Leicester City Council (202107822)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107822

Leicester City Council

29 August 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of leaks to his shed.
  2. Request to remove squirrel traps from the property.
2. Handling of electrical repairs in the property.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. Complaint Handling.
2. Record Keeping.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about leaks to his shed is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident has complained about the landlord’s response to leaks in his shed. The resident raised the issue in his stage 1 complaint and it was addressed by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident did not raise it again in his stage 2 complaint. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that this matter had exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As the matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence of a complaint handling failure, this complaint has not been investigated.
The landlord informed this Service that a new shed was ordered following a visit to the resident on 6 April 2022. It therefore appears that the resident has not suffered a detriment as a consequence of not pursuing his complaint through the complaint procedure. However, if the resident remains concerned about this issue, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. Should the resident exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure and remain unhappy with its response, he may refer the matter back to this Service as a new complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 3 July 2006. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor.
The resident is vulnerable and is in receipt of personal independence payment (PIP). He suffers from mental health issues, strokes and has advised his landlord that he suffers from depression and anxiety.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that:
1. 2.3.1 The landlord will maintain the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity. This includes electric sockets and light fittings.
2. 3.6.1 The resident must keep the inside of their home clean and in good condition.
3. 3.10.2 The resident, or any person living with them or visiting their home must not collect, amass, hoard or accumulate items within the property in a manner or in such quantities as to:
  1. Pose a health and safety risk to occupants and visitors.
  2. Render the property unfit for occupation.
  3. Pose a fire risk.
  4. Prevent or obstruct the landlord’s employees, agents or contractors from accessing the property to undertake inspections or works to the property.
4. 3.13.1 The resident must allow the landlord, or its representatives, agents or contractors access to the property at all reasonable hours to carry out necessary repairs, improvements, planned programmes, gas servicing, district heating checks, maintenance and checks to fire detection or suppression equipment and any safety checks, to inspect its condition and to complete new tenancy visits and tenancy audits. If they do not give it access to the property and there is no good reason for this, it may take legal action.
The Code of Practice for the Management of Electrotechnical Care in Social Housing (November 2022) recommends that electrical installations in a domestic tenanted property are inspected and tested every 5 years, resulting in the creation of an electrical installation condition report (EICR). EICR classification codes are broken down into:
1. Code 1 ‘danger present’ risk of injury, immediate remedial action required.
2. Code 2 ‘potentially dangerous’, urgent remedial action required.
3. Code 3 ‘improvement recommended’.
The landlord’s hoarding protocol states that hoarding is a recognised mental health disorder. The purpose of its protocol is to enable an individual with the disorder to “receive appropriate, proportionate and evidence based support.” It sets out a step by step procedure that should be followed in hoarding cases.
The landlord has not been able to provide a vulnerable persons policy when asked however, it has confirmed that it has recently written a ‘no access policy’ which is awaiting sign off.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and will advise the resident how it will deal with the complaint. It aims to response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days when it will advise the resident what it has done to resolve the matter. It will signpost the resident should they remain dissatisfied. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full response issued within 20 working days.
Section 7.1 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code says “a positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.”

Scope of investigation

There is a long history of reports made by the resident relating to electrical repairs and squirrels in the loft, going back to 2016. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2020 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Reports from this period were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses.

