Midland Heart Limited (202003795)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003795

Midland Heart Limited

31 March 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns:
1. The landlord response to the resident’s complaint about being evicted and the provision of a reference.
2. The landlord’s response to reports regarding staff conduct.
3. The landlord’s response to concerns raised about repairs and maintenance.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint if it was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which is usually 6 months. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e), the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord response to the complaint about being evicted and the provision of a reference.
The resident was evicted from the property on 1 May 2019. On 17 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord advising that as she was now in a situation whereby she was unable to bid for accommodation through the local authority due to the reference provided by the landlord, detailing warnings and eviction notices.
On 11 March 2020 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf advising that the resident had raised concerns regarding the circumstances around her eviction from the property. They stated she had told them that she felt that she had been prevented from moving on with her life as she had not been able to secure a new tenancy because of the reference provided by the landlord.
As this constitutes a new complaint that was not brought to the landlord until more than ten months after the resident’s eviction, the Ombudsman is unable investigate this complaint in accordance with paragraph 39(e).

Background and summary of events

The resident had a licence to occupy the property. The property is a flat in supported accommodation. The licence started on 22 February 2018 and ended when the resident was evicted on 1 May 2019.
This investigation will only look at the issues the resident raised in her 12 April 2019 formal complaint as these were raised with the landlord within 6 months of the matters arising when she was still in a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord. We are unable to consider further information raised by the resident in 2020 as they were not raised within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord sent the resident a first warning for “breach of visitor’s policy’ on 18 February 2019.
On 2 April 2019 the landlord served a Notice to Terminate the resident’s licence to occupy referencing a failure to make expected payments to her rent account.
On 12 April 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord which she said concerned how staff had treated her. She said since moving in, she felt she has had little support compared to the support promised when referred to the landlord. She said she had been very honest with the landlord at the outset about her situation and detailed her anxiety, history of domestic violence, cannabis use and debt. The landlord assured her she would receive support whilst living within its supported accommodation. She said that her main areas of concern were:
1. Safety/privacy– Maintenance operatives entered her room without her permission and without notice from the landlord. Being a lone female in the room, this was extremely unsettling. She felt pressured by staff to open letters including from Department of Works and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus in front of them who wanted her to discuss the contents. Staff were controlling.
2. Visitors– she had visitors infrequently however she received warning then her visitors have stayed a short amount of time beyond the “curfew”.
3. Maintenance and repairs–There were “constant faults” with the maintenance of her room including issues with plumbing. She recently reported a leaking into her room coming from the bathroom causing water running onto her carpet and wardrobe which resulted in damage caused to her possessions. The lift was constantly out of order and there is no lighting in the bathroom. The response times were also too long. In relation to the leak, she had to contact the contractor herself in order to get a response.
4. Staff conduct– staff treated all of the residents with no respect and did not provide good customer service; residents were treated as an inconvenience and staff including senior staff did not provide support to improve her situation; they patronised and belittled which has had an impact on her mental health.
The resident said she would welcome the change to discuss her concerns with the landlord and that she looked forward to it resolving the issues raised.
The landlord sent the resident a first warning for “breach of visitor’s policy’ on 22 April 2019. This service has not seen a copy of this warning.
On 1 May 2020, the resident was evicted from the property due to rent arrears.
On 17 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord requesting that the landlord resolve her complaint raised in April 2019.
On 11 March 2020, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord advising the resident had made a complaint and asked the landlord to respond to this. The landlord replied to the resident MP however the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of its response.
On 10 June 2020, the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s formal complaint. It acknowledged the delay in responding to her complaint and acknowledged that the resident had raised the matter with it on both 23 October 2019 and February 2020. To understand her complaint it advised that it had spoken to the member of staff the resident had raised concerns to in 2019. They had tried to arrange a meeting with the resident but had experienced difficulty in contacting her therefore the complaint remained unresolved.
