Kirklees Council (202006481)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006481

Kirklees Council

21 February 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.

background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of an operative causing damage to her property.
2. response to the resident’s reports of operatives attending without prior notice, having a master key to the property and gaining access when the resident was not there.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In September 2018, the resident raised a concern with the landlord about an operative having caused damage and tampered with her sink and washing machine. She said this happened during a visit to address a blockage in her waste pipes causing her washing machine to back up into the kitchen sink.
This complaint and other concerns the resident raised including repairs and gas inspections were escalated through the landlord’s complaints process and the landlord issued its final response on 29 March 2019. The resident did not bring this complaint to the Ombudsman until approximately two years later in March 2021
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure;
Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to her reports of an operative causing damage to her property.
This investigation will consider events from November 2019 which led to the resident raising a formal complaint on 28 July 2020 which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 12 May 2021.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is three-bedroom maisonette.
The landlord is a Council. Its Property Services (PS) team provides repair and maintenance services for its properties.
The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord has recorded on its systems.
The landlord’s call notes indicate the resident’s Housing Officer (HO) called the resident on 26 November 2019 to confirm the repairs she had reported would be carried out. The repairs concerned:
1. Gutter leak over balcony
2. Sealant around sink
3. New tap washers
4. An issue with her balcony door handles.
The landlord’s notes indicated that the HO told the resident that they would try to arrange for a specific operative; Mr A to attend as per her request. The resident wanted this operative to attend as she said he had not caused any damage to the property whilst carrying out repairs in the past. She also told the landlord that she wanted this operative to attend “to support her” as whilst he was in attendance she did not have panic attacks.
The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 15 January 2020 regarding a visit she received from two of its operatives on 5 December 2019. She said they had turned up without notice saying they were there to replace sealant around the sink and tap washers. They arrived half an hour after she usually goes out. She said Mr A was not with them despite the landlord previously agreeing to this. Therefore, she did not allow them into her property but asked them to look at the external leak on the guttering on her balcony.
The resident explained that this visit had caused her significant distress and that she was suffering from stress and anxiety. She said that she had called the landlord’s PS team on 9 December 2019 and asked them how she was to regain her trust in them if they send operatives out to her property when she was not there and without her permission. This was “mental abuse” and “an invasion” of her privacy. She said an operative had taken a photo of her.
The resident also said it was illegal for its PS team to use their master key unless there was an emergency which there was not. She wanted a full explanation on how this was allowed to happen, and she asked that Mr A accompany such visits to support her going forward.
The landlord sent a response on 31 January 2020 advising the visit on 5 December 2019 had been scheduled by its planning team following a request from its HO. It apologised for the job being scheduled in the diary without any prior communication with herself. It said it had spoken to its planning team to remind them to contact customers when jobs are scheduled in the diary to ensure the appointment was convenient. It said its officer had since called the resident on 27 January 2020 to discuss how they could work together to complete outstanding works to her home. Its officer arranged for Mr A to attend on 7 February 2020 along with a multi-skilled colleague to complete the repairs requested.
The landlord said it hoped the conversation with its officer on 27 January 2020 had help her regain trust. It advised however that it was important to point out that occasionally it may not be able to accommodate some of the resident’s requests, however it said its staff would advise if this was the case.
Further regarding her comments that the operatives took a photo, it had spoken to these operatives who stated they did not take a photo and had no reason to do this. They explained however that one operative had used his mobile phone to contact its office to inform it that they could not gain access. This was part of its standard procedure where operatives send notification back to its office.
The resident replied on 20 February 2020 stating that repairs had been carried out and that Mr A had attended. However, she said that after a further visit from operatives on 27 January 2020, she saw something fall from the shower head and discovered they were maggots. The resident suggested the operatives had placed them there.
Within her letter the resident reiterated her concerns about its PS team having master keys to tenants’ properties. She said that the police and locksmiths were aware of the landlord’s practice. She wanted to know why the visit to her property was authorised. She asked for the name and contact details of the landlord’s Ombudsman.