Summary of events

The landlord booked an appointment with the resident to carry out his electrical installation condition report (EICR) on Monday 8 June 2020 which he phoned to cancel on 3 June 2020.
The landlord exchanged internal emails on 8 June 2020 to discuss how to gain access to carry out the EICR. It noted that its records showed there had been access issues since 2015. As such “no electrical repairs had been carried out to the property.” Its emails noted that the resident had originally agreed access for the appointment and at the same time had reported that:
1. Squirrels previously in the loft space had now gone.
2. An electrical fault in the kitchen meant he could not use the cooker.
The landlord’s records show the property was last rewired on 16 July 2005. However, a further conversation with its contractor revealed that the rewire had not gone ahead. It concluded that further investigation was needed. It also noted that it would need to address issues relating to the condition of the property because the contractor could not work there in its current condition.
The landlord’s internal email of 30 June 2020 said that the resident had been asked to clear his flat by 20 July. It said if there was no change it would discuss the case with its legal team.
The letter sent by the landlord to the resident that same day said:
1. The property was not fit for purpose for it to carry out repairs, which was unacceptable and would not be tolerated.
2. The resident should clear and clean his flat so that it was in a condition where visits from its repairs team could resume. The resident would not receive visits until his flat was cleaned.
3. Costs of rectifying any outstanding repairs, to the resident’s property or any surrounding property, that it could not access because of the “state” of his property would be passed to him.
4. It gave the resident 14 days, until 14 July 2020, to rectify the breaches and said it would contact him to arrange a follow up visit.
5. Failure to comply may lead to the resident being served with a notice of possession proceedings and/ or taking other legal measures which could put his tenancy at risk.
The landlord’s file notes say that it also wrote to the resident on 2 July 2020 giving him 7 days to clear the property, by the 9 July, so that repairs could be carried out.
The resident responded to the letter by phoning the landlord on 15 July 2020. He said he acknowledged that he was hoarding and asked for help. The landlord was unable to put him through to Adult Social Care (ASC) so gave him their direct telephone number for him to call. The resident called again on 3 August to say he needed help cleaning the property.
Internal records at this time detail that the landlord considered if there was no notable improvement it would proceed with enforcement action for breach of tenancy. It said it would send him a further letter and would consider referring him to its internal support service ‘STAR’. It noted that it was unlikely STAR would help him clean up his property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2020. It said the property was in a “filthy” condition, making it difficult for the landlord to carry out repairs. It had received information that the resident had made progress but said he needed to do more to ensure he was not in breach of the terms of his tenancy. It said the resident should clean his flat to a reasonable standard. It outlined steps which might help the resident make progress.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 6 October 2020 who said that he did not have the motivation to clean due to his mental health. He said he did not have any friends that could help him and asked for help from an “SOS” team. The landlord said it could not provide this and encouraged the resident to remove 1 bag at a time.
There are no records of contact between the resident and landlord about this matter between October 2020 and June 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcomes of a visit to the property on 16 June 2021 (the contents of the letter refer to a visit on 16 July which is assumed to be an error), as follows:
1. The resident agreed to clear at least 3 bags of rubbish from the property each week.
2. It would carry out a follow up inspection mid-July 2021.
3. It had made “many” attempts to contact the resident to arrange to remove the squirrel trap. Its pest control officer would contact the resident to arrange a visit.
4. The resident requested ‘home-help’ to help tidy and clean his flat. The landlord advised that it did not provide this service. It said the resident could pay for it out of his PIP however he had refused to do so. It said that with that being the case, clearing the property would be the resident’s responsibility.
5. If the resident did not make progress clearing the property, the landlord would commence legal action against him.
6. The landlord said it “empathised” with the resident’s medical and mental health situation. It said it also had to consider the safety of the resident and other residents nearby, as well as the property itself.
7. It would make referrals to relevant agencies who may be able to help with hoarding issues.
8. The costs of clearing the resident’s flat and carrying out remedial works would be passed to the resident.
9. The property required an electrical rewire but the property needed to be cleared first because the operatives could not get to all the sockets. It was the resident’s responsibility to ensure access was given.
10. The boiler was in need of replacement, but this could not be done until the property was cleared and clear access provided.
11. Due to the landlord’s concerns about the resident’s means of rapid escape in the event of a fire, a Fire Safety Educator had visited a few weeks ago. The landlord said it would follow up on the visit.
12. Photographs taken by the landlord during the visit were attached to letter.
The resident called the landlord on 18 June 2021, who described him as sounding “distressed”. He said:
1. Traps for the squirrels were still in his loft, which was full of fleas.
2. Electrical works had not been carried out yet.
3. A repair on the roof at the side of the property had been reported but not repaired.
4. He needed help with his property.
Internal records at this time detail that the landlord intended to investigate the complaint and contact the resident to arrange necessary visits. They also noted that the resident was “very upset and low in mood” and that the landlord considered whether ASC needed to be involved.
The landlord concluded that if the resident did not engage, and progress not made, it would refer the case to legal services. It acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities but said it needed to consider the safety of everyone. It concluded that the resident had had “ample time” to clear his flat.
A further internal email dated 18 June 2021 summarised the landlord’s position, as follows:
1. The resident had a “healthy income”, some of which was for circumstances such as the condition of the property.
2. The pest control officer had been trying to collect the squirrel trap since 2016.
3. When the pest control officer called on the resident recently the resident was abusive to him. The landlord had requested a statement from the officer and intended to write a warning letter to the resident.
4. The repairs team had tried to work with the housing team to have the electrical work carried out. Each time the resident was either not in or he had made no attempt to clear or move furniture to allow access despite being continually asked to do so.
5. The landlord could not be expected to work in such an environment or move furniture around which could potentially put them at risk if challenged or any injuries occurred.
