LiveWest Homes Limited (202106088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106088

LiveWest Homes Limited

12 October 2021

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of electric works at the property.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 14 June 2013.
The landlord’s electrical inspection and testing of general needs properties should be carried out at a frequency of every ten years. This is set out in a framework the landlord has said was introduced in 2014.
The landlord’s compensation guidance recommends that compensation of a maximum of £500 may be offered where there has been a “high level impact” and “serious failure in service standards”.
The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure, whereby the landlord aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within five working days at stage one and within seven days at stage two.

Summary of events

On 26 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, advising that it had been unable to carry out an electrical inspection at the property, having attempted two visits and stated that the matter would be referred for legal action if he did not allow an inspection on 5 February 2021.
On 1 February 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its letter of 26 January 2021, stating that he had been asking for an electrical inspection for years. He advised that he would be available for 5 February 2021 and asked for his bell to be rung or his door knocked, as previously, a calling card was only left in the downstairs lobby.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord attended and carried out an inspection of the electrics at the property and no problems were identified. There was communication about the issues with electrics at the property between the landlord and resident between 1-8 February 2021.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord advised that it was investigating the resident’s complaint and was due to respond by 17 February 2021, in accordance with its complaints process.
The landlord has said that it made attempts to contact the resident by phone but was unsuccessful, with his telephone going to voicemail. The landlord also wrote to him on 24 February 2021, on an unknown date in early March 2021 and again on 4 March 2021, advising that it could not reach him and also to ask to carry out an inspection to check that the bathroom heater had “RCD protection”.
On 4 March 2021 the resident responded to the landlord, and it replied in turn, providing an “interim response”, to his complaint, due to it not being able to yet discuss the matter with him. It stated as follows:
1. Three repairs had been reported by the resident since the start of the tenancy and two of these had been carried out, with one of them being the resident’s responsibility.
2. It had recently changed its policy for electrical testing from five years to ten years.
3. It was unable to provide the resident with an electrical report as the work was not yet completed – it needed to check that the bathroom heater had RCD protection.
4. The letter sent to the resident in January 2021 was a standard letter to make residents aware of their responsibilities around safety visits.
The landlord said that if it did not hear back from the resident by 20 March 2021, it would close his complaint.
On 8 and 12 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord requesting the escalation of his complaint as he felt that the situation had reached an impasse.
On 15 and 18 March 2021, there was further communication, with the landlord asking if the resident would like to speak to a manager about the issues before escalating his complaint. It also reminded him that the visit to check the bathroom heater was still required. The resident reiterated that he wanted his complaint escalated.
The landlord has said it was again unable to reach the resident by telephone and on 23 March 2021 it wrote to him, advising that the complaint had been escalated and he would receive a response by 6 April 2021.
On 25 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord clarifying his complaint; he spoke of items and bulbs breaking and blowing due to problems with the electrics and surges of power.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident offering him £200 compensation in recognition of service failures in its complaints handling and to “replace the consumer unit, to prevent the property from tripping”.
On 10 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, chasing an escalated outcome to his complaint.
On 2 June 2021, the resident received a telephone call from the landlord where he discussed the issues with the electrics and the resident’s dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to address the complaint.
Shortly thereafter, the resident has said that he received a phone call from the landlord, apologising for not previously offering dates to attend the property for inspection and a date was arranged for 8 June 2021.
At the inspection of 8 June 2021, issues with the electrics were found and remedied, including a broken socket and bathroom light not working and the landlord replaced some light bulbs which it was not required to do but did as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord has said, however, that no signs of electrical damage to any cables or distribution equipment that would suggest any kind of significant electrical surge or discharge was found. The only item that would be vulnerable to a power surge would be the resident’s laptop.
The landlord telephoned the resident the following day, on 9 June 2021, to ask for a list of items that had been destroyed or damaged over the years, as a result of the electrics. The resident provided a list of the items totalling £1487 and including an oven, coffee machine and some kettles.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident and offered him compensation which it set out in a letter entitled ‘stage two complaint’ the following day. The resident has said that the amount offered on the phone was £500 (which he declined) but the letter offered £100 less, which he also declined.
Within the letter, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issues with the electrics. It explained that it was pleased a visit had now taken place and reassured the resident that his property was safe. The landlord offered the resident £400 comprised of; £200 for complaint handling failure, £150 for a gesture of goodwill for items lost due to issues with the electrics and £50 for failing to put ‘sorry we missed you’ cards through the resident’s door.
The landlord would not compensate further for items the resident had said were destroyed because it explained these electrical items had a “resistive load” and it would not be possible for them to be affected by changes in the electricity current or otherwise.
The resident declined the offer as he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken into account damage to his electrical kitchen items, nor the psychological distress the situation had caused. The offer of £150 for items lost was for his laptop, which he said cost £399, not £250. Additionally, the resident referred to his fuse box having a recommended check date of 2014, which had not been checked until 2021, citing the delay in checking it as “unacceptable”.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident explaining that although it could not find evidence that it had been negligent, it was offering an increase of compensation to £650 and would be feeding back his concerns in regards to the service he received. The resident also declined this.

