The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Home Group Limited (202008927)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008927

Home Group Limited

31 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 is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of the resident’s report that its operatives attended the property without prior notice;
    2. handling of the resident’s report that its operatives attended without appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and did not maintain social distancing and;
    3. removal of waste items left outside the resident’s flat.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat in a block of four flats (the property).

 

  1. The resident had previously experienced a flood from the flat above which damaged his kitchen. The landlord has since found alternative housing for the resident and he has vacated the property.

 

  1. Section 4.4 of landlord’s document ‘Doing it the right way: Covid-19– Guidance for colleagues working in our communities’ (dated 1 June 2020), stated that when visiting residents at home, knock on the door, take three steps back and wait for an answer. Section 5 titled ‘Maintenance and repairs’, stated that it will continue to carry out emergency repairs. Further, it stated that it is working with contractors to ensure that adequate risk management is in place for other maintenance tasks such as the majority of voids works, responsive repairs and planned works.

 

  1. The landlord’s contractor ‘PPE protocol’ as stated in an internal email dated 27 May 2020, included that it risk assessed all jobs, observed social distancing and the Government’s working in peoples home guidance and, in the event of visiting in an emergency whilst a customer had symptoms, operatives must wear full PPE.

 

  1. Section six of the Government’s ‘Guidance for people working in, visiting or delivering to other people’s homes’, published on 11 May 2020, stated: “people are also encouraged to wear face covering in enclosed public spaces where there are people they do not normally meet”.

 

  1. Under section 2.6 of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the communal parts including entrances and halls. Further, section 3.15 states the tenant is responsible to ensure that refuse is removed by special arrangement if necessary.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation awards generated as part a result of a formal complaint and is granted usually as a result of a service failure.

 

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord visited the resident at the property on 12 June 2020 to hand deliver a letter due to concerns raised by other residents on 11 June 2020 that kitchen units and appliances had been left in the communal area. It also wanted to check that the resident’s kitchen was in a useable and safe condition, in particular the electrical wiring and ceiling. The landlord’s records show it tried to call the resident’s support worker in mental health services either on 11 or 12 June 2020 as it was concerned about his wellbeing but there is no evidence that it spoke to his support worker before attending.

 

  1. The resident refused the operatives entry to his home on 12 June 2020. The landlord left the letter requesting removal of the items, under the resident’s front door. The landlord arranged an “emergency job” for the items in the communal hallway to be removed to the exterior of the building next to the bins on 11 June and 12 June 2020.

 

  1. Later in the day on 12 June 2020, the resident complained by email to the landlord that it had sent operatives to his home without an appointment demanding access. He stated the landlord was aware he was in a “high-risk group” and its operatives had failed to observe social distancing rules or wear any PPE whilst “eighteen inches” away from him; the hallway is only 2.2 metres wide. He said they “broke the law and endangered his health” and that he now needed to get tested and/or isolate from his family. Further, he said his neighbour witnessed the visit and that they had a video recording of it. The resident requested that the landlord investigate.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal communications show that it sought a response to the complaint from relevant members of staff including the two operatives who visited the resident. The operatives confirmed they were not wearing masks or any other PPE equipment but said they would have worn them out of courtesy had they entered the resident’s property. They also stated that they stood back from the resident’s front door in order to comply with social distancing rules and this was only breached when the resident stepped out of the doorway into the hallway. In other internal communications, the landlord acknowledged the communal hallway was “very small”.

 

  1. In a phone call to the landlord on 15 June 2020, the resident advised the items had not blocked access to the fire escape or stairs and he had arranged for the waste to be collected. He said that by moving these items to the external area by the bin store it meant he could be liable for fly tipping charges from the local council. He had now re-arranged for the waste to be collected that day.  He reiterated that the operatives had not observed the two-metre social distancing rule when they visited on 12 June 2020. The landlord’s internal communications also refer to a voicemail message left by the resident around this time advising he had removed the waste from the car park and brought it back into the communal area.

 

  1. The landlord visited the resident’s building on 19 June 2020 and confirmed the communal area had been cleared of the items. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2020 asking why someone had come out that day to remove the rubbish when he had already had it removed and had told it of this. In response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had previously removed the items and said it was likely that the job for collection of the items had not been cancelled.