The resident’s phone call to the landlord on 1 July 2021 was treated as a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that:
1. Squirrel traps left in the property since 2016 had not yet been collected. He requested confirmation of when they were put in the loft. He also requested details of attempted visits because he had only received 2 ‘not in’ cards.
2. The landlord had said that items needed to be removed for the electrician to be able to carry out works. He asked for the date of the visit and whether the electrical works had been rebooked.
3. He had reported leaks but no works had been carried out. He was seeking details of works carried out. In the event they had not been carried out, he requested an explanation as to why.
4. He sought an update on the request for ASC support.
In an internal email dated 2 July 2021 the landlord sought to move forward with the EICR because it understood the property was now free from obstacles. An appointment was made for 8 July.
This was confirmed with the resident who said that he was very distressed. He said he had not had any contact from the support worker or ASC. He said the situation was causing him more depression and anxiety. The landlord requested urgent contact was made with the resident to assess the situation. It was suggested that the resident had someone with him when the electrical survey was carried out.
A works order raised on 2 July 2021 to carry out the EICR was subsequently cancelled on 16 July. The reason given was that the tenant would not grant access.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 July 2021 to acknowledge receipt of the stage 1 complaint. It said it expected to respond in 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 July 2021. It said:
1. ASC had contacted the resident who had agreed to engage with them. It would take a few weeks to assign the case and in the meantime the resident should remove 3 bags a week from the property as agreed.
2. Enablement services could support the resident for up to 3 months with motivation, coping mechanisms and managing the home environment, including decluttering.
3. The resident agreed for ASC to refer him for advocacy services to improve his communications with the landlord. It said the service would contact the resident.
4. Until then, electrical works at the property and the visit from the pest team would remain on hold. It said that any further missed appts, without prior notice, could be recharged to the resident.
5. It said an appointment for the EICR had been booked for 29 July 2021 which would take 4 hours to complete. The resident was asked to allow this to take place.
6. It said that the resident had been “loud and abusive” during a phone call with the landlord. It reminded the resident of his obligations under the terms of his tenancy.
7. It told the resident how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 27 July 2021, as follows:
1. He was unhappy because he did not think he was in a position for the landlord to come to the property to carry out 4 hour electrical survey.
2. The outcome of the first survey carried out in 2016-2017 was that the whole property needed rewiring but nothing had been done. He said he had not had a cooker since then because the landlord did not rectify the wiring after the original survey.
3. He was unhappy about the lack of response in relation to pest control traps left in the property. He said when the landlord came to retrieve them it said the customer was not at home and so they had not been removed for 5 years. The landlord had said it tried to remove them in 2020 but the resident knew nothing about this. He said that if it did, it did not leave any paperwork to say it had been.
4. He was unhappy that the communal laundry area had not been fixed and was concerned about where he should hang his laundry.
The landlord’s internal records, dated 30 July 2021, summarised the situation as follows:
1. It would consider arranging a multi-agency meeting.
2. The resident could use a clothes horse over his bathtub to dry his clothes. Alternatively, he could clear his flat and would find plenty of space to dry his clothes.
3. The issues the resident faced were not related to housing management but to his “lack of co-operation with the landlord as this is what had caused the current situation.” It noted it was the resident’s responsibility to clear the property as per the conditions of his tenancy. If he failed to do so, he could find himself intentionally homeless.
4. The landlord attempted to complete the EICR the previous day. The electrician noted “a lot of faults” due to squirrels chewing through cables. It sought advice from its electrical contractor as to what works were required to put the property back into a “safe environment” for the resident. The contractor confirmed that the property needed a full rewire. It noted that there were long standing electrical repairs needed to the property, but the resident had not cooperated with access. When access had been given, there had been problem with clutter which the resident said he was unable to move.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord sent an acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said it expected to respond within 15 working days.
The landlord’s file note, dated 18 August 2021, details a conversation it had with ASC about the resident, as follows:
1. Legal action against the resident would be deferred until he had been given a chance to work with the enablement team who would help him declutter and clean the flat. The property had scored 4-5 on the hoarding matrix which had a scale of 1 to 9.
2. The resident did not have a mental health diagnosis.
3. If ASC were to carry out assessment under the Care Act the resident would not be eligible for support so a referral had been made to the enablement team.
4. If the resident failed to engage with services, ASC would carry out a social care act assessment.
5. Both ASC and the landlord agreed the fire service should visit. ASC agreed to ask the enablement team to arrange this and provide an update.
6. The landlord confirmed it would arrange a visit by the pest control officer once it had received an update from ASC or the enablement team.
7. The resident would be advised that legal action would be deferred but that any missed calls without prior contact would be recharged to the resident as the landlord could not fund the cost.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 September 2021 to say that:
1. During a recent visit the landlord confirmed there was an electrical fault and that the issue remained outstanding.
2. A squirrel was still trapped in the loft and was eating through the wiring.
3. He needed help to tidy up his flat and was engaging with ASC. He was of the view the landlord could still get to the cooker and loft. He said he needed his cooker urgently and wanted compensation for not being able to use it.
4. He had mental health issues and suffered from strokes.
5. He wanted an account of why the landlord had left him so long because he felt “neglected.”
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2021, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It repeated the contents of its stage 1 complaint response.
3. It said some of its ground maintenance work had been on hold due to Covid-19 restrictions. It said it had asked for the works to the communal drying area to be scheduled as soon as possible. It said that in the meantime, the resident would have to find space in his flat to dry his clothes.
4. The resident was signposted to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Events post complaints process