On 28 July 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord advising she was disappointed not to have received a response to her 20 February 2020 letter. She was unhappy about a call with its officer when she had requested for Mr A to attend during the forthcoming gas service appointment and for washers on the taps to be replaced however the officer declined her request for help or to arrange Mr A’s attendance.
The resident also said that the operative who attended in December 2019 had made several unauthorised visits to her home, suggesting he had placed “lots of maggots and flies” into her home on more than one occasion. She said she could no longer use her bathroom. She said things from her home had gone missing. She asked why operatives had been sent into her home illegally. She said she felt unsafe in her property and was worried operatives were in her home each time she returned after going out. There had been a detrimental effect on her health including the stress causing swelling to her body. She said that staff had bullied and victimised her.
On 8 August 2020, the landlord acknowledged her complaint and said given the serious nature of her statements, it wanted to ensure it addressed them accordingly. As such it would not be able to provide a full response until the week commencing 7 September 2020. The landlord advised that it does not have keys for properties which were tenanted or occupied and as such, if she felt anyone was gaining access to her property illegally, it must advise her to contact the police immediately.
On 21 August 2020 the landlord sent the resident a letter notifying her that it had made an appointment for 2 September 2020 for her annual gas service to be carried out.
On 1 September 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns raised about PS operatives visiting the property whilst she was not there and having a master key. The landlord said that it would like to reassure her that PS operatives do not carry or have master keys for people’s homes.
In regard to her comments about its PS team staff, it said it could not comment on individual cases but it wanted to reassure her that they all want to try and help resolve the repair issues she had raised and in no way was anyone trying to hinder that process. It acknowledged she had asked during calls with its officer for Mr A to attend the gas service appointment on 2 September 2020 but that its officer had explained to her that Mr A was not available to attend this appointment and that it could not guarantee his availability for future repair appointments. The landlord said the officer had asked if she would prefer a female operative rather than a male operative to attend but that she advised this would not help the situation.
Regarding her belief that it had promised that Mr A would attend future appointments, it could not see any records of this being agreed. It acknowledged however, that she had been told that it would try to arrange this but that it would depend on Mr A’s workload and availability so this may not always be possible.
It said it understood her shower was not working and so its PS team officer asked if she would like a plumber to attend at the same time as the annual gas service but she had refused. It was sorry she had lost trust in its PS team but it would like to work with her to help her regain her trust in this team. The landlord suggested that she asked for family or friends to sit with her whilst repairs and service checks were being carried out or said that her HO could arrange for her to have independent support for her and that she should let it or her HO know if she wanted more information about this option.
On 20 September 2020, the resident sent a letter asking for the landlord to escalate her formal complaint. She was unhappy with the responses received. She complained about its officer who she said had withdrawn the support of Mr A during the pandemic and told her that she did not care what she had been told before but Mr A was not available. She said she “begged” this officer to give her the help she needed but she refused.
The resident advised that she had received another visit from its PS team so reluctantly she had to report this matter to the police. She advised that two members of staff had now admitted operatives had master keys to enter properties and that they knew who had been coming into her home. The resident set out the outcomes that she would like the landlord to provide. These included:
1. A resolution to her feeling unsafe in her property.
2. Mr A to attend all future call outs to support her to stop her panic attacks and to help rebuild her trust in PS.
3. Compensation for the stress caused by its operatives’ visits and for the behaviour of its staff.
On 22 September 2020, the resident’s new HO wrote to the resident introducing themselves, providing contact details and advising her to contact them if she required support.
The landlord’s internal records indicate the police contacted the landlord in October 2020 asking if the resident could change her locks as it had received reports from her that her landlord and its PS team had a key to her property and were trying to gain entry. The notes stated the landlord advised the police that the resident was able to change her locks and that the police advised they would explain this to the resident.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord provided a further complaint response. It apologised for the delay in replying and explained it had been “an unusual year” where its workload had “altered considerably” meaning there had been a delay in replying to a small number of complaints. It said it could assure her this did not mean her concerns were unimportant.
