LiveWest Homes Limited (202105579)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105579

LiveWest Homes Limited

22 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Remedial works in April 2021.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one bedroom, first floor flat. The flat is owned by the landlord, a housing association. It is one of 7 flats within a 4 storey mid-terrace purpose-built block. The resident has a sole, assured periodic tenancy that began on 28 April 1997.
On 28 September 2020 a fire took place in the roof space of the block of flats. The fire caused significant damage to the building and extensive remedial works were required. The landlord planned for these works to be completed by its contractors.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with an update about the fire damage remedial works. It advised that:
1. The schedule of works was awaiting contract and insurance confirmation. It anticipated work starting within 4-6 weeks.
2. There would be possible impact to daily living during works, but it would work closely with contractors to try to keep noise at a minimum.
3. The typical hours of works would be between 8am to 5am, Monday to Friday.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord provided an anticipated start date for the first stage of works as 25 February 2021. It said a final schedule was awaited, a copy of which would be placed in the building and sent in a letter. It also updated that its contractors would write to the resident to confirm works to be done and the dates and times of potential greater noise impact.
A pre-contract site meeting took place on 9 April 2021 with the landlord and contractor present. The minutes of this meeting recorded the following:
1. Works would begin onsite 20 April 2021, with the full programme to be set out in due course.
2. Action should be taken to ensure residents were made aware of the works.
3. Working hours were between 8am and 5pm, with no noisy works before 9am. Noise including shouting was to be kept at a minimum, with no radios on site.
4. The contractor was due to provide site specific risk assessments and a full health and safety audit would be carried out once works were on site.
A copy of the typed minutes from the site meeting was sent to the landlord by its contractor on 19 April 2021.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord’s contractor sent to the landlord a full programme of works. The programme detailed each stage of the remedial works, including site set up on 20 April 2021 and strip out from 21 April 2021.

Scope of investigation

The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about matters distinct to the issues reviewed by this investigation. This other complaint was the subject of separate complaint responses by the landlord. As this was a different complaint, this will not be reviewed as part of this investigation.

Summary of events

The landlord’s contractors commenced works at the building on 21 April 2021.
On 22 April 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord by phone about its handling of the remedial works. He raised issue as follows:
1. The landlord had not provided an update about when works would start as promised by its previous letter; works started that day.
2. The works started without prior notice and at 7am. This caused disruption; those living in situ had no chance to prepare eg by shutting windows. They were woken by drilling. The initial work had caused dust and debris to come through doors and windows.
3. The landlord had failed to provide a point of contact for issues during works or a named person responsible for health and safety.
4. The resident had concerns about whether there was adequate quality control and compliance with health and safety requirements. The resident was concerned whether the dust may contain asbestos.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in writing by letter of the same date and said it would reply by 29 April 2021.
The landlord’s service improvement service made immediate internal enquiries marked as high priority. The asset management service commented that the resident ‘has been appeased quite a lot since the get go’ and stated the works would not have started at 7am outside of agreed times. The landlord noted it had not had time to notify residents before works started because the works schedule was provided only the day prior. Details were exchanged about the prior removal of asbestos and the complained of service commented the resident made previous false assertions of dust entering his home. It advised it would send an update letter to residents.
The landlord called the resident. It explained that:
1. The works project manager would be on site the next day and could speak with him about his concerns.
2. It would raise issue with the lack of notice and timing of works with its contractor.
3. It would look into the concerns about asbestos.
4. It was willing to offer £100 compensation for the failure to notify him of works.
Later that day, the landlord issued a letter to the resident. It enclosed the full programme of remedial works. It apologised it had not had time to let him know about the works starting as it had only been made aware that same day. It provided the direct contact details for the works project manager.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to their complaint. It said:
1. The resident was not given notice of when the works would start due to its contractors advising it only on 20 April 2023 that works would begin the next day. The landlord did not have enough time to inform residents.
2. All asbestos from affected flats was removed from the block 6-8 weeks prior and any dust experienced would therefore not contain asbestos. It would follow up the resident’s concern about one of the flats.
3. The resident was welcome to speak with the project manager on site who would also raise issue with contractors about the work start time and short prior notice.