The landlord raised a works order on 7 February 2022 for the property to be rewired. It noted the date of the last EICR was 2006. The job was cancelled on 21 February as it was raised for the wrong trade. On 15 February 2022 the landlord raised a new works order to carry out the EICR.
The landlord’s records show it was contacted by the resident’s MP on 28 February 2022. It responded by contacting the resident on the same day and noted the following:
1. The resident had been unable to use his cooker for 8 years. The resident said the issue had been ongoing since 2006-2007 and that there were problems with the fuse box.
2. The resident said he had already made a complaint.
The EICR was completed, and a condition report provided, on 23 February 2022. The general condition was noted to be “unsatisfactory” and an urgent rewire recommended.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord confirmed that the property was clear and that works could go ahead to install a new boiler, carry out a rewire and pest control works.
The landlord deployed bait boxes on 9 March 2022. It found no evidence of any pest activity so removed the boxes. However, in an email dated 21 March 2022 the landlord confirmed that a further complaint about squirrels had been received. It had placed test bait in the roof and work was ongoing.
The repair logs show that the rewire was completed on 16 March 2022. The ‘Domestic Electrical installation’ certificate says the work was completed on 25 March.
The resident phoned this Service on 30 March 2022 and confirmed that his complaint related to:
1. The length of time it took the landlord to complete the electrical works.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of squirrels in the loft which he said were still there.
3. The resident feeling stressed and depressed as a result of trying to resolve his complaint.
4. The issue of compensation for the time he could not use his cooker, which he said was 8 years.
5. The resident was unhappy because he felt the landlord discriminated against residents with a medical condition.
In a phone call to this Service on 7 April 2022 the resident confirmed that his complaint also related to:
1. The length of time it took the landlord to remove traps left in his home for pests.
2. The length of time it took the landlord to complete the electrical works, which he said had been completed the previous week.
3. The condition of the communal drying area.
Within information sent to this Service, the landlord said “in relation to this property, there is no drying area just an outside communal garden.”