The landlord advised that the nature of her complaint meant it had been difficult to consider and said that elements that it could not seem to assist with. For example, it was not the case that it or its staff held spare keys to properties and so no one from the landlord could have gained access to her home without her knowing. Further, whilst she had stated a preference for a particular worker to undertake repairs at her property, unfortunately its PS team were unable to schedule the same worker to attend a property given the number of properties being managed and the variety and type of repair being carried out.
It advised the resident that her regular electricity check was now overdue and asked for her to contact her HO to arrange this. It said if there were any other repairs, could she let it know and it would liaise with its PS team to deal with these as soon as possible.
On 24 February 2021, the resident sent a letter to the landlord’s Chief Executive complaining about her treatment by the officer in July and August 2020 whom refused her request for Mr A to attend during repair and servicing appointments. She reiterated her reasons for wanting Mr A to attend and said that the landlord was to blame for the problems and for her being so mistrustful in the first place. She complained about the time taken by the landlord to respond to her complaint after she had asked to escalate it.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request that it provide a further response to the resident’s complaint as it was unclear if its 18 February 2021 response was its final response due to a lack of signposting in regards to escalating her complaint.
On 12 May 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the resident. Within this response, they referred to having telephone conversations with the resident that day and during the previous week. In relation to her situation they discussed:
1. Her worries about operatives entering her property- they explained staff would not enter the property without her being there or without lawful notice, for example to facilitate a gas service check. They reiterated that the resident should seek assistance from the police if she suspected her home had been entered unlawfully as it was a criminal matter.
2. Her changing the locks – they confirmed that the resident was able to do this if she wished to and suggested this could help to make her feel safer in the property. It said although she did not need permission to change her locks, due to her concern expressed about a locksmith being unwilling to change her locks if there was a master copy, it would provide a letter of permission should she decide to proceed with this action
3. It understood why she trusted Mr A and the reasons she wanted him to attend appointments including for gas servicing however Mr A was no longer available to attend these appointments. However, her HO was available to provide support and attend any appointments. Further, they were also available to attend appointments if it would help the resident.
4. Support for her in terms of controlling her anxiety and said whilst they understood why a referral by the landlord to Social Services may not feel right for her, it might be something she could do herself or persevere seeing her GP to discuss her health issues. Social Services could also signpost her to befriending groups. It provided the contact details for the Council’s Social Services team.
During a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman in January 2022, the resident said there were outstanding repairs in her property for example she could not use her shower due to incidents with maggots falling from the shower head. She said her preferred outcome would be for the landlord to reinstate Mr A as a support whilst appointments for repairs and gas servicing were being carried out.

Assessment and findings

Reports of operatives attending without prior notice, having a master key to the property and gaining access when the resident was not there

The landlord’s repair policy states when a tenant reports a responsive repair, in the majority of cases they will be able to choose an appointment. It also says where a tenant is unable to provide access at the time of an arranged appointment, the job will be cancelled from the repairs system until a further instruction is given by the tenant.
On 5 December 2019 the landlord’s repair operatives attended the property to address issues reported by the resident in November 2019 concerning the sealant around the sink, tap washers, a gutter leak and an issue with the balcony door handles. The resident did not allow the operatives access into the property but asked them to look at the external gutter leak over her balcony.
In her 15 January 2020 letter to the landlord, the resident complained that operatives had arrived at her property on this occasion without prior notice and that Mr A was not present to support her as agreed. She also claimed that its operatives had a master key and that they had intended to enter the property had she not been home. In its complaint response dated 31 January 2020, the landlord provided an assurance to the resident that its PS team operatives do not have master keys to residents’ homes. However, it acknowledged that it had not informed her of the appointment it had scheduled for 5 December 2019. It apologised for its failure to follow its repair process and confirmed that it had spoken to its planning team to remind them to contact residents when appointments are scheduled to check if they are convenient. This indicates learning from the landlord which is one of the Ombudsman complaint handling principles. On balance the landlord’s response was reasonable in this regard.
