Honeycomb Group Limited (202112508)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112508

Honeycomb Group Limited

14 November 2022

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 response to the resident’s:
1. transfer request;
2. reports about repair issues, including:
  1. draughts from her windows;
  2. her kitchen units;
  3. garden maintenance;
  4. her boiler;
3. request for assistance with her mobility issues;
4. reports about discrimination.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident had been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 22 May 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure.
The landlord operates a transfer procedure and lettings policy. The policy lists circumstances where a property may not be offered, such as where there are rent arrears. The policy notes that those who are experiencing overcrowding will be given priority. The policy does not note that having previously declined a property will prevent a resident from being offered further properties.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord may use contractors to carry out some repairs.

Summary of events

In or around June 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that her property was no longer suitable for her needs as it was overcrowded. The property was a two-bedroom property, however, she had two older children, a son and a daughter, who could no longer comfortably share a room. She therefore requested she be transferred to a three-bedroom property.
The landlord provided advice about her transfer options and gave her a transfer priority for a three-bedroom property. In early 2021, the resident was offered a three-bedroom property. The resident accepted the property in principle, prior to it being ready for her to move in. Once the property was ready, the resident declined the property on the basis that it was smaller than her preference. She noted that to accept it may prevent her being offered a larger property in the future.
It is not disputed that another three-bedroom property became available in or around May 2021. The landlord has described this property as having the same dimensions as the property the resident previously declined. The landlord did not offer the property directly to the resident. The resident made an enquiry about the availability of the property, however, the landlord advised it had now handed it over to the local authority for allocation.
In addition to her transfer requests, the resident reported concerns about draughts from her windows and doors in or around February 2021. The landlord arranged for its contractor to carry out an inspection in March 2021, during which the contractor took photographs inside the resident’s property. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident and noted that the items in her property could present a hazard for access to carry out repairs. It requested that she relocate the items referred to.
It is not disputed that the resident has experienced issues with her boiler since 2017. The landlord has carried out a number of services and repairs to the boiler in 2017, 2018, 2019, and most recently in May 2021, in which the heating system was given a chemical flush. It is also not disputed that during the repair contractor’s visits, the resident was informed that she may need a new radiator.
The resident has also previously reported disrepair issues with her kitchen cabinets, and requested that her kitchen be replaced.
In or around May 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the above concerns. The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 June 2021, in which it included the following:
1. It noted the resident had also raised concerns that the gardening service provided by the landlord to clear the overgrown areas between the row of properties and the canal behind them was not effective. The landlord advised that it could consider increasing the frequency of the gardening, but this would first require a consultation with the other residents as it would result in an increased service charge.
2. The resident had also advised she was affected by mobility issues following a medical procedure and required assistance. The landlord advised it would make a referral to a support service.
3. It noted her concerns relating to the issues with her boiler, but advised that the chemical flush should have solved any further issues.
4. Regarding the draughts from her windows, the landlord advised it would chase up the works.
5. Regarding her property transfer, the landlord advised that the property the resident had enquired about had been the same dimensions as the property previously declined by the resident. It therefore considered it not suitable for the resident’s requirements. It apologised if it had misunderstood the resident’s needs, but advised the property was no longer available. It also noted the resident was going through the process of accepting a different property with another housing provider.
6. Finally, the landlord noted the resident’s comments that its communication had been poor, and assured her it was undertaking staff training to improve communication.
On 21 June 2021, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation as to why she had not been offered the property. She also reiterated that she had been given conflicting information about the boiler and wanted compensation for the periods it was not working.
The landlord provided an extensive stage two response on 30 July 2021, which included the following:
1. Regarding the gardening services, it noted the resident’s comments that the current frequency of gardening was not sufficient to address the overgrown areas. It reiterated that increasing the amount of visits would cost more for residents and so it was necessary to have a consultation in relation to this. It advised this would begin in August 2021.
2. Regarding the resident’s transfer request, the acknowledged it had not sent clear communications regarding the available property, for which it apologised. The landlord assured her that its lettings officer had not done so maliciously and had discretion on who to offer the property to. They had based their decision on the resident previously declining a similar property.
3. Regarding repairs to her kitchen, the landlord advised that her kitchen was due to be replaced in 2023, and until that time, its policy was to repair the existing kitchen where possible. It advised that it would arrange a further inspection to determine the current kitchen was still in a repairable state.
4. Regarding repairs to her windows, the landlord acknowledged that its operative taking photos and then subsequently commenting on the location of items in her property was not handled well. It advised its data protection officer had confirmed there had been no breach of data protection regulations, but acknowledged this was not best practice. It apologised and confirmed it would ensure operatives did not take photographs without discussing it first in future. It noted that the works to the windows had now been completed.
5. Regarding the boiler, the landlord noted there had been six repairs on its repair records between 2017 and 2021. It agreed this was more than it would expect, but advised that it did not consider the issues to be related, and therefore did not point to a failure by the landlord to carry out repairs. It noted there had been a difference in opinion between the gas safety check company and the repair operatives about the need for a new radiator, but that its operatives had been confident the recent chemical flush would solve the issue. It advised it would continue to monitor the boiler and carry out further works if necessary. It concluded that its responses to her reports had not been unreasonable, and therefore did not offer compensation.
6. The landlord also noted the resident had reported issues with dripping taps. It noted it had previously inspected and found there to have been condensation on the kitchen pipes, which it had since insulated. It had reinvestigated in June 2021, but could not determine any other leaks. It advised it would carry out further investigations should the resident experience any further issues.
7. It also noted the resident had requested assistance with her mobility issues. The landlord noted it had made a referral to a support service, which the resident had liaised with. It also noted the resident had chosen not to proceed with the service.
8. It additionally noted the resident had raised concerns that she had been discriminated against. It acknowledged its service and communication could have been improved, but disputed there was any evidence of discrimination.