Assessment and findings

Request to remove squirrel traps from the property

As detailed in the landlord’s letter dated 17 June 2021, a squirrel trap was installed into the resident’s property in 2016. It was removed and then installed again later that year. The landlord requested its retrieval a second time in October 2016 and wrote to the resident accordingly. However, a note dated January 2017 said the resident did not respond to the retrieval letters. The resident requested that the trap be removed in September 2020. In response, the landlord’s pest control contractor left 2 messages for the resident and 1 ‘not in card’ at the property.
In the landlord’s letter of 17 June 2021 it said that it had made “many” attempts to retrieve the trap. However, there is no evidence that the landlord tried to make arrangements to collect it between January 2017 and September 2020. There is also no evidence that any further attempts were made during the period October 2020 and June 2021. Therefore, over a 4 year period the landlord made 3 attempts to retrieve the trap. This investigation acknowledges that the resident did not respond to the landlord’s early attempts to make necessary arrangements.
In making a determination on this complaint, this investigation has taken into account that:
1. The landlord did make some attempts to collect the trap between 2017 and 2021.
2. The resident did not respond to the landlord’s early attempts to remove the trap and did not actively chase removal.
3. The inconvenience caused to the resident by the presence of the trap in the loft was minor.
Overall, there was a service failure by the landlord because it made minimal attempts to remove the traps over a 4 year period.