 

  1. The landlord sent a stage one response on 23 July 2020 in which it confirmed two members of its Maintenance team had visited the resident on 12 June 2020 due to:
    1. Reports from residents about the waste items placed in the communal area. The landlord stated that the storage of items in the communal hallway (for any length of time) was against fire regulations and it was required to act upon such reports.
    2. A concern about the condition of the kitchen following the resident’s removal of appliances.
    3. To hand deliver a letter requesting the removal of the items from the communal area.
  2. It explained that as the resident’s contact details had been removed from the account at his request, it had been unable to contact him to arrange an appointment. In response to his complaint about a failure by its operatives to observe the two-metre social distancing rule, its operative had advised that he knocked on the front door and then stood back from the door. This operative said he was equipped with a mask and gloves but was not wearing a mask at the time.  He also said the resident had sworn at them and been aggressive, telling them to leave. Its operative said that after opening the door again the resident then advised he would not let them check the property and that the resident came out of the property whilst approaching him in an aggressive manner before returning to the property.  Its operative said he left the letter under the front door. The landlord stated its current PPE policy was that it would only attend wearing full PPE if a member of the household was symptomatic and said its operative would have worn the mask he held, had he been granted full access.

 

  1. In response to the resident’s complaint that moving these items to the external area by the bin store meant he was liable for potential fly tipping charges from the local council, the landlord stated that it had arranged for items to be removed on the day of the letter delivery in order to comply with current fire safety regulations. It said once it had been removed to the exterior of the building, it assumed responsibility for it. The landlord stated that a further visit to remove the items was scheduled but the resident had already taken steps to arrange its removal privately.

 

  1. In its stage one response it also advised that the use of inappropriate or aggressive language or behaviour towards its staff was unacceptable and could lead to him to being in breach of his tenancy agreement. It stated it was not upholding the resident’s complaint and referred him to the “enclosed complaints leaflet”.

 

  1. The landlord also emailed the resident on 23 July 2020 reiterating the main points of its 23 July 2020 stage one formal letter. This was in response to an email from the resident dated 17 July 2020 asking for an update on the complaint response.

 

  1. The resident replied stating the landlord had not addressed his complaint that its operatives broke the law. He disputed that staff had stepped back from his doorway and also their claim that he crossed his doorway at any time. He also said the landlord knew he was in a high-risk group but did not care.

 

 

  1. The resident requested escalation to stage two on 14 September 2020.

 

  1. The landlord issued a stage two response on 1 October 2020 in which it stated it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and confirmed that it was upholding the outcome of its stage one investigation. It further stated that it was satisfied had been no failure in service and that its staff did not demonstrate misconduct in relation to this matter. It also confirmed that no laws were broken as suggested within his stage two complaint escalation.

Assessment and findings

Operatives attending the property without prior notice

  1. The landlord’s Covid-19 Guidance for colleagues working in communities document allows for its staff to attend repairs in emergencies.

 

  1. The landlord has a responsibility to check if items are being left in the communal areas as it is expected to keep the communal area clean and clear of any health and safety/fire safety risks. In its stage one response it explained this and said it had attended the property on 12 June 2020 in response to reports received from residents on 11 June 2020 about items left in the communal area blocking access and to hand deliver a letter to the resident about this. It also advised that it was concerned that the kitchen at the property had been left in an unusable and unsafe condition, particularly the electrical wiring and ceiling making the property unfit for habitation and said this situation required immediate attention.

 

  1. The landlord could have sent the letter in the post to the resident about the items left in the communal area prior to clearing them which would have avoided its interaction with the resident on 12 June 2020. However, due to additional concerns the landlord had about the condition of the kitchen, on balance it was reasonable for it to attend in case any emergency repairs were needed although, as it turned out, the landlord was unable to assess the state of the kitchen when it visited as the resident refused access.

 

  1. Due to these safety concerns described, on balance, the landlord’s decision to attend the property was reasonable although the dispute may have been avoided if the landlord had notified the resident of its intention to visit, for example by letter, when it first found out about the issues on 11 June 2020. However, this issue alone is not sufficiently serious to establish any service failure by the landlord.

 

Operatives attending the property without PPE or observing the two-metre social distancing rule

  1. The landlord’s protocol required observance of the two-metre social distancing rule and that operatives stand three steps back after knocking the front door. However, it did not require full PPE when attending an emergency unless a resident had Covid-19 symptoms. It is not disputed that the landlord’s operatives did not wear face masks or any PPE equipment, the explanation for this is they were not inside the flat and they were aiming to maintain a two-metre distance from the resident. It is also not disputed that the hallway of the resident’s building was narrow, however the resident says the hallway was more than two metres wide so it seems possible to maintain an adequate distance.  The operatives said they were two metres away and that the only time this distance was reduced was when the resident stepped outside of his doorway.  The resident says however that the operatives did not keep two metres away from him and he also disputes that he stepped outside the front doorway. It is evident that the operatives were aware of the two metre distance guidelines and whilst the version of events differ it is also evident that the two metres were not always maintained.