Assessment and findings

Transfer request

Following the resident’s advice that her property was overcrowded and that she required a third-bedroom, the landlord appropriately agreed to offer her suitable properties, in line with its transfer and lettings policies. While the policies note it is for an applicant to register their interest against suitable properties once they are advertised, the resident had a specific priority based on the overcrowding, and the landlord raised her expectations that it would offer her suitable properties.
It is not disputed that the resident was offered a three-bedroom property in early 2021, but that she declined this property. The landlord considered that the resident declined this property based on its dimensions and noted that the resident ideally wanted a larger property. The landlord has also advised that it considered the new property that subsequently became available to share dimensions with the previous property.
The landlord has noted that its lettings officers have discretion on who to offer properties to, and that it had an obligation to offer a certain number of properties to the local authority, which it had decided to do with the new property.
The landlord has acknowledged, however, that it didn’t simply offer the property to the local authority meaning it was now unavailable. Instead, it acknowledged that it did consider if it should offer it to the resident, but decided not to based on her previously declining a similar property. It has acknowledged that it made no attempts to contact the resident in relation to this property prior to making this decision.
While it may be the case that the lettings officer has discretion over who to offer the property to, given that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations that suitable properties would be offered to her, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have done so in this instance.
Similarly, while it may have been the case that the resident also considered this property to have been too small, the landlord could not have known that to conclusively be the case for the new property. Time had passed since she had declined the previous property which may have influenced her requirements. It is also the case that while the property may have had similar dimensions to the earlier property, it was fundamentally a different property which the resident should have had the option to consider, especially given her mobility issues and that she was experiencing overcrowding.
For the landlord’s approach to have been reasonable, the Ombudsman would expect it to have formally advised the resident that based on her previously declining the earlier property, it would no longer be offering properties of similar dimensions. This would have given the resident the opportunity to appeal such a decision or to have otherwise known this was now the landlord’s approach. Instead, the landlord made this decision without informing the resident.
The result of the landlord’s actions was the resident was unreasonably denied the opportunity to consider if the new property was suitable for her needs, despite the landlord having raised her expectations she would be offered such a property. While the landlord has appropriately acknowledged that its communications were poor and apologised, this does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration.
The Ombudsman notes the resident has now found suitable accommodation through another provider, and in any case, the landlord’s advice that it could not now allocate this property to the resident given that it had been provided to the local authority was reasonable. Nevertheless, while the landlord made some attempts to apologise, given the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, an amount of £300 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact to the resident.

Repairs – Windows

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for keeping the windows in a good state of repair. Following the resident’s reports of draughts from her windows in February 2021, the landlord’s contractor investigated in March 2021. This was a reasonable timeframe for a non-urgent repair, in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.
While it was frustrating for the resident that the contractor initially attended to inspect the windows rather than carry out the repairs there and then, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to initially assess what works are required and then complete the works once this is assessed. It would have been best practice to have ensured the resident understood this process, however.
The Ombudsman also considers it reasonable for a landlord to take photographs of items requiring repairs as part of its investigation. Such photographs may need to be assessed by more experienced members of the repairs team to determine the most suitable repairs. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to seek the consent of a resident when taking such photographs, especially when they are taken within a resident’s property. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that its contractor did not seek such consent, and apologised. It has also confirmed that it will ensure consent will always be sought in the future.
It is not disputed that the contractor also took photos of the resident’s personal possessions within the property. While it is reasonable for any employee working in a resident’s home to take steps to ensure it is a safe environment to work in, the landlord has accepted it was not best practice to take photographs without her consent. It has additionally accepted that it would have been better to discuss any issues with blocked access with the resident during the inspection, instead of taking the photographs.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has referred her concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who are the correct body to investigate if there has been a breach of her personal data. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord confirmed it had raised her concerns with its own internal data protection officer, who confirmed no personal data had been breached.
Regarding the repairs themselves, following the delays caused by the issues surrounding the photographs, the landlord appropriately advised in its stage one response that it would follow up the repairs, although it would have been helpful had it given an indicative timeframe for the repairs to be completed. It also appropriately confirmed the repairs had been completed in its stage two response.
In summary, as acknowledged by the landlord, its contractor’s actions were not in line with best practice, and its subsequent communications with the resident were not handled well. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances, as it caused distress to the resident. The landlord appropriately recognised its service failure, and offered an apology and also took note of the steps it had taken to avoid this occurring again. In the circumstances, the landlord’s apology was proportionate redress for its service failure.