Electrical repairs in the property

When the resident cancelled his EICR appointment for 8 June 2020 the landlord appropriately set about deciding how best to proceed. However, its records show that it was aware that access to carry out electrical works had been an issue since 2015. In view of this, it would have been reasonable for it to have already been engaged in communication with the resident. There is no evidence that it was doing so, which was inappropriate because of its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement to maintain the electrical installations at the property. In any event, given what the landlord knew about the resident, it could have considered ‘laying the groundwork’, such as carrying out a visit to the resident, in anticipation of the EICR.
The landlord concluded that it could not expect its contractors to work in the property due to its poor condition. This was reasonable and in line with the expectations set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement which sets out the resident’s responsibilities with regards to the condition of the property. The landlord is entitled to take action to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. However, the landlord also has a hoarding protocol which clearly sets out the steps it should take when dealing with a hoarding issue.
According to the protocol, the landlord should visit the resident to assess the situation using a clutter image rating. This information should be passed to the fire service to carry out an ‘adult risk assessment’. It is reasonable to conclude that in this case, the assessment would have considered the potential risk posed to the resident from the outstanding electrical works. The protocol says the fire service would then be required to share the assessment with key agencies before arranging a professionals’ meeting in order to mitigate risk. The protocol says that when a person’s hoarding behaviour poses a serious risk to their health and safety, professional intervention is required.
The landlord did not follow the protocol and it is unclear why. Instead, its initial focus was on enforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement. It wrote to the resident on 30 June 2020 to “instruct” him to clear his property, saying if he failed to do so it would consider taking legal action against him. The language used in the letter demonstrated a lack of empathy for the resident which was inappropriate given his vulnerabilities.
The letter said it would arrange a follow up visit mid-July 2020. This investigation has not seen any evidence that this took place, which was inappropriate given its commitment to do so. It also meant the landlord missed an opportunity to meet with the resident in person at the property to gain a full understanding of his situation and try to build or rebuild a relationship with him.
The resident responded on 15 July 2020 by asking the landlord for help with his hoarding issues. He called again on 3 August to ask for help cleaning his property. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss his repeated requests for assistance which was unreasonable.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord decided that as the condition of the property had not improved, it would consider referring the resident to its ‘STAR’ service which provided tenancy support. The following month it said if there was no improvement it would proceed with enforcement action.
Despite the resident’s clear requests for help, the landlord’s view was that the resident was “young and capable therefore it was his responsibility.” It was appropriate of the landlord to consider referring the resident to its internal tenancy support service. However, its ongoing stance on, and justification of, enforcement action demonstrates that the landlord lacked insight and empathy into the resident’s hoarding behaviour. Its approach also suggested a lack of understanding that hoarding is recognised a mental health disorder, as stated in its hoarding protocol.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 October 2020 to say he was struggling to clear the property because of his mental health and needed help which the landlord said it could not provide. This was the third time the resident contacted the landlord to request help but still, the landlord did not revert to its hoarding protocol. At the very least it could have considered signposting the resident to appropriate services, but there is no evidence it did so following this call.
There is no evidence that there was any further contact with the resident regarding the hoarding and/or electrical works between October 2020 and July 2021. This was unreasonable because there was an urgent need to gain access to establish the condition of the electrics. Furthermore, the resident had been told his tenancy was at risk which had caused him distress and led to his repeated requests for support which were then not acted upon. Leaving the situation ‘open’ for 10 months with no updates or contact was unfair.
The landlord visited the resident on 16 June 2021 and wrote a follow up letter to confirm outcomes the next day. It said it would look at making referrals to relevant agencies who may be able to assist with the hoarding issues. It referred to a home visit from the fire service that had recently taken place. While these were appropriate steps to take in a hoarding case they came far too late. Furthermore, although the landlord said it empathised with the resident it said it still planned to take enforcement action should the problem not be resolved. This suggests that the landlord did not have due regard to the complex difficulties the resident faced in trying to resolve his hoarding behaviour.
This caused significant distress to the resident who, when he contacted the landlord on 18 June 2021, was described as being “very upset and low in mood.” When the landlord spoke with the resident to confirm an appointment for his EICR on 8 July he said he was in “desperate need of support” and feeling “overwhelmed” with moving things. He also said he felt like “giving up” and that the situation was causing him more depression and anxiety.
It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to move the EICR forwards with an appointment on 8 July 2021 however, the resident did not provide access. It is noted that he later explained this was because he did not feel ready for the 4 hour appointment. This was further example of his need for additional support which, had the landlord considered, may have helped to provide a swifter resolution to the situation.
By 20 July 2021 support was in place for the resident, having been contacted by ASC and referred to enablement and advocacy services. These were positive actions which recognised the need to support the resident. However, this came over a year after the landlord’s decision to follow an enforcement route rather than follow its hoarding protocol which was unreasonable and has caused significant distress to the resident. Given that the resident repeatedly asked for help, expressed his deep distress including that he felt “neglected”, the delay was inappropriate.
The landlord noted that, under the terms of his tenancy agreement, it was the resident’s responsibility to clear the property and if he failed to do so, he could find himself intentionally homeless. Although this was correct, given that the resident had just been referred to support services, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to agree to give those services time to work with the resident.
In its email dated 30 July 2021 the landlord said it could consider setting up a multi-agency meeting, and this was in line with its hoarding protocol. However, there is no evidence that it did so and it is unclear why. It did speak with ASC on 19 August 2021 to agree that it would not take any enforcement action for breach of tenancy if the resident engaged with the service. It also told ASC that the property had scored 4 out of 5 on the hoarding matrix which had a scale of 1 to 9. This suggests that landlord did assess the property on the clutter rating as outlined in the hoarding protocol, which was appropriate. Both ASC and the landlord agreed that the fire service should visit, which was appropriate albeit delayed.
This investigation has not seen contemporaneous file notes of the clutter rating scale or the proposed visit by the fire service. There are no further records relating to any further liaison with ASC or any other relevant support services which is evidence of poor record keeping. However, the condition of the property clearly improved because the landlord has confirmed that it was able to carry out the EICR on 23 February 2022.
The EICR stated an urgent rewire was recommended. Of particular note was:
1. The short circuit to the cooker cable which had previously been disconnected (possibly many years ago) as there was an insulation fault – rated C1.
2. There was no ring circuit continuity – rated C2.
It is not clear exactly when the rewire was carried out, but it was by 25 March 2022 at the latest because this is the date on the certification. It is concerning that there is no evidence that the landlord took immediate remedial action to mitigate the risk caused by the cooker cable in the meantime.
The landlord’s approach to the risk caused by the lack of access to carry out electrical works was poor. It struggled to establish facts in relation to the status of the electrics in the property but what it did know was that:
1. The last EICR was carried out in 2006.
2. No electrical works had been completed since 2015 due to access issues.
3. The resident reported that in 2016 he had been told that the property needed a rewire but this was never carried out.
4. The resident reported his cooker point was not working in 2016 and it was tripping his electrics. This report was replicated in January 2018 and March 2020.
5. The resident was vulnerable and requesting support with his hoarding.
It took the landlord 19 months, from the date of the first appointment in June 2020 to 23 February 2022, to carry out the EICR and subsequently the required electrical works. During that time, and in fact going back to 2016, the resident was without the use of his cooker. There is no evidence that the landlord considered how it might be able to support the resident and resolve this matter for him. If it was not able to work in the property to carry out electrical works it would have been reasonable to explore how the resident was preparing meals for himself and if it could support with this, making relevant referrals if necessary.
The landlord had known since 2015 that electrical works were necessary but appeared to adopt a position that it could not complete them because it could not gain access. Given its responsibilities under the terms of the tenancy agreement, and the risk this potentially posed to both the resident, his neighbours and its own stock this was inappropriate. It is not clear why the landlord left this situation for so long. There is no indication that the landlord considered alternative methods of gaining access to the property to complete the necessary works, such as an earlier referral to support services and, had that failed, considering an injunction.
In 2020 the landlord disregarded its hoarding protocol and involving appropriate support agencies, and instead pursued enforcement which was inappropriate given the nature of the situation. The resident was in clear need of support and the landlord’s threats of legal action were insensitive, causing him a great deal of distress. The delay in contacting relevant support agencies protracted resolution of the hoarding issues which in turn delayed the resolution of the electrical works.
The failings amount to severe maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000.