 

  1. The landlord’s contractor PPE protocol at the time also required that it risk assessed all jobs and in the event a resident had Covid-19 symptoms, operatives must wear PPE. A statement from the landlord’s operative confirms there was no ‘official risk assessment’ as they attended as an emergency and the resident had previously requested for the landlord to remove contact information for him from its records including telephone number and email address. The evidence confirms that the resident had previously requested that the landlord remove his contact details. This would have prevented the landlord from calling the resident to ask if he had Covid-19 symptoms, was shielding or was in a Covid-19 “high risk” group before visiting him on 12 June 2020. The landlord’s records do show it tried to call the resident’s support worker in mental health services either on 11 or 12 June 2020 as it was concerned about his wellbeing but there is no evidence that it spoke to his support worker before attending.

 

  1. It is also noted that in his communications to the landlord, the resident complained that it had visited his property whilst it knew he was in a “high-risk” category. The resident has not provided any further details and the landlord has not responded, either in its complaints process or elsewhere, to this specific complaint. As such, whilst it is not clear what the resident means by being ‘high-risk’, it is evident the landlord tried to contact his support worker in advance of the visit so this indicated it believed extra steps were required in regard to the visit or the resident’s wellbeing.

 

  1. As the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment and because the narrow hallway may have impacted the operatives’ ability to keep two metres away, it was reasonable to expect them to have worn the masks in their possession as a caution when at the resident’s door, in order to minimise risk of transmission of Covid-19. Government guidance at the time also encouraged people to wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces where there are “people they do not normally meet”. In the circumstances, the failure to do so by the landlord amounts to a service failure, albeit a minor one. The landlord did not identify its shortcoming when responding to the complaint.

 

Items moved by the landlord to the exterior of the property building

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the communal parts of the property building including entrances and halls. The resident is responsible for ensuring that refuse is removed by special arrangement if necessary.  The landlord arranged for the discarded kitchen units and appliances left in the communal hallway, to be removed following reports received from residents about this. The items were placed next to the bins at the exterior of the building. Due to the concern about the items obstructing access in breach of fire regulations, the landlord was entitled to take this action as the resident had not removed it by the time the landlord attended following the reports received. Therefore, the action taken by the landlord was justified and proportionate.

 

  1. In response to the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s actions in moving the items externally had left him liable for fly tipping, the landlord stated in its stage one response that once the items had been moved to the exterior at its request, it assumed responsibility for it. The landlord did make arrangements for the items to be removed from the exterior of the building, however, the resident had already arranged for its removal privately by this time.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s report that its operatives attended the property without prior notice.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling of the resident’s report that its operatives attended the property appropriate PPE and did not maintain social distancing.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when removing waste items from outside the resident’s flat.

 

 

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s Covid-19 Guidance allows for its staff to attend repairs in emergencies. On receiving reports from residents that kitchen units and appliances had been removed from the property and discarded in the communal area, due to its safety concerns, in particular about electrics in the kitchen being left in an unusable and unsafe condition, it was reasonable for its operatives to visit the resident without notice, in case any emergency repairs were necessary.

 

  1. The landlord’s Covid-19 protocol did not require operatives to wear PPE unless a resident had Covid-19 symptoms. However, as it had not carried out a full risk assessment prior to visiting the property as required, it did not know if the resident had Covid-19 symptoms or if he was in a vulnerable or high-risk group. In this circumstance, it was reasonable to have expected operatives to have worn the face masks in their possession as a caution, in order to minimise the risk of Covid-19 transmission, particularly as the hallway in the property building was narrow and Government guidance encouraged wearing face masks in enclosed public spaces.

 

  1. It was reasonable for the landlord to remove kitchen units and appliances discarded in the communal area which had not been removed by the resident, due to concern about them obstructing access in breach of fire regulations. Further, it was reasonable in the circumstance for the landlord to move the items to the exterior of the building which it accepted responsibility for until collection.    

 

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord shall:
  1. pay the resident the £50 in compensation for failing to wear face masks whilst at the resident’s front door on an emergency visit.

 

  1. comply with the above order within four weeks.

Recommendation

 

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its Covid-19 guidance to ensure it is clear about what measures staff should take when a risk-assessment cannot be undertaken in an emergency visit.