Repairs – Kitchen

As with the windows, it is also not disputed that the landlord was responsible for keeping the kitchen in a good state of repair. The Ombudsman recognises that a landlord has a limited budget which it has a responsibility to manage in a fair and reasonable manner. It is therefore reasonable for it to attempt to repair something where this is possible, prior to replacing it.
While the resident considered that her kitchen was dated and required replacement, especially given the issues reported with her kitchen cabinets, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to carry out repairs in the first instance.
Given that its repairs team had not determined that a full replacement was required, it was reasonable that it did not consider it at the time of the repairs. Following the resident’s continued concerns, the landlord appropriately explained its position and that the kitchen would be due for replacement in 2023. It also appropriately used its discretion to offer another inspection to determine if anything had changed. As with above, however, it would have been helpful had it provided an indicative timeframe for this to occur.

Repairs – Garden

It is not disputed that the landlord provides a service to clear a garden area at the rear of the resident’s property and the neighbouring properties. The resident expressed concern that the frequency of the gardening was not sufficient and the garden area was overgrown. She also queried if the gardening service could be expanded to cover front gardens as well.
Given the resident’s concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to address this as a formal complaint. It is evident that the cost of the gardening service was recovered through the service charge which was shared across the residents. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consult the other residents about the changes to the gardening service given it would likely lead to an increase in the service cost for all residents.
The landlord appropriately advised this to the resident in its stage one response, although once again, it did not include an indicative timeframe for this to occur. In its stage two response, however, it appropriately included an indicative date for the consultation, which was within a reasonable timeframe.

Repairs – Boiler

The Ombudsman understands that the resident has experienced issues with her boiler over a number of years. The Ombudsman would not, however, expect a landlord to investigate issues as part of a formal complaint investigation that occurred more than six months prior to the formal complaint. This is due to the difficulty in obtaining accurate evidence for historical events.
Following the resident’s formal complaint in May 2021, it was reasonable for the landlord to limit its investigation to her reports from around that time. Given that it had just completed its chemical flush treatment it was reasonable that it informed her the treatment had been completed and that it was hopeful it would solve any further issues.
It is also evident that around this time, the gas safety inspector verbally advised the resident they considered an additional radiator was necessary. It is not evident that this opinion was included in any sort of official report to the landlord. The chemical flush was recommended by the landlord’s boiler repair contractor, who also did not recommend any additional radiator.
Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was reasonable that the landlord identified the repairs it had completed since 2017 and advised that while numerous, it was not evident they were connected. While the Ombudsman understands repeated failures would undoubtably be frustrating, it is not evident that the landlord had received any reports to indicate the issues were related, or that its previous repair attempts had been substandard.
It was reasonable for the landlord to give its position that based on the opinions of its repair contractors, the chemical flush was the correct repair in the circumstances. It was also appropriate, given the amount of previous issues, that it committed to monitor the boiler and consider further repairs if necessary.
Based on the evidence available to this service, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord failed to carry out reasonable repairs to the boiler. Had the resident remained at the property, the Ombudsman would have made recommendations for the landlord to employ a specialist to investigate the boiler should any further issues occur, given the number of previous issues.

Assistance request and discrimination

The resident has advised the landlord that she was experiencing issues with her mobility following a medical procedure. The landlord does not offer assisted living services, however, when a resident raises such a concern, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to signpost the resident to a relevant organisation who could provide assistance.
In this case, the landlord made a referral to an assistance service on the resident’s behalf. It is evident that the resident liaised with the service, however, the service was unable to offer assistance that suited the resident’s needs. While this is an unfortunate outcome, the landlord nevertheless acted reasonably by making the initial referral.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has also expressed concerns that the landlord behaved in a discriminatory way towards it. When presented witch such reports, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation and to provide a response accordingly.
In this case, it is evident that the landlord thoroughly investigated why it took the actions that it did, and it provided a detailed stage two response setting out its position. While its actions in some cases amounted to maladministration, as noted above, it is not evident this was due to any specific discrimination. While it may be understandable for the resident to feel discriminated against given she was not offered the three-bedroom property, in the absence of any specific evidence of discrimination, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the landlord acted in a discriminatory manner, and it was reasonable that the landlord concluded the same.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about draughts from her windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
1. reports about repair issues, including:
  1. her kitchen units;
  2. garden maintenance;
  3. her boiler;
2. request for assistance with her mobility issues;
3. reports about discrimination.

Reasons