4. It repeated the offer of £100 compensation to recognise lack of prior notice of works starting, causing disruption and ‘great inconvenience’.
Over the weekend of 24 to 25 April 2021 the resident left a voice message for the landlord. The resident said that the contractors had worked on the Saturday and before 8am outside of accepted working hours.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident who provided further information about the weekend work. The landlord promised to investigate. The resident gave details of the attending contractor, vehicle registration and timing as at 7.30am. The landlord noted the resident requested compensation of £100 for each impacted resident. The landlord’s internal notes commented that it ‘didn’t want to get into a conversation about that and so ended the call’.
The landlord’s contractor supplied to the landlord a report into the resident’s concerns the same date. The report outlined the following:
1. The resident was referred to as ‘the self appointed spokesperson for the neighbouring flats…who had been beckoning individuals…to see him…’
2. The contractor and landlord agreed at a site meeting on 23 April 2023 ‘a firm stance needed to be taken again(st) the complainants through fear one of their objectives was to claim further compensation from (the landlord)’.
3. All asbestos elements were previously removed from upper floors. Removal of artex in other areas was planned but no work had yet begun.
4. The following steps had been taken:
  1. Contact details for the landlord’s project manager and contractor had been placed on the building notice boards for residents to refer concerns.
  2. Notices would be installed outlining permitted hours for ‘noisy works’ to party walls, agreed as 9am to 3pm.
  3. Water sprayers and netting would be used during the strip out to help contain dust. The contractor found no evidence of dust outside the area worked on during the site meeting.
5. The contractor provided an account that 3 of its operatives attended the block on Saturday at 8am. It said it had attended only to collect tools while enroute to another site. The resident approached them on arrival, asking if they were working. When the contractor confirmed it was, it was said the resident replied, ‘great as you have just made me money by turning up’. The contractor advised offering to leave, and the resident stated there was no need as they were already there. It described the resident as confrontational. The contractor collected one load of waste and left site at 11am. It denied hacking off plaster or making excessive noise.
6. The contractor had made clear to its sub-contractor it must not attend site outside of prescribed hours. It apologised for the events of Saturday.
7. The contractor’s view of the Saturday events was that ‘(the resident) appears to have acted as an ‘Agent Provocateur’ in intentionally encouraging/ permitting work to be conducted at… on a Saturday knowing this should not occur with the intention of (the contractor) breaching the rules so that (the resident) could benefit from a compensation claim’. It referred to the contractor as being ‘aided and abetted by (the resident)’.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord called the resident. It gave assurance that weekend attendance would not happen again. The landlord’s subsequent notes of an internal conversation relaying the call recorded, ‘(the landlord) has told him a few days ago that he won’t be getting any money. He advised to ignore his requests if he phones up about it’.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord sent an internal email concerning the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. Compensation to the resident had no basis and they had refused this.
2. After the previous offer of £100 to the resident, another resident had made contact to enquire about the same offer.
3. The resident appeared to have ‘gone round to all the tenants and told them he is getting this money and now everyone is jumping on it’.
4. They would close the case as being without ground and would not engage with tenants about compensation.
A works progress site meeting was held on 30 April 2021 with the landlord and contractor present. It confirmed the updated restrictions on noisy works outside of 9am to 3pm.
The landlord’s service improvement team sought input from the asset management service to inform its complaint response position. The landlord said it had no obligation to give notice but probably should out of courtesy. They also commented on personal experience of disruption and noise from their own neighbours’ work starting early morning, adding their view that they would not get compensated for this.
Also on 30 April 2021, the landlord issued to the resident its stage 1 response to his complaint. Before sending, the service improvement team called the resident to outline the outcome. The resident raised concern that the goodwill gesture element of the £100 offer was worded to prevent further concerns being accounted for. The landlord agreed to remove this at his request.
The landlord’s stage 1 response letter said that:
1. It was not able to adequately inform residents of remedial works starting on 20 April 2021 due to lack of advance notice from its contractors. If it had known ahead of time, it would ‘almost certainly notified’. It subsequently wrote to all residents to apologise and provided a schedule of works.
2. Its January 2021 letter did not promise to tell residents exactly when works would begin and it is under no obligation to do so, although it recognised this would have been ‘common courtesy’.