Assessment and findings

Electric works

Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repair works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
In this case, the resident has said that he has reported issues with the electrics for seven years, with the electrics tripping, issues of bulbs blowing and his electrical appliances blowing up because of power surges. Unfortunately, the resident is unable to evidence this contact, however, and the landlord’s records show only three issues reported, two of which were resolved, with one being the resident’s responsibility to remedy.
The landlord’s responsibility to inspect and repair, becomes applicable once the landlord is ‘on notice’ and there is no evidence of the landlord being on notice until the resident contacted it following receipt of its letter of 26 January 2021 regarding the electrical check. There is consequently no evidence of the landlord failing to act on its repair responsibilities over time.
Turning to the difference in inspection outcome between the February 2021 and June 2021 inspection, it is clear that there was some delay and poor communication here and that some things were missed that should have been picked up earlier, although some of the works – such as replacing bulbs – where done as a good will gesture as they were not the landlord’s responsibility to replace.
The issues found were not considered to be of high impact, insofar as the landlord found no signs of electrical damage to any cables or distribution equipment that would suggest any kind of significant electrical surge or discharge. That is not to say that the situation was not frustrating and inconvenient, however, there was therefore no indication of a risk to safety and the resident is satisfied with the electric works completed.
Turning to safety, the landlord stated in its response to the complaint that it “recently” updated its guidance on electrical safety checking, moving it from every five years to every ten. The documentation provided to this Service, however, states that the guidance to check every ten years is from a 2014 framework, although the specific document from which the guidance derives, has not been provided to this investigation; only an extract from it.
The landlord did not explain to the resident any change in its policy in 2014 or otherwise, with regards to timeframe for electrical safety checking, which would mean that the resident was left with a reasonable expectation that his electrics would be checked every five years and under the belief that the landlord had not done this. The landlord did not reasonably explain this change of policy at the time that it changed it. Notwithstanding these communication failures, there is no evidence of the landlord breaching its obligations with respect to safety.

Complaints handling

The landlord took too long to respond to the complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and procedural guidance. It, however, appropriately recognised this delay, apologised, and offered compensation in recognition of the service failure in this respect too.
The landlord has not clarified why it was delayed in responding to the complaint, however. Part of responding to a complaint is explaining what happened and why and provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate learning taken from its mistakes. There is no explanation from the landlord in respect of its complaints handling or any indication of learning – one of the Ombudsman’s published ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’.
Not only was the complaint process delayed but communication as to delay and timeframes was poor and the landlord’s responses were confusing in terms of the process itself; its stage one response was considered an ‘interim’ response, yet no final stage one response was ever provided. Its stage two response, referred to escalation from stage two and also stage one – although was entitled ‘stage two’. This led to confusion on the part of the resident as to what stage he was at.
The landlord missed an opportunity to apologise for the electric works missed at the inspection in February 2021 and again, did not explain what had happened here or any learning taken from it. Whilst reassuring the resident the property was safe, in its stage two response, the complaint responses lacked empathy for the resident’s situation, which he was clearly concerned and disgruntled about, and did not seek to de-escalate the situation.
The resident requested, as part of resolution to his complaint, the electrics report from February 2021 and July 2021 and this was not provided – initially because the landlord said the electric checks had not yet been complete in terms of a further check being required in respect of his bathroom heater – but these reports or records of findings were not provided to him later either. Further, the report from February 2021 did not need to wait until a further check as this could have been provided as a stand-alone report of what was checked and would have demonstrated a greater transparency and impetus to resolve the issues quickly.
Whilst an offer of compensation is not mandatory, the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in circumstances where it had found service failure. The offer of £650 was above and beyond the guidance in its compensation policy and beyond the threshold of maladministration that this Service suggests, which is an award over £500.
The landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident for items that he said blew up as a result of faulty electrics, even though it did so, in respect of the laptop. It was not obliged to do this as there was no evidence of faulty electrics in the way that the resident described, or evidence of electrics causing damage to his items. Irrespective of “resistive load” which may have been applicable to the cooker but would not have been applicable to personal items such as kettles, there was no evidence that faulty electrics caused this. Thus, this Service considers that the landlord took the shortcomings in its handling of the issues into cognisance in its offer of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the electrics works.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

There was no maladministration in respect of electric works insofar as there is no evidence of reports of issues with the electrics being made and not responded to by the landlord. The landlord carried out its routine inspection and having been notified at that point of problems, it took steps to rearrange an inspection, at which some issues with the electrics were found and addressed.
Although it took too long to carry out the second inspection, the landlord apologised for this, reassured the resident the property was safe and offered a level of compensation that goes above and beyond the recommendations of its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance.
The landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident for items he said were destroyed by faulty electrics, as there is no evidence of faulty electrics that would destroy items as described.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling, insofar as it apologised for the service failures here and offered compensation which went above and beyond the recommendations of its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer the resident the £650 compensation it previously offered and that was declined by the resident, as the decision of this Service is based on the reasonableness of this offer.
The landlord to carry out a lessons–learned exercise in respect of the delay between the February and June inspections and issues in its complaints handling and to put measures in place to help prevent a recurrence.
The landlord to strongly consider providing the two electrical check reports to the resident.