paperwork outlining the issue was left. The contractor said the resident ‘fully understood’ the reason why the gas supply was isolated before they departed on the day. They said they confirmed the resident had access to other means of preparing food, and as it was mid-afternoon their operative thought ‘it could wait until morning’ and so did not contact the representative that day. These were not appropriate or reasonable actions.
Waving arms over a cooker, where there was a visibly missing knob prompting the resident to take it out from the drawer, does not indicate her understanding of what actually happened. If she had ‘correctly’ understood the issue then providing the knob on the day ought to have resolved it; but it did not. Not only did the resident not understand the underlying issue, she cannot reasonably be expected to understand that her gas supply had been capped off from the waving of arms or hand gestures.
The contractor was aware the resident did not speak English, so it was not reasonable for them to assume she would be able to read the paperwork left with her and understand the issue. Nor would it be reasonable to assume that the representative or someone else would visit that day, see the paperwork, and explain it to her. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the contractor left the property with the knowledge that the resident was unaware of the issues and the gas isolation, but took no steps to inform the representative.
The contractor failed to communicate with the resident in line with her instructions. Further, they displayed insensitivity and a lack of respect in their actions when they tried to communicate with her by waving arms and gesturing with their hands. Trying to communicate in this way was unnecessary where instructions had been provided previously. Had these instructions been followed, it would have ensured the resident and her representative fully understood the actions undertaken during the visit, the reasons for them, and the actions required to get the issue resolved.
The contractor told the landlord that they made the judgement on 20 September 2023 that contact with the representative ‘could wait until the morning’. They may have ascertained that the resident had access to other methods of food preparation, but it was not reasonable to effectively delay her ability to address the issue by purchasing the missing parts on that day. The delay in purchasing the parts was further exacerbated by the partial information the contractor then provided when they eventually updated the representative.
The contractor said that they tried to contact the numbers on the pre-entry form the next day but could not get through. This Service has not, however, seen evidence that an update was provided or attempted to the resident on 21 September 2023 until the representative initiated contact by leaving a voicemail.
The contractor had the opportunity to apologise for its failure during this call and provide a comprehensive summary of the issue and the actions required to resume the gas supply. Instead, only partial information was given, the contractor was unable to give satisfactory explanations for their decision and actions regarding the communication failure, and ultimately terminated the call.
In the communication exchanged between the landlord and its contractor on 21 September 2023 following the call, the contractor said the representative was rude, could not understand the reasons behind disconnecting the hob, demanded that the contractor only speak directly to him, and asked to raise a complaint. The correspondence exchanged on 22 September 2023 mentions multiple abrupt emails, texts, and ‘unnecessary complaints’ about the disconnection and the failure to adhere with the contact preferences.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy says it wants to hear from residents about the services it provides, and where residents are not happy with the quality of the service received or the way they have been treated by its staff or contractors, they have the right to complain.
It is clear that the questions posed by the representative were robust, and perhaps even uncomfortable to field in the absence of a reasonable explanation. However, in all the communication records provided to this Service, there is no evidence that the representative has at any point contested the rationale for the decision to isolate the gas supply. The main concern remained the delay caused by the landlord and its contractor’s failure to follow the communication instructions, to update the representative about the disconnection in a timely manner, and to sufficiently and comprehensively explain the reasons for it.
The instructions to only contact the representative are not unreasonable demands, and the multiple calls and emails by the representative were necessitated by the landlord and the contractor’s service failures and the representative’s understandable desire to resume the gas supply to the cooker at the earliest opportunity. The complaint/s that then followed were also not unnecessary as the resident had the right to make those complaints where there were concerns about the quality of the service received.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its unreasonable behaviour policy. This Service has also not been provided with detailed evidence related to the events leading to the termination of the call on 21 September 2023; such as the specifics of the alleged rude behaviour or words that were considered unreasonable, whether a warning was issued giving the representative the chance to amend said behaviour, or if the call was only then terminated as the last resort when the behaviour continued.