Complaint Handling

The resident telephoned the landlord on 18 June 2021 to make a complaint about various issues, in which he made specific reference to the electrical works not being resolved. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about the standards of our services; or lack of resolution by the council….” It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a stage 1 complaint then, to provide the resident with access to resolution through the complaints process. Not doing so had a detrimental impact on the resident because he had to go the time and trouble of contacting the landlord again several weeks later.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 1 July 2021 which was acknowledged on 16 July, 11 working days later. The acknowledgement was therefore issued 8 working days outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 20 July, which was 3 days over the timescales set out in the complaint policy.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 27 July 2021 which was acknowledged 15 working days later, on 17 August. It was therefore 12 working days over the timescale outlined in the complaint policy. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2021, 23 days after the complaint was made, and 3 days outside of its stated response times.
The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales outlined in its complaints procedure which was inappropriate because it extended the time taken for the resident to progress through the complaints process in order to resolve his complaint. It is acknowledged that the delays were relatively minor and therefore caused limited detriment to the resident.
The landlord failed to use the complaints procedure to reflect on the quality of the service it had provided to the resident as outlined in section 7.1 of the Code. It would have been reasonable for it to have assessed the effectiveness of its approach to date. Then, in terms of improvement, it could have considered how best to support the resident and ultimately, how it could resolve the necessary electrical works. Instead, it remained focussed on the condition of the property and the barriers this presented.
The stage 1 complaint was made on 2 July 2021 and the EICR carried out on 23 February 2022, nearly 8 months later. There is no evidence that the landlord used the complaints process to engage in meaningful efforts to resolve the situation as soon as possible. These failures amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250.

