Midland Heart Limited (202005414)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005414

Midland Heart Limited

4 March 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 is about:

a. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requested support needs, namely, to have a female representative present during all repairs; and

b. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom and roof repair.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a tenant via mutual exchange, in respect of the current property, for several years. The landlord has been unable to locate the original tenancy agreement.
The property is a two-bedroom house.
The resident has been a victim of domestic abuse and suffers with Mental Health issues, Agoraphobia and other conditions known to the landlord.
The Ombudsman notes that in September 2015 following a complaint from the resident, the landlord offered a stage one response. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction that she had been asked several questions when she attempted to book a repair with a female representative present. The landlord apologised that the note (which it had put on its system in March 2014) had been overlooked. In resolution of her complaint, it advised the resident that in the future, she could:
1. Inform the Neighbourhood Officer (NHO) that she would need to be present if a female contractor could not be appointed.
2. Contact a team leader if she was questioned or felt uncomfortable while attempting to arrange a repair.
The landlord has provided this Service with screenshots of its computer system. This shows several notes including a repair alert that females must attend the resident’s property with a contractor, and an agreement that the resident will not be asked census questions when reporting a repair.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The landlord must also keep the installations and fixtures / fittings (which it is responsible for) in good repair and proper working order.
Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

The Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 prescribes specific duties for landlords in respect of disabled people when it is made clear that a rule or practice disadvantages them. A service provider has a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion or practice, or any physical feature of premises occupied by a disabled person, places that person at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who are not disabled. Under the Act, a person is disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her/his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. This includes mental illness and trauma, and does not need to be clinically recognised.

Repairs and maintenance policy

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s repairs policy. While it is not clear on the landlord’s repair response and turnaround times, the landlord still has a duty to undertake works within a reasonable time. The policy suggests that the landlord will set target times which account for the danger to health, safety and security of the resident and/or the building. The Ombudsman notes that paragraph 5.3.8 indicates that the landlord will aim to complete most repairs after one visit, make appointments for any follow up visits, and keep the resident informed at all times.

Complaints policy

The landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. This details the landlord’s approach to complaint handling and explains that if landlord is unable to resolve concerns at the first point of contact:
1. An investigation will be undertaken and responded to within 10 working days.
2. If the complaint remains unresolved, a formal review will be undertaken and responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

According to the landlord’s repair records and internal emails, on 14 May 2019 the resident reported that her roof had been leaking at her property.
With no response, the resident contacted the landlord’s Customer Hub on 28 May 2019. During this call, the landlord advised that an operative would attend to the issue on 12 June 2019. It was confirmed that a female member of staff would also be in attendance.
The Ombudsman can see that on 10, 11, and 17 June 2019 the resident chased this up again, suggesting that if this matter had not been resolved within a week, she would commit suicide. The resident was assured that a suitable appointment would be scheduled.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 20 June 2019. It is unclear whether any works were completed or just an inspection undertaken. In any case, the Ombudsman notes that further orders were raised to address the resident’s roof, the last marked as “completed” on 13 September 2019.
On 24 September 2019 the resident also reported a suspected leak from underneath her bathtub. While the landlord’s records suggest that the works order was completed on 10 October 2019, the Ombudsman notes that identical works orders were raised for both the resident’s roof and bathtub on 11 March2020. Evidence suggests that due to the COVID-19 outbreak and an inability to gain access (as the resident refused), these orders were cancelled.
On 13 May 2020 the resident’s Complaints and Community Advocate (the advocate) submitted a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The advocate expressed concern that there was a lack of support, stating:
1. She had made contact with the NHO on 25 April 2020 as the resident felt she was not being heard. It was explained that the resident had received a text on 19 April 2020 from the landlord’s contractors stating that it would be attending the property on 23 April 2020. There had been no communication or arrangement prior to this. Upon hearing about this, the NHO acknowledged the reported concerns and assured that she would contact the resident by telephone. No contact was made however, and the contractors subsequently turned up at the resident’s property without a female officer present. The NHO did explain that this appointment had been cancelled.
2. A further text had since been received informing that there would be a gas safety check on 25 May 2020. The advocate explained that this would not go ahead if the correct safety was not in place.
3. The resident requested an apology in writing to confirm that her voice was being heard.
4. The resident wished to know what the outcome would be and whether there would be any changes to the landlord’s procedure / policy.
5. A request had been made to be put on to the Northgate system as the resident was often questioned by staff and did not wish to go into the details of her trauma. While the NHO had stated that it would not make a difference which system was used, the resident insisted that she wished to be put onto the Northgate system.