The landlord acknowledged that in its response to her MP it had advised the internal formal investigation would be undertaken by its Head of Service for its Supported Living services. It explained however that as this individual was off work due to unforeseen circumstance, its Scheme Manager had investigated her concerns. It apologised for the length of time taken to investigate and provide a response. Working practices had been assessed to ensure this did not happen again. It advised that regarding:
Safety/privacy –staff are not usually informed about visits for repairs from contractors however on arrival, its staff escort contractors to residents’ flat where they knock and announce themselves. It could see that on the occasions when visits had not been convenient for the resident, it had been flexible and accommodated her request and arranged for the contractor to return after a given time.
Visitors – its policy on visitors is designed to safeguard residents, staff and visitors coming into the building. It said that all residents are made aware of the times visitors are permitted to visit which was between 10am and 10pm.This is because the scheme is only staffed by one member of staff outside of these times. Residents are allowed two visitors at any one time and they must be signed in and out of the building. It confirmed that the resident was provided with the first warning after repeated breached rather than just one incident. It said it issued a second warning was as a result of her visitor entered the building outside of the permitted times. It cannot be flexible when applying the rules. On all occasions where this was found to be the case, it would service a warning to residents to ensure they were aware of the breach.
Maintenance and repairs – It referred to her report of a blocked plug hole as being made 4 September 2019. This is an incorrect date cited by the landlord which is considered in the complaint handling section of the Assessment section below. In its complaint response the landlord said as there was no immediate risk or signs of flooding, it was logged as a routine repair for which it had 28 days to respond. It also incorrectly cited 8 September 2019 as the date the resident then contacted the repairs team to advise there was flooding in her room which was causing damage to the property. It concluded that as the situation changed, the repair priority was then moved from a non-urgent repair to an emergency call out with a timescale of 24 hours attendance. With regards to her concern that the repairs were taking too long, it had advised staff of her comments and the impact this had on her. The landlord said it was confident that this feedback would be acted on and residents’ expectations managed to ensure the timescales are communicated effectively.
It also said that in regard to sharing and opening her letters, it understood she had identified to staff that she needed support with managing her finances. She had highlighted issues relating to historic debts she had and so to enable support, she was encouraged to share all correspondence with staff to enable them to provide the appropriate assistance and signposting. Further, it acknowledged her allegations with regard to how she felt when interacting with its staff on site. It said this aspect of her complaint had been allocated to a senior staff member to conduct an investigation. It advised it was unable to share this outcome with her due to data protection but it could assure her that this matter had been taken very seriously.
On 15 June 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two as she was unhappy with its response. She said that she had asked to change the visiting times as they conflicted with her work and meant she was unable to have a social life however her request was ignored. She also disputed the landlord’s response that staff escorted contractors to flats within the property building advising this was not the case. She said two males entered her room without her consent after knocking at 8am whilst she was in her bed. She told them to leave. She said staff had “covered this up”.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord provided a final response. It acknowledged the two main reasons for her escalation request was her dissatisfaction about its response to her complaints about contractor visits and visitors. It advised regarding:
1. Contractor visits, it had reviewed this aspect of her complaint and confirm that it acted in accordance with her tenancy agreement when attending to carry out repairs in her flat. Term 2.2 of her Excluded Licence Agreement stated the licence did not confer exclusive possession and the landlord had the “absolute right” to enter her flat at any time without notice, but it would exercise this right “with consideration for your wellbeing and/or any other residents.” The landlord said for this reason, it was unable to evidence a service failure for this.
2. Visitors, it reiterated that its Visitor’s policy which she signed upon taking the tenancy, allows for residents to have visitors between 10am and 10pm. This policy was applied across as a standard to ensure the visiting times were adhered to and manageable as there was only one member of staff after 10pm. It was unable to make exceptions. If she was not informed prior to receiving the warnings when this rule was violated, it apologised. It was unable to evidence a service failure for this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to concerns regarding staff conduct.