3. It could confirm there would have been no asbestos within any air particles as all materials were removed several weeks prior.
4. It disputed operatives attended before 8am.
5. The landlord noted no evidence of escaped dust at site visit on 23 April 2021. It would be taking further mitigation measures of a micro mesh to windows and water sprays to minimise escape of debris.
6. It was under no obligation to inform the resident of the site manager or health and safety responsible. All construction, design and management regulations were being followed.
7. It relayed the account of its contractors for the morning 24 April 2021. It added, ‘it seems that if the workmen were not approached and spoken to, no work would have been undertaken’.
8. The former offer of £100 was made without full consideration of his complaint. Had the landlord considered the complaint fully in line with its obligations and practice, it would not have made the same offer. However, it would honour this and reduce this to £75 as agreed.
On 12 June 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that the resident’s concerns be considered at stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would provide a response by 22 June 2021. The letter referred to their call with the resident of that date of which no note has been provided.
The landlord’s internal complaint pack referred to the resident’s concerns as disputing the landlord and contractors’ accounts of the events occurring in April 2021 and wanting further investigation.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint. It was agreed that the landlord would visit him on 23 June 2021 to inspect the works and conditions.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord visited the resident at home. The contemporaneous notes are brief and recorded ‘discussed at length his concerns’ but noted these did not relate to the complaint itself. A site walk was recorded during which no health and safety concerns were noted. The landlord noted that it would stay in regular contact with the resident to try and see if he will consider closing the complaint.
The landlord recently added the current recollection of its visiting officer in reply to this Service’s request for the contemporaneous full site inspection, visit notes. The resident was said to have raised issue with the landlord’s failure to give notice of the works start date. The landlord’s response was that although not ideal, it did not have to do so. A comparison was made to their own neighbours having works done.
On 7 July 2021 the landlord issued a letter containing its response to the resident’s escalated complaint. It apologised that the reply was delayed and set out the following:
1. It referred to a call with the resident of 2 July 2021, of which the landlord retained no copy notes.
2. It acknowledged that a lack of communication pre works led to the resident not being told of the start date.
3. It apologised that its contractor worked on Saturday 24 April 2021 despite prior instructions.
4. It was unable to make a finding concerning the conversation that took place on 24 April 2021 following the resignation of a member of staff.
5. It provided assurances about its liaison with contractors concerning the ongoing works and update on likely completion.
6. It promised to provide update in writing once in receipt of an updated programme from its contractor. It offered a specific point of contact.
The landlord advised this Service that the remedial works were completed November 2021. The resident disputes that all necessary works were resolved. This matter is the subject of separate complaint.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s compensation offer and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response due to its content and the remedy proposed. He referred the landlord’s handling of the April 2021 works to this Service for investigation. The complaint was accepted for investigation on 25 July 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement between the parties to this complaint required that the landlord did not interrupt or interfere with the resident’s right to peacefully occupy the property. This mirrors the resident’s rights of quiet enjoyment as implied into the contract by common law allowing them to live in their home without undue interference. Disturbances from the landlord or anyone acting on their behalf may constitute a breach of this contractual right.
The landlord’s health and safety policy required that appropriate monitoring arrangements were in place for contractors to ensure that responsibilities for health and safety were being met. This included regular meetings to review progress and regular monitoring of contractor activities, a monthly health and safety report. The policy also detailed the need for specific risk assessments for works to identify potential hazards and relevant control measures.
The landlord had a construction design and management procedure concerned with the management of risk in its construction projects, including intensive works. It set out measures for the early identification of potential on-site hazards, contract management and control. One of which was pre-start meetings with contractors to focus, amongst other matters, on key health and safety risks posed by works to ensure closure of gaps in safe systems.
The landlord’s customer compliments, complaints and feedback policy committed to listening to its customers and treating them with respect and courtesy. It outlined the importance of a customer-focused response and taking on board feedback to enable improvements and customer service showing a positive complaints culture.
The complaints policy and procedure combined required that all complaints or feedback that identify health and safety concerns be formally recorded, referred ‘immediately’ to a senior manager and the health and safety manager advised to enable specialist investigation. Where an incident either had or may have had the potential to cause harm or personal injury, it was to follow this process ‘regardless of seriousness’.