The advocate explained that she had sent the above comments to the NHO and had received no response. The resident therefore wished to know what she needed to do moving forward as she felt her safety agreement was not being met. The resident additionally questioned why the contractors were texting her when she had not agreed for her number to be shared.

With no response, the advocate contacted the landlord on 21 May 2020 to obtain an update. During this time, the advocate reiterated for the landlord that a female representative needed to be present in the upcoming gas inspection on 26 May 2019. The Ombudsman can see that the appointment was rescheduled, and that the landlord made arrangements to fulfill this request.
The resident’s complaint was formally acknowledged by the landlord on 22 May 2020.
On 28 May 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint and any further reservations she had. In the landlord’s summary of the call, it noted:
1. The resident was concerned that the system to flag the requirement for a female representative was not working.
2. The NHO had failed to make contact with the resident to make the necessary arrangements.
3. There had been no response from the NHO’s manager, following the complaint.
4. The resident’s number had been given to external contractors without her consent.
5. There were outstanding repairs to the bathroom and roof.

The landlord noted the desired outcome was therefore:

To be better supported so that the resident did not have to explain why she needed a female in attendance
To have the gas service rearranged with a female operative present
To have appointments provided with two weeks’ notice and attendance from the NHO at each appointment, and
To be supplied with details on when the landlord was first notified of the resident’s need for support.

On 29 May 2020 the resident cancelled her gas safety appointment. The landlord noted that the resident explained this was for personal reasons.
On 4 June 2020 the landlord issued a complaint response. It explained that the complaint had been investigated and stated:
1. Alerts had been found on its system, created by previous managers, to ensure that a female representative accompanied any operative. This was reviewed by the NHO to ensure that all details were updated. The landlord advised the resident to raise the alert whenever she spoke to the Customer Hub, to ensure that this was taken into consideration when booking a repair.
2. It was not possible for the NHO to be the designated female representative for all repairs. It therefore stated, if possible, the resident could arrange a friend or family member to be present during appointments. It confirmed that the gas team were also happy to make arrangements with female staff should this be required.
3. As soon as it was made aware of the support the resident needed for her gas safety check, contact was made with the gas team and the NHO to arrange female representation. The landlord noted that the resident cancelled this appointment before it could complete the request, however informed that as the check was a regulatory requirement, this would need to be rescheduled. It stated it was happy to discuss this element of the resident’s complaint via a conference call with the NHO and Service Improvement Manager to explore more ways to support her.
4. In response to the resident requested two weeks’ notice for all future appointments, the appointments were changeable and should the resident feel that enough notice had not been given, she could change the appointment.
5. The resident’s telephone number had been removed from the records so the gas contractors would no longer text her. The landlord explained that all customer numbers were provided to its contractors to communicate with them throughout their repair service and permission to do so would have been something the resident signed at the start of her tenancy. Any future appointments would be communicated via letter, however.
6. In relation to the NHO’s Manager (EM) and her lack of response between 13-21 May 2020, it had escalated this issue with the EM’s manager due to the sensitivity of the issue.
7. In relation to the roofing, and as requested by the resident, the job had been passed to a specific roofing company. It highlighted that the resident had confirmed that she did not need a female representative for this work as she was familiar with the operatives. The landlord confirmed that the company would arrange a mutually convenient appointment. It also noted that the outstanding bathroom repairs (which were put on hold due to COVID-19 restrictions), would also be arranged.