Within its response the landlord also confirmed that it had arranged for operatives to attend on 7 February 2020 to address the repairs, referencing a call it had with the resident on 27 January 2020 to arrange this, which was appropriate.
In her subsequent formal complaint dated 28 July 2020, the resident advised that a particular operative had made several illegal entries into her home although she did not give dates of these alleged visits. The resident also suggested that the operative had put maggots and flies into her home. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support these claims and the landlord’s records do not suggest any further repair appointments had been scheduled following the 7 February 2020 visit which it had arranged with the resident.
In its complaint response the landlord advised the resident to call the police immediately if she felt anyone was gaining access to her property and reiterated that its staff do not have master keys for her property. The landlord’s response was appropriate although it may have been helpful if it had been more explicit about how it had investigated her queries.
In October 2020, the resident reported to police that the landlord’s PS team were entering her home illegally. The landlord’s internal records show it advised the police it did not have a key to her property and confirmed that the resident was able to change her locks should she want to. The landlord repeated this option to the resident during its communications with her in May 2021 whilst urging her again to report any incident of illegal entry to police. It also offered to provide the resident with a permission letter in response to her concern raised that locksmiths would not change her locks if they thought there was a master key. As there is no evidence that operatives were entering the resident’s home illegally it was appropriate to advise her of her options of changing the locks and calling the police as necessary.
It is clear from the resident’s communications that she was experiencing extreme distress and anxiety during complaint process. Landlords have a duty of care to refer or signpost residents to appropriate services in the event it is made aware of such health conditions. It is evident that the landlord did take steps to provide help and support for the resident. This included advice in September 2020 that her HO could arrange independent support for her. It is also clear from the landlord’s 18 May 2021 response, that it had discussed the option of making a referral to Social Services and provided the resident with contact details for this service. It also said alternatively she could contact her GP about her health issues. The landlord’s suggestions in this regard were reasonable.
As mentioned above, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm the validity of the resident’s claims in respect to the landlord entering her property with a master key whilst she was not there. Its repeated reassurances given to the resident in an attempt to allay her concerns and also the steps taken by the landlord to signpost the resident to support agencies due to concerns about her health, was reasonable.
In regards to the resident’s requests for attendance of a specific operative during repair and service appointments to “support her”, she told the landlord this was because she had less panic attacks if he was present during such appointments. It is evident that the resident’s preference in this regard predates the timeframe covered in this investigation. The landlord had previously agreed to her request and arranged for this operative to attend during such visits in order to support the resident, including on 7 February 2020 whilst scheduled repairs were being carried out. However, the landlord pointed out in its 31 January 2020 response that whilst it was willing to help and support her, some of her requests may not be possible, which was reasonable.
The operative in question works for the landlord as a roofer and therefore the landlord could not reasonably be expected to guarantee his availability to attend all appointments on a permanent basis, particularly in a capacity as a support worker for the resident. When the resident next asked for this operative to attend the property whilst her annual gas service was being carried out in early September 2020, the landlord advised this was not possible. In its complaint response dated 1 September 2020, the landlord further explained its position on this matter advising that it had never promised this individual would be able to attend all future appointments. The landlord pointed out to the resident in its subsequent response that it was unable to schedule the same operative to attend her appointments every time as it had multiple properties to manage that needed a variety of repairs.
The landlord made clear to the resident that her HO was readily available to accompany repair and servicing visits in order to support her and this offer extended to other officers. This was echoed by the landlord in its 12 May 2021 response when the manager offered to personally accompany gas servicing visits to the resident’s property if it would help. The landlord also highlighted the option of asking friends and family to attend during appointments. Therefore, as the landlord explained why it was not possible for Mr A to attend repair and service appointments and offered alternative appropriate solutions, its approach to responding to this request was reasonable.
Regarding the “appalling treatment” by one of the landlord’s officers, the resident’s comments relate to their refusal to arrange for Mr A to attend the gas service visit in September 2020. Her comments also appear to be because she believed this officer had admitted to knowing operatives were entering her home whilst she was not there. As previously mentioned, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for the attendance of a particular operative. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord told the resident its staff had entered her property without her permission.