Its complaints policy and separate procedure says the landlord will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days. At stage 2, the complaint is reviewed by a senior manager. Their response should be given usually within 7 days, but if it will take longer, this can be agreed in advance with the customer after a full explanation. The procedure also required that a complaint investigation considered all relevant information including applicable policies.
The landlord operated separate compensation guidance with guide payment amounts for the calculation of financial awards linked to the assessed level of impact to its customer from identified failings in service. It stressed the need to seek to put matters right for its customer as a means of trying to repair its relationship and rebuild confidence in its service.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) as then in force set out the following expectations:
1. A positive complaint handling culture amongst a landlord’s staff.
2. Complaint handlers having the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes fairly.
3. Fairness in the complaint investigation, including that it be conducted in an impartial manner, dealt with on merits and with an open mind.

The landlord’s handling of remedial works in April 2021

It is agreed by both parties to this complaint investigation that the resident was not given prior specific notice that works would begin in the building that housed his flat on 21 April 2021.
The landlord’s complaint response advised the resident it was under no obligation to provide notice. It acknowledged, however, that such prior warning would have been ‘common courtesy’ and at stage 1 accepted it would ‘almost certainly’ have provided notice had it received earlier warning of the works start.
The landlord appropriately identified it was under no precise legal obligation requiring notice of works for communal areas. The resident’s contractual right to advance notice related only to access to his flat. However, the landlord failed to take adequate account of considerations outside of ‘common courtesy’. There is little evidence the landlord was conscious of other competing rights or factors to which it should have had regard that had the effect of reasonably requiring that notice be given.
The early stage works, including a full ‘strip out’, would necessarily create significant noise within the building and associated disruption to those in situ. This disruption would reasonably be particularly acute if such works began unexpectedly and early in the day. The landlord’s own prior correspondence to the resident confirmed the likelihood of impact to daily living from the works. The nature of the invasive works created a substantial risk of undue interference with the resident’s use and enjoyment of their home.
The landlord’s response failed to show regard to the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment. Its assertion of owing ‘no obligation’ to inform the resident was not strictly correct as a point of law. It failed to recognise the impact on the use and enjoyment of the resident’s home from a failure to warn of invasive works start. It showed little recognition that to prevent a breach of the resident’s quiet enjoyment, it would be reasonably expected to take mitigation and control measures to reduce interference so far as possible. Appropriate advance notice would fall within the reasonable range of such measures. The landlord’s lack of regard to the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment prevented a response that took fuller account of its responsibilities to the resident.
This lack of recognition was observed in the landlord’s internal correspondence, including the comment on receipt of complaint that the failing wasn’t serious as residents knew work would be starting ‘around now’. This Service has seen no evidence the residents were given such proximate notice. The landlord failed to show an appreciation and respect for the impact that works would likely have upon the lives of those living it its properties.
The landlord’s response also failed to recognise that its prior correspondence to the resident reasonably created an expectation of specific advance notice. It referred the resident to its January 2021 letter but did not reflect upon its other prior letter of 23 February 2021. This did provide specific notice of a precise start date, since delayed, and promised further written confirmation of when works with greater noise impact would take place. Such assurances reasonably created the expectation the landlord would write further with dates of likely noisy works and the updated start date. The landlord failed to acknowledge that its previous communications provided updates and specific information and lead to the resident not feeling heard and it failing to meet the expectations created.
The position adopted by the landlord’s response also showed a lack of or inadequate regard to resident awareness as a risk control measure to mitigate against potential site hazards. The importance of adherence to pre-works control measures was outlined in the landlord’s own health and safety policy and construction management procedures. The minutes of the pre-start meeting with contractors recorded the need for residents to be made aware of works start. The landlord’s denial of responsibility for informing the resident was at odds with its own recorded internal preparations.
The landlord failed to acknowledge to the resident that it was reasonably required in all the circumstances to provide advance specific notice. The sole admission it would have been polite to provide notice did not demonstrate an understanding of its responsibilities. This prevented fuller accountability to the resident and appropriate identification of service failing.
Regardless of the extent of its responsibilities concerning notice, the landlord did provide an account for it having failed to do so. This was that it received inadequate notice from its contractors, being informed only on 20 April 2021. The landlord’s complaint investigation and response failed to recognise it had been on earlier notice.