The landlord therefore concluded that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint and found no evidence of service failures.

The landlord’s email records (on 5 June 2020) show that following contact from the roofing contractors on 4 June 2020, it was explained to the resident that the operatives at the roofing company had been placed on furlough. The landlord advised that this would subsequently result in a delay in completing the roof repair, which the resident was content with.
The landlord spoke with the resident and the advocate on 18 June 2020 following a need for an emergency repair to the resident’s heating and hot water. It was noted that the resident had made arrangements for her neighbour to be present and an engineer was sent to the resident’s property. The gas service inspection was also completed during this time.
On 10 July 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. She stated:

In relation to the support from the landlord with her repair and gas appointments
1. Alerts had been created by previous managers to ensure that a female representative accompanied any operatives. She requested evidence that something had been set up over the past year to ensure this was in place.
2. She had not heard from her NHO despite raising a complaint to her and her manager. The NHO had agreed to be present at a service, forgotten and not arrived in the past. This should have been reviewed and managed following the incident and not as a result of the complaint.

In relation to the level of contact
1. She would advise the Customer Service Officers on calls to read the alerts to ensure they were aware of the requirements. She stated however, that she was being questioned at this point and wished to know what the landlord was going to do to change this approach.
2. She did not require the NHO to be present at all repairs, her requirement was only for a female to be present.
3. She had contacted the NHO on 18 June 2020 and expressed her worry that she would be alone with a male operative. She stated that the NHO informed her that there was no longer a system in place to offer support, and therefore questioned why she was told this. She had been advised by another member of staff that female representatives were being sought.
4. A plan was in place for a female representative to be present on the following Monday however this was not communicated. The resident questioned why.
5. She was offended that she had been asked to arrange a friend or family member to be present. She explained that she had arranged for a friend to be present at one of the appointments and the operative failed to turn up. She expressed that it was not her friend’s responsibility to keep her safe.
6. She had noted that the gas safety team were happy to provide female members. She questioned why it had taken a formal complaint for the landlord to confirm this with the gas safety provider.
7. The landlord should have been aware of her support needs (in relation to the gas safety check) before she complained about the failure to arrange female representation. She confirmed she was happy to discuss this via a conference call.
8. She had requested two weeks’ notice for all appointments. On the previous occasion however, only 2 working days was given and there was no response from the NHO.
9. She wished for a copy of her telephone calls and any information recorded which evidenced her agreement to share her telephone number.
10. She questioned why the landlord had escalated her concerns with the EM’s manager and not raised a complaint on her behalf.
Outstanding repairs to the roof and bathroom
1. She wished to discuss the outstanding repairs on a conference call. The NHO had been aware that this job had been outstanding since October 2019 and yet it had not been rearranged.

The resident concluded that as well as a response to her points, she required an apology from the landlord for failing to respond to her communications and complaints, in acknowledgement of the stress this had caused, and a review of the landlord’s practices. She additionally wished to see evidence of the landlord’s flagging system.