In her formal complaint the resident raised concerns about the behaviour of staff at the accommodation. This included behaviour the resident described as “controlling” whereby she said staff pressurised her to open her mail in front of them.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged that she was encouraged to share all correspondence with staff. It said this was because the resident was being supported with managing her finances as this was an area she had highlighted she needed most support with at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has provided evidence to show that a support plan was in place during her residency at the accommodation which confirms that managing money and personal administration was part of the resident’s agreed support plan. This plan identified that staff including the resident’s support worker would support the resident by getting her to call companies she owed money to, set up payment plans and complete budget plans. The landlord has also provided evidence to show that as part of its investigation into this complaint, it asked her support worker and the manager of the scheme about this allegation both of whom reiterated this action was to assist the resident with managing her finances.
Therefore, as the landlord has shown the resident’s support plan in place was to assist her with, amongst other things, managing finances, in this context its action of getting her to open letters does not seem unreasonable. However, further consideration is given to this issue below in the complaint handling section.
In her formal complaint the resident also made generalised comments about the way in which staff at the scheme spoke to her and “all residents”. She said she was treated as an inconvenience and staff were “belittling and patronising” during interactions with them.
In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments in this regard and advised this aspect of her complaint had been allocated to a senior member of staff who would conduct an investigation although explained that it was unable to share this with her due to data protection. By committing to undertake an internal investigation into the resident’s allegations, the action taken was reasonable although it would have been helpful if the landlord had let the resident know what lessons it learnt from this.
The service has seen evidence to show these allegations were put to staff that were working at the accommodation during her residency who they gave their version of events. As the landlord did what it agreed to do, it acted reasonably. As the resident no longer lives at the accommodation it is not possible for the landlord to take steps to improve relations between the resident and its staff. However, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to consider what steps it could take to improve relations between residents and staff.
Regarding the repair contractors visiting without prior notice, in its stage one response, the landlord explained that prior notice of contractor visits was not provided to residents as staff on site themselves were not usually informed of repair contractor visits. It said however that when contractors arrive on site, they are escorted by staff to resident’s flats where they knock and announce themselves to explain their reason for their visit. The landlord also said it had been flexible and rearranged contractor visits when it had been inconvenient for the resident.
The landlord’s subsequent interviews with staff echo what it said in its stage one complaint response in regard to staff not always being made aware of the time of contractor visits and about it having arranged for contractors to return at different times on occasions visits had been inconvenient for the resident. These accounts also confirm contractors are escorted by staff to flats where they knock and announce themselves.
However they also confirm that when contractors arrived “out of hours” or when there is only one member of staff on site -from 10 am to 10 pm, staff were unable to escort contractors to resident’s flats. Whilst this is understandable, given the circumstance of what resident described with unescorted contactors entering in her room without her consent, a recomendation has been included below for the landlord to ensure residents are given advance notice of repair contractors visiting individual flats and for contractors to be mindful of resident’s privacy when attending to carry out repairs.
In response to the resident’s concern raised about the landlord’s approach to visitors and her receiving warnings when her visitors exceeded the curfew by only a short amount of time, in its stage one response the landlord highlighted that the purpose of its visitors’ policy was to safeguard residents. It said that the resident had been informed of this policy before she received any written warnings about this. The landlord reiterated this position in its final response when it also highlighted that she had been made aware of its visitor policy at the outset which made clear visitors were permitted between 10am and 10pm.
The resident highlighted to the landlord during the complaints process that due to the hours she worked, it was difficult for her to have visitors at the accommodation during the permitted hours stated in the visitors’ policy. The evidence suggests she had explained this to the landlord whilst at the accommodation however no exception was made for this.
On balance the landlord did not act unreasonably by failing to adapt its visitor’s policy to suit the resident’s personal circumstances. She had been made fully aware of its policy and the reasons it was in place. As there is no evidence to indicate the warnings the resident received from the landlord regarding breaching this policy, were not appropriate in the circumstance, the landlord’s complaint responses explaining its position were reasonable.