The minutes of the pre-works meeting of 9 April 2021 recorded the landlord in attendance. It is reasonable to consider this representative of the landlord made timely note of key information expressed verbally and any necessary action points for the landlord. The minutes recorded works would begin onsite on 20 April 2021 and that residents in situ were to be advised. This was clear evidence the landlord had earlier notice of the intended works start, 11 days prior. This length of time was sufficient to enable reasonable notice to the resident of upcoming disruption. However, there is no evidence the landlord took forward the information provided until after it received copy minutes on 19 April 2021 and the programme of works on 20 April 2021.
The landlord’s complaint response failed to reflect the accurate position as demonstrated by its records; it was in receipt of sufficient notice of the works start date but failed to pass this information to the resident. Instead, it placed responsibility on its contractor who it stated gave last minute notice. The landlord’s complaint response failed to appropriately identify the failings in its service or their extent, leading to the resident’s unexpected disruption. It contributed to a lack of ownership by the landlord of the failings experienced. It also led to the resident being provided an inaccurate explanation and represented a missed opportunity for the landlord to learn from its inaction.
The landlord’s response concerning the lack of notice of works start overall displayed a disregard for the resident’s rights or the experience of the resident within their home and a lack of ownership for or identification of the causative failings in service. While the landlord offered compensation of £100 for the ‘contractor’s’ failure to provide advance notice, it retracted the basis of its offer when formalising its response. The landlord’s partial ‘upholding’ of the resident’s complaint whilst also refuting responsibility did not have the effect of putting right the above identified failures.
The resident’s complaint also raised concerns about the works start time. The resident asserted works had begun at 7am. The landlord’s prior correspondence to the resident advised typical hours of work from 8am. The landlord’s pre-works meeting recorded noisy works before 9am would be avoided. Its record of the complaint investigation showed acknowledgement its contractors attended before 9am and commenced work leading to noise. However, its complaint response failed to reflect that works had taken place outside of the hours agreed to minimise disruption. While it helpfully outlined steps being taken to ensure future compliance as assurance, it did not give explicit acceptance of responsibility or specifically account to the resident for this further service failure.
A further matter raised by the resident’s complaint was his concern about the landlord’s adherence to health and safety requirements and quality control. This Service requested but was not provided with the fuller records of compliance as specifically referred to within its health and safety policy and construction and design management procedures, e.g., risk assessments, inspection reports, health, and safety audit(s). By way of example, the landlord’s policy required inspections to ensure safe site set up prior to works and such inspection would reasonably have been recorded in a retained document.
This Service was provided with minutes of pre-works site meeting and subsequent works progress meetings. However, there is no supplied retained record of other site visits, audits, assessments. Specific site visits and inspection were referenced within the landlord’s other records; those of 23 April 2021 and 23 June 2021 however the record made was minimal. This raises concern as to the landlord’s record keeping practices in respect of an important matter of health and safety. The lack of supplied records showing the landlord’s health and safety practices and quality control have impacted this Service’s ability to appropriately assess and make findings on this matter.
This Service has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s health and safety and quality control concerns. It undertook a swift investigation into the removal of asbestos from the building. The landlord also outlined the control measures being taken forward, for example window coverings. It was important the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns, and this showed it reasonably sought to specifically meet certain aspects of these by setting out the further steps being taken.
The resident’s wider concerns about health and safety and quality control were met with a minimal response at stage one, the landlord simply stating all regulations had been followed. While this statement provided important confirmation, the lack of further explanation or detail failed to demonstrate sufficient regard for the resident’s concerns. The landlord failed to recognise that the incident and the landlord’s direction of responsibility at its contractor would likely impact the resident’s confidence in its approach to control. Proactive information was reasonable at this stage to rebuild a relationship of trust. The reasoning for the landlord’s refusal to provide a point of contact for health and safety in this context is unclear.
The further attendance of work persons on a Saturday, 24 April 2021 was raised by the resident during the course of his complaint. The resident had been advised by the landlord that all works would be carried out Monday to Friday only. The landlord’s investigations confirmed work persons attended on a Saturday outside of compliance with contractual requirements. The landlord apologised for their attendance.