On 20 July 2020 the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint response (it appears that this was posted). A conference call was subsequently arranged and held on 5 August 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen the minutes from this call.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and requested an extension for the review response. It explained that it would aim to provide the response by 14 August 2020.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord provided its review response. The Ombudsman can see that this was emailed to the resident’s advocate and it was explained a hard copy had been posted to the resident. It stated:
1. It could confirm that a request for a female to be present on all visits had been previously made. It stated that while it had accommodated this for the resident on previous occasions, there was no formal requirement to do so. It noted that there had been an occasion where the NHO was unable to attend and a male arrived at the property. The landlord apologised for this.
2. A conference call was held on 5 August 2020 to discuss the support that had been provided, however during this call the resident became distressed and terminated the call. The remaining participants, including the advocate, discussed the measures that could be put in place to support the resident.
3. To address the outstanding repairs, a survey had been arranged for 26 August 2020. During this visit, the (female) surveyor would discuss any repairs the resident had identified. These would be raised and allocated to a female for each appointment.
4. There was no requirement for the resident to explain her history or the alerts on her account when she contacted the Customer Hub. The landlord stated that it had listened to the calls over the previous 12 months and was unable to find an instance where the resident was asked why she needed a female, but noted that the resident had volunteered this information on occasions. The landlord advised the resident that she could decline to answer in the instance she was asked or could terminate the call and ring through to another officer. The landlord requested that the resident also report this, if this occurred, so that it could be taken up with the relevant individual.
5. While it did have female operatives, they were not always available, and this created difficulty (e.g. where an emergency appointment was needed). The landlord suggested that to prevent any further distress, the resident could organise for somebody to be with her whilst works were being completed. If the resident was unable to do this, it would find someone within the business.
6. Notification in the form of a letter would be provided for future gas appointments. The resident would then need to call to request that a female be present. The landlord stated that the gas contractor was aware of the resident’s requirement, but by calling she could confirm that this was being arranged.

The landlord therefore informed the resident that her request to have her complaint escalated was being declined. It found no service failure as it stated it was not required to provide a female to attend the resident’s appointments. It stated, nonetheless, that it had worked with the resident to accommodate her requests and would support her going forward. It explained that there were other support services that its Tenancy Services Team could advise on

The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not receive the landlord’s response until late August 2020. The survey of her property was therefore rearranged to 7 September 2020. Evidence suggests, however, that the landlord failed to turn up to this appointment. The inspection was delayed until 28 September 2020.
The Ombudsman can see that an appointment was scheduled to undertake works on 19 October 2020 and 17 November 2020, following the inspection on 28 September 2020, however these were both cancelled by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requested support needs, namely, to have a female representative present during all repairs.

