Homes Plus Limited (202231464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231464

Homes Plus Limited

09 April 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord entering the resident’s property by force and without permission to effect repairs.
   2. The compensation awarded as part of its complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident had been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2014. She lived in the property, a 2-bedroom flat with her husband and children. The resident had served notice for her tenancy to end on 12 December 2022. As her new property was not going to be ready, she asked the landlord to extend her notice period to 2 January 2023. The landlord agreed to the extension.
3. There had been a leak in the resident’s property that was affecting the neighbour in the flat below. The neighbour first reported the issue in November 2022. The landlord had made numerous visits to both properties to locate and repair the leak. On 30 December 2022, the neighbour contacted the landlord and told it that water was coming through the ceiling and into the electrics. The landlord attended the property the same day, forced entry and turned off the water.
4. On 1 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint. She said:
   1. There had been an ongoing repair in her property regarding a leak into the property of her downstairs neighbour.
   2. The landlord’s operatives had attended her property on a number of occasions to find the leak. This had caused disruption and inconvenience. However, they had always allowed the landlord access even when they were trying to move out.
   3. On 30 December 2022, her husband had gone to the property to remove carpets and rubbish. When he arrived, he found a smashed window and workers inside. They told him they had to break the window to get access to shut off the water.
   4. Her tenancy ran until 2 January 2023. The landlord had not called to inform her it was going to enter, or ask her to provide access, which she would have done. There was no need for the landlord to have entered the property as the leak was not causing any danger or electrical risks.
   5. She had been told that the occupiers of the flat downstairs had been given the code to the key safe to her property and had gone inside. The landlord had no right to provide this information. It was illegal for the neighbour to let themselves into the property.
   6. Her mother’s possessions had been in the property which had sentimental value. The landlord’s actions had caused stress, upset and scared her children.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2023. It summarised the resident’s complaint and listed the following points.
   1. There had been an ongoing leak affecting the property below. The leak was causing damage to the property and distress to the occupant.
   2. It was concerned about the possibility of the leak shorting the electrics and causing a fire. It was aware the resident was in the process of moving out and not in the property. It forced entry to the property without notice to shut off the water. With hindsight it realised it should have contacted the resident to gain access and apologised it had not.
   3. It admitted that it gave the occupants from the flat below the key code to her property. This was provided as a precaution in the event that access was required again. It was surprised that the neighbours had entered the property. It apologised for the neighbour’s actions.
   4. It realised it had been a trying time for the resident and her family. It had acted to respond to a dangerous situation but understood how aggrieved she felt.
   5. It upheld the complaint. It acknowledged it took actions while she still had a tenancy at the property and communication could have been better. As compensation it offered a refund of the final weeks rent (£94.95) and a £50 goodwill gesture.
6. On 18 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 response. She said:
   1. The issue had caused the family a lot of stress and upset. Her children have a condition which affected their nervous system. They were scared and finding it difficult to sleep because of what had happened.
   2. She still had a tenancy for the property and was in the process of moving out. Her personal belongings were still there when the landlord provided the neighbour with the code to the key safe.
   3. The landlord had said that it had turned the water off, it was therefore not likely that any further issues would arise that would have required access. She found it unacceptable that the landlord had given the neighbour access to her property.
   4. The landlord had not told her previously that there was any risk associated with the electrics.
   5. She said she wanted the landlord to increase the amount of compensation or escalate the complaint to stage 2.
7. The landlord spoke to the resident on 24 January 2023. She told it that the event had a significant impact on her family due to her son’s additional needs. She wanted additional compensation and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. It acknowledged that the resident was not satisfied with the stage 1 response due to the level of compensation it had offered. It upheld her complaint and listed the following points:
   1. On 30 December 2022 it had received a call that the leak was affecting the electrics in the neighbouring property. The operatives attended. When there was no answer to the resident’s door, they forced entry.
   2. It agreed that the operatives should have attempted to call her before forcing entry to the property. However, they were dealing with an emergency involving electrics and water that posed an immediate danger, which is why they had to gain access immediately.
   3. It understood it had been a distressing experience for the resident to discover that the landlord had forced entry into her home.
   4. It had then secured the property and fitted a key safe to allow future access. The code had been shared with the neighbour in case of another emergency. It now realised it should not have shared the code and apologised.
   5. It had spoken to the resident on 24 January 2023 about the level of compensation she would accept but she had been unwilling to discuss an amount. It had reviewed the case and consulted its compensation policy. It offered an additional £50, making the total offered £194.95.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 February 2023. She told it she was not willing to accept the compensation that had been offered in the stage 2 response. Her children had been affected by the landlord’s actions and the landlord had provided the neighbours with access to her property without her consent. For these reasons she expected the compensation to be £600.
10. The landlord responded on 3 March 2023 It said it had reviewed her case with a senior manager. It was unable to award the amount the resident wanted. However, it had increased the compensation offer to £300 as an acknowledgement of the impact the incident had on her. She replied the same day and advised she would accept the increased offer if the compensation was paid directly into her bank account and not taken off her rent arrears. On 10 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it was unable to agree to this request due to her rent arrears. If she did not want to accept its offer, she could approach the Housing Ombudsman.
11. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 10 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident has reported that the landlord’s forced entry to the property exacerbated her children’s health condition, which left them scared and caused difficulty sleeping. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s actions and these symptoms. A determination relating to damages caused to the children’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s access to the resident’s property to shut off the water

13. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have an obligation to keep in repair and proper working order installations, for the supply of water. This landlord’s obligation was confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
14. For normal repairs, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to provide notice before entering the property. In the case of emergencies that create a risk to life or damage to the property, a landlord can enter without notice. Examples of emergencies would include, fire, urgent structural repair or water leaking into a neighbouring property.
15. The resident’s tenancy agreement explains the steps the landlord can take when responding to emergencies. If an emergency arises or it believed there was an imminent risk to any person or property, it has the right to enter the home at any time using reasonable force, if necessary, and carry out any work to the home, neighbour’s home or to any communal parts near the home.
16. The landlord informed this service that its operatives attended due to the neighbour’s reports of the leak entering his property. They went to the resident’s house and knocked the door to gain access but there was nobody home. The operative then called his manager who was aware the resident was in the process of moving house. He gave permission for the operative to enter by force and shut off the water supply.
17. Gaining access to a resident’s property without notice and by force should be a last resort. A landlord must consider all options before doing so. It is acknowledged that the resident was not there as she was moving house, but this does not mean she was not contactable. Before forcing entry, the landlord should have made all reasonable efforts to contact the resident or her husband and asked if either of them could permit access. If they were unable to attend, the landlord could have explained its intentions making them aware of what was happening and asked for their permission to enter. Making no attempt to contact the resident was unreasonable in the circumstances.
18. In order to secure the property, the landlord boarded up the window and fitted a key safe. In the event of future emergencies, it provided the neighbour with the code to the key safe. The resident’s tenancy agreement did not expire until the 2 January 2023. That meant she retained exclusive possession of the property until midnight on that date. While the tenancy was in existence, all notice periods and entry restrictions applied. The only person who could provide permission for persons to enter the premises was the resident.  Whether there was concern over future leaks or not the landlord had no authority to give the neighbour the means to access the resident’s property. Doing so was unacceptable.
19. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s handling of access to the property amounts to maladministration.

The compensation awarded as part of the landlord’s complaint handling

20. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 days. It will respond in 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The policy states that complaint responses will be empathetic in tone, provide details of the investigation and determinations as well as identifying any short comings.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation to residents who have suffered loss or detriment due to its failure. It assesses compensation on a case-by-case basis, considering the individual circumstances and impact on the customer. It will then offer an amount that is fair and proportionate.
23. In its complaint responses the landlord attempted to put things right by admitting its failings. It acknowledged that it was dealing with an emergency but still should have attempted to contact the resident before forcing entry. It understood its actions had caused distress and apologised. In relation to the key safe, it said it was wrong to give the code to the neighbour and acknowledged this should never have happened. Again, it apologised for this failing. It agreed with all teams involved that this practice should never happen in the future, which demonstrates the landlord has taken learning from its actions.
24. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires complaints to be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord offered an amount of compensation in its stage 1 response that was not proportionate to its failings or the requirements of its compensation policy. It increased the offer in its stage 2 response and then increased it again having conducted an additional review. The landlord failed to adequately assess the impact on the resident and offer suitable redress in its stage 1 and 2 responses. In not offering adequate compensation it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity, which was a failing. The third offer of compensation was proportionate to the distress caused by its actions. Had the amount of £300 been offered in the stage 1 response this service would have found reasonable redress.
25. Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord entering the resident’s property by force and without permission to effect repairs.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s award of compensation in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £325 compensation. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
    1. The £300 the landlord offered to the resident on 3 March 2022.
    2. £25 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the award of compensation in its complaint handling.