However, the explanation provided acted against the ability of this apology to put matters right. There was little appreciation demonstrated in the landlord’s response that this incident was a further interference with the use and enjoyment of the resident’s home early on a weekend.
Due to the above identified failings, this Service finds the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of remedial works in April 2021. These failings showed an overall lack of regard for the resident’s concerns or experience. The landlord’s offered apology and £100 compensation did not remedy the failings experienced by the resident. It did not identify and thus acknowledge to the resident the extent of its service failings. Even where it did apologise, the lack of ownership for responsibility took away from its effect to put matters right and exacerbated the detriment to the resident.
The disruption was experienced by a resident who had already faced ongoing inconvenience from delayed works and the distress of living in a building impacted by a major fire. He was concerned about the safety of his home and the way in which associated works were being completed. His concerns were given inadequate regard and care by the landlord. The resident has reported this causing him unnecessary distress. Moreover, by the landlord failing to accept appropriate responsibility for its failings or have due regard to his rights, the resident was put to time and trouble seeking to have his voice heard. The landlord is required to pay to the resident compensation to account for the detriment caused by the service failings identified above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord engaged swiftly with the resident in relation to his complaint on 22 April 2021. It took immediate steps to try resolve the issues and demonstrated a willingness to listen. It kept in regular contact with the resident, updating him of their interim position and further actions. Before sending its stage one response, the landlord outlined the outcome to the resident verbally and took on board feedback about the offer, amending it before issue. The complaint handling at stage one displayed positive listening and, in the earliest stage, a demonstrable willingness to put matters right for the resident.
The conclusion of the landlord’s stage one response was however largely at odds with its early stage approach. As considered above, the landlord’s finalised response adopted an updated position about advance notice that failed to give adequate regard for the rights of the resident. However, in addition to this update, the landlord informed the resident it would in retrospect have rescinded its offer.
This was an unusual position for the landlord to express. Its investigation found that, as raised by the resident’s complaint, it did not provide notice when it ordinary would have done so and work persons attended site against requirements. While some other details of incidents on site were disputed, lack of notice was not. And yet the landlord made clear it no longer accepted the basis of its previous offer.
Although the landlord maintained an apology, this was minimised by its reversal of position as well as the diversion of responsibility to its contractor and concerningly, the resident in respect of Saturday works. Such position severely impacted the ability of its part-uphold and the ‘honoured’ offer to put matters right. Not only did this position create inconsistency in its external complaint handling, it showed an unwillingness to sincerely acknowledge responsibility for service failings and a lack of sensitivity to the resident experience.
The landlord’s surrounding internal conversations were considered as relevant context for the reversed position. During the course of the stage one investigation, the service subject of complaint expressed the following views to the complaint handler:
1. No early compensation should have been offered to the resident. The landlord should ignore any further compensation request(s).
2. The resident’s allegation would not be true (before contractors were spoken with).
3. The landlord needed to take a ‘firm stance’ against the resident due to concern he would seek further compensation and other residents would follow suit.
4. It was due to the resident’s encouragement that its contractors did weekend works.
This Service’s review of the documents considered by the landlord’s own investigation and from its records is inconsistent with the above expressed views. The landlord’s change of reasoning and position, between its swift early apology and the stage one update presents as unreasonably informed and influenced by unsubstantiated expressed views.
In line with the Code, those handling complaints were to have sufficient authority and autonomy to resolve them fairly and conduct investigations in an impartial manner. This Service recognises the need for the landlord’s complaint handler to take technical views from and obtain all relevant information from the complained of service to inform its assessment of the complaint. However, its stage one investigation showed a lack of reasonable interrogation of the relevant facts, evidence, and rights of the resident independent of the view presented by the service subject of complaint.
The landlord repeated the service’s view of the landlord’s obligations and prior promises re notice without any apparent further regard for the resident’s fuller rights or other correspondence. It made no further inquiries concerning health and safety requirements. It took as advised that the complained of service was unaware of the commencement date before the evening of works starting, despite the landlord’s records contradicting this view. These records were reasonably readily available to the complaint handler. Weight was given to its contractors’ account of events on 24 April 2021 to suggest the resident’s alleged role in the landlord’s service failing. Despite the adverse nature of the finding and the resident disputing the account, there was no clear effort by the complaint handler to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions contained within the report. Instead, the complaint handler simply repeated the position as relayed. There was an overall failure to reasonably assess the evidence behind the views expressed by the complained of service.