The landlord or its agents, such as the contractor in this instance, should not terminate calls because they become uncomfortable or challenging. If the call crosses the line, it is right to manage that behaviour but opportunities should be provided to correct said behaviour by outlining why it is unacceptable. Only then, if the behaviour continues would we expect to see the call terminated after a warning. This is what would be considered effective handling of unreasonable behaviour and in line with good customer service practices and this Service’s expectations.
The landlord accepted that the resident had previously authorised a representative to act on her behalf and those instructions were lost due to a system error. However, it then asked the resident to go through the process again. It further told her that, as it had no vulnerabilities recorded for her, it would communicate directly with her via another relative or a speaker of her first language on its staff where available. This is not reasonable.
The landlord said it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but it was on notice of her vulnerabilities even at the time of writing its stage 1 response. In an internal email of 5 September 2023, it is noted that the resident ‘struggles’ with English and has asked that the landlord deals with her son. In a further internal email of 6 September 2023, it is noted that the resident is disabled. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect the landlord to have recorded these vulnerabilities and for its contractor to be made aware of them.
The resident has the right to ask the landlord to liaise with her appointed representative regardless of underlying vulnerabilities. However, when raising the complaint, the representative set out the resident’s vulnerabilities, including her memory issues. Amongst other things, having one person who is aware of all relevant matters reduces the likelihood of confusion, of things getting lost in translation, and issues getting overlooked because the matter has passed through several hands or individuals. A single point of contact is a reasonable request.
The landlord’s assertion that it would go outside the resident’s contact instructions was not reasonable. There may be times when it is not possible to follow those instructions despite best efforts, but that should be the exception, not the rule.
The landlord has not explained to the resident or this Service why she had to go through the process of reappointing the representative. It is possible that the relevant documentation with the authorisation was lost when the system error occurred and so had to be reacquired; but if so this should have been explained. In the absence of an explanation, it is unreasonable that the resident had to take time to re-do something she had already done.
Further, an adequate explanation about the difference between an advocate and a representative was not provided; causing the representative to question why she had to appoint an advocate at all. If this explanation has not been provided since then, the landlord should provide it now.
The landlord took some steps after the complaint was logged to redress matters such as providing feedback to its contractors, liaising with them to review how improvements can be made, and making an apology and an award of compensation. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
The representative has said there are concerns over the contractor’s suitability to carry out future works and the complaint itself remained unresolved until that was decided. The landlord identified improvement needs and arranged to discuss those with the contractor. It is expected that such discussions would continue post complaint, but this does not mean the complaint remains incomplete.
Where failings are identified, the appropriate step for the landlord is to address those and make improvements, as it has. It would also not ordinarily follow that the contractor is removed from all future works, unless it is appropriate to do so. Where there have been significant issues, this is a step a landlord might take, but that would be disproportionate in this instance. If there are additional concerns about the contractor, those need to be raised separately with the landlord to follow its complaints process.
The apology, explanations, and the compensation offered, however, did not adequately reflect that the landlord fully understood the several points of failure or the impact of its failures on the resident. Moreover, it told the resident and then this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded, despite the evidence demonstrating that it was put on notice of them.
It is clear, therefore, that the landlord failed to consider the impact of the situation on the resident as a vulnerable individual when assessing the compensation award. While the landlord’s offered compensation falls within its defined policy bracket, it does not adequately reflect the multiple instances of service failure and the resulting avoidable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her representative.
The identified failures amount to maladministration and the landlord is therefore ordered below to apologise for these failings and pay the resident a further £200, in addition to the £100 previously offered, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
This Service encourages landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In January 2024, we published our Spotlight on attitudes, respect and rights. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless it can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s communication instructions.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and the representative with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for the identified failures.
2. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £300 compensation. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered by the landlord.
3. Provide an explanation for:
  1. why the resident had to go through the process of re-appointing her representative.
  2. How an advocate is different from a representative.