It is noted that in her communications to the landlord, the resident told it her shower was not working and this is something she reiterated to the Ombudsman. In its 1 September 2020 response, the landlord said she refused its offer for a plumber to attend. Nonetheless, in the circumstance, it is appropriate to recommend that the landlord contact the resident to renew its offer to fix her shower and arrange with her an appointment for this to be repaired if still needed.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a three-stage complaints process. Its complaint policy states complaints will be acknowledged within three days and a full response will be provided within 10 working days. Further, where this is not possible, the reason for the delay must be fully explained to the complainant within the 10 working days. The complainant should be kept up to date throughout the process.
It is clear that the resident sent her written correspondence to the landlord by post therefore it is reasonable to assume the landlord received her letters sometime after the date of the resident’s communications.
Within her letter to the landlord dated 15 January 2020, the resident raised several concerns and requested compensation. Whilst the landlord responded to her communication within a reasonable timeframe, it did not treat her communication as a complaint despite the concerns she raised. The landlord provided a written response on 31 January 2020; on balance this indicates its response was provided in accordance with its 10-working day timescale stated in its complaints policy.
When the resident sent a further letter on 20 February 2020 raising further concerns and asking the landlord to provide details of its Ombudsman, the landlord failed to provide a response. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints process when handling the resident’s complaint. However, the resident did not write to the landlord again to reiterate her concerns until five months later on 28 July 2020. Whilst this does not excuse the landlord’s lack of response to her earlier communication, the resident could have contacted it again sooner if her concerns remained.
The landlord provided a complaint response on 1 September 2020. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 8 August 2020 explaining that it would take longer to provide a full response due to the nature of the issues raised, therefore it acted in accordance with its complaints process in this regard. However, the landlord also failed to clarify what stage of its complaint process its response was being provided for, nor did it refer to its complaints process or address the resident’s request for the Ombudsman’s details.
There is no evidence of the landlord escalating the resident’s complaint when she requested this in her 20 September 2020 letter. The landlord only provided a complaint response on 18 February 2021 following further contact from the resident. Again, this response did not make clear if it was its final response or signpost the resident to either its complaints process or the Ombudsman.
It is noted that the delays by the landlord resulted in the complaints process being drawn out for over a year. This would have caused the resident significant distress. Whilst it did apologise for some of the delays, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its complaints process and for the lack of clarity about its complaints and escalation processes. Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for compensation made in her 20 September 2020 letter which she said was for “stress and panic” caused by its operatives’ visits and poor treatment by its staff. As it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have addressed her claim for compensation, its failure to do so was unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports operatives attending without prior notice, having a master key to the property and gaining access when the resident was not there.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for one occasion when its repair operatives attended without providing the resident with prior notice, which was reasonable. The landlord confirmed consistently throughout its complaint responses that it did not have a master key to the resident’s property and that its staff did not enter her property whilst she was not there. It also confirmed to the police and the resident herself that she could change her door locks if this was something she wished to do in order to gain piece of mind. The landlord’s response was appropriate. Its offers to send its officers to the property to accompany the resident whilst her gas and electricity checks were being carried out were reasonable. The landlord also took steps to signpost the resident to support agencies, which was appropriate given her health issues.
The landlord did not always follow the timescales in its complaints process and in some instances failed to provide a response to the resident’s communications at all resulting in a protracted complaints process. It did not make clear in its complaint responses at what stage of its complaint process it was providing the response and it also failed to inform the resident about its complaint and escalation processes. Furthermore, the landlord did not acknowledge or offer suitable redress for its service failures during its complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £250 in compensation for failing to follow its complaints process and poor labelling and signposting in its responses when responding to her communications.
2. comply with the above order within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. contact the resident and renew its offer to repair her shower if still needed.
2. contact the resident and renew its offer for either the resident’s HO or another officer to accompany repair and servicing appointments.