Record Keeping

There is evidence of poor record keeping for repairs. The landlord provided a repairs log with a total of 13 entries relating to the electrics for the period 2016 to March 2022. As early as June 2016 there is a reported fault with the cooker point and a request to “generally check the electrics.” In July 2016 there was a further request to repair the cooker point which was tripping the electrics. The log is a list of entries repeating the need to check the electrics and/or to carry out an EICR. None of the entries have the landlord’s response recorded against them.
The landlord’s emails state that it had booked an appointment with the resident to carry out his EICR on Monday 8 June 2020 which he phoned to cancel on 3 June. Conversely, the landlord’s repair records show that the EICR booked for 8 June 2020 could not proceed because the resident was not prepared to stay at the property while it was carried out.
A works order was raised on 7 February 2022 stating that the property “may need a rewire.” The job was cancelled on 21 February because it was “raised for the wrong trade.”
The landlord struggled to determine the dates in relation to electrical works at the property. It concluded that the date of the last EICR was 2006 not 2005 as it had previously thought.
The repair logs show that the rewire was completed on 16 March 2022. The ‘Domestic Electrical installation’ certificate says the work was completed on 25 March 2022.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
There was evidence of further record keeping failures, as follows:
1. File notes from the landlord’s data management system were muddled. They were not in chronological order, some were not dated and/or incomplete. Therefore, some of the notes were of limited use in terms of providing a comprehensive audit trail.
2. In its stage 2 response to the resident the landlord said it would arrange repairs to the communal drying area to be carried out as soon as possible. However, in its correspondence with this Service it confirmed that there was no drying area, just an outside communal garden.
3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2020 to ask him to address the issues in his flat by 20 July 2020. It then wrote a further letter to him on 2 July 2020 giving him 7 days to clear the property, with a new target date of 9 July.
4. In the landlord’s letter to the resident on 17 June 2021 it referred to a visit it had made on 16 July 2021.
The landlord cannot effectively track the progress of repairs, manage risk and make effective decisions, if it does not hold comprehensive records. Not doing so had a detrimental impact on the resident in this case because he did not have a working cooker and was at risk due to the poor condition of the electrics in the property. The failures identified in this report for record keeping amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to the resident £250.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to leaks in his shed is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove squirrel traps from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of electrical repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not take proactive steps to remove the squirrel traps from the loft over a 4 year period.
The landlord failed to remedy access issues required to carry out remedial electrical works at the property. It did not follow its hording protocol and its approach to the resident lacked empathy and understanding.
The landlord’s complaint acknowledgements and responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process were out of time. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to identify what had gone wrong and how it could expedite a resolution to the hoarding, and in turn the electrical works.
There were significant issues with the landlord’s repairs which impacted on its service to the resident. There were a number of further failures identified in relation to record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1550, comprising:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to remove the squirrel traps.
  2. £1000 for the significant detriment caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the electrical repairs.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  4. £250 for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s record keeping failures which had an adverse effect on the level of service received by the resident.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Considering the failings identified in the case, provide refresher training to relevant staff to ensure that they follow the procedure outlined in the landlord’s hoarding protocol.
2. Review the failings identified in this report which relate to complaint handling and carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and assessed in line with the principles outlined in section 7.1 of the Code.
Review the failings identified in this complaint in relation to record keeping and consider how these failings might be avoided in future. This may include a review of current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately, or staff training. The outcome of this consideration should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider developing a vulnerable persons policy and/or procedure so that it has a process in place to ensure that staff adopt an appropriate approach when dealing with tenancy matters involving vulnerable residents, particularly where there are associated health and safety risks. This should sit alongside the no access policy.