This failing is of greater concern when the disparaging tone of comments aimed at the resident is considered. The complaint handler at stage one was aware that the complained of service had told it to ignore the resident, put the phone down on him and endorsed a report from its contractor referring to the resident as a ‘self-appointed spokesperson’ and using criminal language to describe his interaction with its contractors. It was reasonable for the complaint handler to be alert in these circumstances of the need for a robust and independent interrogation of the facts being asserted. Its failure to do so represented vulnerabilities in the fairness of its process and limited the impartiality of its complaint handling in line with the Code. It further raises concern as to the autonomy and authority of the designated complaint handler that unsubstantiated views by the complained of service was given such undue weight in the landlord’s response.
The complained of service asserted its view of the complaint not only to the internal complaint handler during investigation. It made clear its view to the resident awaiting independent assessment of their concerns in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure. The service informed the resident he would be offered no further compensation before determination of his complaint. This did not support an external impression that the resident’s concerns were being fairly considered. It reasonably gave suggestion that his request had been prejudged and the landlord’ decision influenced by the service against whom he submitted the complaint. It showed evidence of a lack of impartiality in the complaint handling process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response adopted an apologetic tone and accepted aspects of service failings. It apologised to the resident for the incident of 24 April 2021 and took care to assure the resident about its further liaison with contractors. The improved tone and greater ownership of issues experienced by the resident showed an effort to put certain matters right. The final response did not however acknowledge or address any failings in its prior complaint handling. Without any form of specific reflection, it failed to provide redress for the inconsistent position expressed to date or the outward impression of his complaint being prejudged at stage one. The records also showed no further interrogation of the landlord’s responsibilities, prior correspondence or the health and safety concerns raised. Although the landlord was seen to take further steps to seek to listen and understand the resident’s concerns, this did not translate into a more robust investigation.
This Service has found from review of the landlord’s internal records that it displayed a negative attitudinal response to complaints and complaint handling culture. Multiple contacts involved in either handling the complaint or providing information for the investigation expressed opinions inconsistent with a positive complaint handling culture. While the initial and external tone of its response to the resident was apologetic, the ‘on the ground’ reaction became disparaging and defensive despite evidence of service failings. There was little apparent regard for the experience of the resident or a clear focus on seeking to put matters right for him. An expressed focus was recorded as to dissuade further complaints/ compensation and, during stage 2 investigations, to try agreeing closure of the complaint. The landlord’s discussions minimised the failings identified, for example the stage 2 handler compared the resident’s circumstances to his own neighbour’s building work. There was a lack of sense of ownership for the failings identified. The landlord endorsed a contractor’s report describing the resident in criminal language and deflected aspects of service failure to its contractors and the resident. This was seen to follow through into the content of its response showing a lack of self-reflection or sensitivity for the customer experience. The landlord failed to model its own policy commitment to welcome complaints for learning and show a willingness to listen.
The resident’s complaint raised concern as to the landlord’s compliance with health and safety requirements. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure required that this issue be referred to its health and safety service for investigation and that the complaint at stage one be handled by a senior manager. There is no record that either step was taken. It is commented above that the resident’s health and safety concerns were given inadequate regard or response. Had the landlord followed its procedures accordingly, this would reasonably have allowed an appropriate level of investigation and detail of response by the specialism required. A response with such technical input would also have supported reassurance of the resident.
The timing of the landlord’s response to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process was delayed by just over 2 weeks. In accordance with its complaints procedure, the landlord was required to respond within 7 days. Any further period was to be agreed in advance with the resident and reasons for extension provided. There is no evidence that advance notice of its delay was provided to the resident or any attempt at reaching an agreement. The landlord apologised for delay within its stage 2 response, however offered no other form of remedy despite its compensation guidance allowing small sum offers for low impact service failings.