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about repairs and maintenance.

According to explanations given by staff as part of the landlord’s investigation into this complaint, the process for reporting repairs and maintenance issues is that staff would report issues on behalf of residents, to the landlord’s repair hub which would consider the urgency of the issue reported. A 24 hour response time was applied in the case of an emergency repair and 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
The landlord’s repair log shows that on 1 April 2019 a member of staff reported to its hub repairs on the resident’s behalf that the wet room floor drain was blocked and was ‘flooding the bathroom when shower in use’. The log shows this issue was fixed on 9 April 2019 after the resident called the contractor herself to report it as an emergency. In her complaint the resident said the landlord’s response time was too slow which resulted in water leaking into her flat from the flooded bathroom which damaged her possessions. She also mentioned issues reported with the bathroom light and lift which she said was always out of order.
In its stage one response the landlord said when the resident reported a blocked plug hole in the wet room it was logged as a non-urgent repair however when the situation changed and the resident reported that there was flooding on 8 April 2019 the priority was changed with a 24-hour call out leading to the matter being fixed on 9 April. The comments in the repair log however show that in addition to a to blocked drain reported on 1 April 2019, flooding in the bathroom was also mentioned at this time. This is not made clear in the information given about this incident in the landlord’s stage one response.
In this circumstance, it would seem more appropriate for the issue to be treated as an emergency in the first instance due to the flooding rather than non-urgent with a 28 day response time allocated to it. This may have avoided the water from the flood leaking into the resident’s flat.
The repair log also notes there was an error when assigning the job to attend fixing the bathroom light which affected visibility in the bathroom and was raised as an emergency however this was fixed on 12 April 2019. There is no evidence of any report being made about the communal lift being out of order.
Whilst the landlord did not acknowledge that there was an unreasonable delay with responding to the blocked drain reported in the wet room causing flooding in the bathroom, it said it had advised staff of the resident’s comments about repairs taking too long and the impact this had on her. Further, is said that it was confident this feedback would be acted on and residents’ expectations managed to ensure timescales are communicated effectively. This does offer some redress to the issues raised by the resident. However, in view of delay to rectify the blocked drain and subsequent leaking into the resident’s room, it would have been appropriate for it to apologise and offer the resident a measure of compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process which states it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a formal review of the complaint within 20 working days of this being requested.
The resident made a formal complaint on 12 April 2019 which the landlord did not respond to until approximately 14 months later on 10 June 2020. It is evident that the resident was evicted from the accommodation on 1 May 2019 however this would not remove the landlord’s responsibility to investigate her complaint and provide a response as per its complaints process.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one response that the resident had made one of its officers aware that she was waiting for a response on 23 October 2019 and this was passed to its Customer Experience Team. It said however that the person originally tasked with responding to her complaint had left by this point. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to have, at this stage, tasked a different officer to investigate her complaint however it failed to take appropriate action until after it received further communication from the resident on 17 February 2020 as well as communication from her MP on 11 March 2020.
The landlord’s failure to provide a response to the resident’s complaint for an extended length of time meant the resident had to contact the landlord to chase for a response on more than one occasion and resulted in a protracted complaints process. It also meant the investigation the landlord subsequently undertook as part of its investigation into the resident’s complaint took place after more than a year of the events complained about occurring which was not ideal.
In its response the landlord apologised “most sincerely” for the length of time taken to respond, however in the circumstance it would have been reasonable to offer the resident compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the excessive delay in providing a response.
In its stage one response the landlord also incorrectly referred to the resident having made the reports about the blocked drain and the leak on 1 September 2019 when it was made on 1 April 2019. This error would have caused confusion and such this is a service shortcoming.
It is also noted that the landlord did not directly respond to the resident’s specific allegation about contractors having entered her room when she was in bed and without her having consented/invited them to enter her flat. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes clear landlords should address all points raised in the complaint. Therefore, as it did not directly address this point, this was a service shortcoming. The landlord’s responses also lacked empathy in places including when responding to her concerns raised about contractors entering her flat and also about feeling pressurised to open mail in front of staff. It would have been appropriate to show more understanding of the resident’s perspective on these issues as she described.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to reports about staff conduct.
In accordance with the paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to concerns raised about repairs and maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

In response to the complaint raised about her treatment of staff and how interactions with them made her feel, the landlord confirmed it would undertake an investigation which was appropriate. It did follow up on this however it would have been helpful if it had shared any learning from this with the resident. The landlord has demonstrated that it appropriately applied its visitors’ policy when issuing warnings to the resident. It explained that the circumstances around it getting the resident to open mail in front of staff was understandable in the context of it helping her manage her finances. It explained the process followed when contractors attended to carry out repairs to residents’ flats which was reasonable however a recommendation has been included below for the landlord take steps to ensure residents are given advance notice of visits going forward.
The landlord did not apply an appropriate priority or response time to the blocked drain and leakage in the bathroom reported, necessitating the resident to call the repairs team again herself and get the priority changed and response time reduced to 24 hours. This caused leaking into her flat and damage. The landlord did offer some redress within its complaints response advising it would be fed back to staff for the to act upon however this was not sufficient redress to resolve its failure in the service provided surrounding this issue.
The lengthy delay by the landlord in responding to the resident’s complaint was a serious breach of its complaints process. It did not offer the resident suitable redress for its failure in the service provided and to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her by this. Its failure to acknowledge the situation described by the resident when contractors entered her room without her consent was unreasonable and its responses lacked empathy in places contained incorrect dates.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord:
1. provide an apology to the resident for the failures in service provided outlined in this report.
2. pay the resident £350 in compensation comprising:
  1. £100 for the landlord’s delay with responding to the blocked drain which caused flooding.
  2. £250 for failing to follow its complaints process when handling the resident’s complaint.
  3. comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. consider what steps it could take to improve relations between residents and staff at the accommodation.
2. ensure residents are given advance notice of repair contractors visiting individual flats and for contractors to be mindful of resident’s privacy when attending to carry out repairs.