The landlord reported being unable to provide contemporaneous records of all direct contact with the resident during the complaint investigation. This Service was advised that this was due to certain individuals having left the organisation and that it has significantly improved its record keeping since implementation of a new system September 2021. It is outside of the scope of this investigation to consider any improvements made after the period specifically reviewed by this complaint. Notwithstanding any subsequent changes that may have been made, this Service found evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord during the period of investigation. The recording of sufficiently detailed telephone notes was of particular importance in this case where the resident did not communicate by other instantaneous means e.g., by email. He was reliant on phone calls and post. The landlord failed to appropriately record his voice in the complaint.
The cumulative failings by the landlord across its complaint handling were, in their totality, serious. Its complaint response exacerbated the pre-existing failings in service experienced by the resident. The resident has described feeling that his voice was not heard that the landlord had little time for his concerns and further was disparaging in tone. Review of the landlord’s internal records draws the same conclusion. This caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. He reports the handling of his complaint having a lasting impact on his trust in the landlord. It is apparent that the manner of response and handling undermined the landlord/ resident relationship.
This Service finds the landlord responsible for maladministration in its complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay financial compensation that reflects the severity of its failings and their harmful impact to the resident.
The level of failings noted across the landlord’s complaint handling were reflective of this Service’s most serious form of maladministration. However, in line with this Service’s Outcomes guidance, while the landlord’s approach had a clear adverse impact to the resident, this undoubted detriment was not at the most serious level. The severity of failings, the harm caused to the landlord and tenant relationship and the unnecessary distress to the resident is accounted for in the financial compensation ordered.
This Service has considered that the issues identified in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling may give rise to further complaints about that matter and exercised its discretionary power in accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. A wider order has been issued for the landlord to review its policies or practice in relation its complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to take steps aimed at rebuilding the trust in its relationship with the resident. This Service further orders the landlord to reflect inwards as to its complaint handling on reflection of this determination. It is required to consider carefully how it may better model its commitment to a positive complaint handling culture and ensure the fair handling of complaints. The landlord must also review its current record keeping practices in light of the associated issues identified across both its handling of the substantive issue and the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial works in April 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to have regard to the resident’s rights of quiet enjoyment or adhere to expectations of advance notice created by its own prior correspondence and recorded as necessary action. When the resident raised complaint, the landlord’s response did not recognise the level of extent of the failings experienced as detailed by this report. Nor did it give adequate regard to the resident’s specific concerns. While it provided an apology and offered a sum in compensation for aspects of these failings only, the ability of this as remedy to put matters right was minimised by its corresponding conclusions diverting responsibility.
How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in the earliest stage showed a willingness and reasonable effort to put matters right for him. However, its investigations failed to subsequently conduct a reasonable interrogation of the relevant facts and evidence to inform its assessment and response. It gave undue weight to the unsubstantiated expressed views of the complained of service. It failed to follow its own procedure requiring specialist investigation of health and safety related concerns. Its assertions to the resident during investigation were inconsistent with a fair process. The landlord’s response displayed inconsistency and a lack of ownership for evidenced failings. It displayed poor record keeping practices consistent with issues noted in relation to its substantive handling. Of most serious concern to this Service, the landlord’s internal records displayed an unwillingness by the landlord to self-reflect, revealing a defensive reaction with little regard for the resident as its customer.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £900 compensation comprised of:
  1. £500 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of remedial works.
  2. £400 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
3. Offer to meet with the resident with the aim of rebuilding the relationship of trust. The landlord should propose a meeting with a manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation.

Wider order

In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review into in its complaint handling. The landlord’s review must:
1. Explore why the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation occurred and recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring.
2. Assess whether its complaint handling policies and procedures:
  1. Protect the authority and autonomy of its complaint handlers to resolve complaints fairly.
  2. Provides appropriate guidance to support the fair assessment of evidence obtained during investigation.
  3. Engender a positive complaint handling culture.
3. Review the adequacy of its current staff complaint handling training to reinforce a positive handling culture and the need for updating training.
4. Evaluate its recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
5. Consider how it will monitor and measure the success of any actions for improvements identified by this review.
The landlord’s review should:
1. Be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Include a dip sample of a representative number of prior and current complaints to support its findings that include consideration of the landlord’s surrounding internal correspondence and records.
A copy of the above ordered reviews and any associated updated policies, procedures or training materials should be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this determination