In line with good landlord practice, the landlord’s duty of care, and the obligations under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord should make reasonable adjustments to its service to ensure that a resident’s disability or impairment (or trauma) does not result in substantial disadvantage and/or prevent them from receiving the same level service as others. Where it is practical, causes no disruption to the service, effective and not resource intensive, the Ombudsman expects landlords to make every effort to accommodate a resident’s specific support needs.
The Ombudsman can see that this was done in 2015, following the resident’s complaint about the level of support she was receiving. The Ombudsman notes, as seen in the background section of this report, that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s need to have a female representative present during appointments at her property, and her upset in having to explain the reasons why. An adjustment was therefore made to ensure that the resident was able to bypass any questions which related to this and an alert to advise its staff of the need for female representation. This was appropriate.
On 13 May 2020 however, the landlord failed to make the appropriate arrangements. Contrary to the agreement made in resolution of the 2015 complaint, a contractor had turned up at the resident’s address without being accompanied by a female representative. With knowledge of the resident’s support requirements, this was inappropriate. While the NHO explained that the works were cancelled and that the operatives should not have arrived, the Ombudsman cannot see any assurance was provided that this would not happen in the future. What’s more, the landlord failed to clarify at this time whether the gas safety inspection, scheduled to take place in May 2020, would be undertaken in the presence of a female representative. The Ombudsman can therefore appreciate the resident’s concerns that her support needs were no longer being considered.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the alert / note on the resident’s account should have ensured that all operatives (whether arranged internally or externally) were aware of the resident’s support needs prior to visiting her property. As an extension of the landlord, any representative delivering a service on the landlord’s behalf should be kept up to date with any reasonable adjustments or resident requirements. The Ombudsman is therefore unsure why arrangements were only made with the gas safety team after the resident had raised a complaint.
With this said, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns and, in the Ombudsman’s view, demonstrated that it would continue to support the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident an apology in recognition of the occasion in which its system failed. The landlord acknowledged the impact that this would have had on the resident and assured the resident that this had not been intentional. This was appropriate and in line with the desired outcome suggested on 28 May 2020.
In both the resident’s stage one complaint and complaint response, the resident expressed concerns that her safety agreement was not being met. She questioned the landlord’s flagging system for her requirements and requested a change in practice so that she did not have to repeatedly explain herself when requesting a female representative. Subsequently, the Ombudsman can see that landlord reassured the resident that the alerts were still present on her record. While the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was provided with proof of this, as she requested in July 2020, the Ombudsman has had sight of the alerts and can confirm (from the evidence provided) that these had been in place since 2014. The resident was also advised to highlight this alert when organising repairs (which she confirmed she would) to ensure that her requirements were not missed. The landlord reassured her that there was no requirement for her to share her history or explain the alert to the Customer Hub. This was appropriate.
In relation to its Service moving forward, the landlord advised that while it had previously accommodated the resident’s request to have a female present at all appointments, it was not always possible to allocate a female operative and/or the NHO. The landlord therefore requested that the resident attempt to make arrangements with friends or family in the first instance. The Ombudsman has considered this and has found this to be reasonable. While it is contrary to the landlord’s 2015 complaint response which advised that the NHO would be the designated female for all repairs, the Ombudsman appreciates that this may not have be practical or realistic on all occasions. Several years had passed since the initial proposal was made and availability of the landlord’s resources may have changed. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident’s only requirement was for a female to be present, not necessarily the NHO. It was therefore fair for the landlord to encourage the resident to make arrangements, but also to explain that if the resident was unable to arrange a representative, an alternative solution would be found.
In relation to the resident’s gas safety inspection, although prompted by the resident and the advocate, the landlord did confirm that a female would be present (and eventually undertook the inspection in the presence of the resident’s neighbour). The Ombudsman is therefore content that there was no adverse impact. The landlord also confirmed that the gas team would be happy to make arrangements for a female representative in the future, should this be required. The resident was advised, in the landlord’s final response, that she could call to arrange a female representative and assured that the gas team were aware of her requirements. This was reasonable.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had received text messages from the landlord’s contractors in relation to her appointments. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident may not have offered her explicit consent for this, the Ombudsman notes that this is common practice where visits to a resident’s property are being undertaken. The landlord has also suggested that the sharing of contact information was also advised at the start of the resident’s tenancy (however the Ombudsman has been unable to verify this). In any case, the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was uncomfortable with this. The landlord therefore confirmed that she would no longer receive texts and that all future communication would be made via letter. It advised the resident that her number had been removed from its contractors’ records. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman notes that the resident sought proof of her agreement to share her number and cannot see that the landlord offered this. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation below.
The Ombudsman has acknowledged that the resident additionally expressed dissatisfaction as she did not believe she was being heard. The Ombudsman can see however, that in response to this the landlord arranged a conference call with the resident and the advocate to discuss how it could continue to support her. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman has not seen any notes from this conference, and so cannot comment on the details agreed or the success of this conference. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was an appropriate response and platform to discuss the adjustments needed to support the resident.
What’s more, in relation to the resident’s request to be notified of appointments at least two weeks prior, the landlord explained that the appointments were changeable and that the resident could reschedule any appointment which was unsuitable for her. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a reasonable response.
Finally, the Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she was questioned during telephone calls to the landlord’s Customer Hub. In her complaint response, she questioned what the landlord would do to ensure that this did not continue. While the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord detailed any action it planned to take, the Ombudsman is content with the landlord’s advice to end any call she felt uncomfortable with and to escalate any instance where this occurred to the landlord, so that it could be addressed with the call handler. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord’s assertion that it had reviewed the calls made to the customer hub in the previous 12 months and found no occasion in which the resident had been asked why she needed a female representative. The Ombudsman has not been able to listen to these calls and therefore cannot verify this. The Ombudsman is satisfied, nonetheless, that the advice offered (along with the existent alerts) was reasonable. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord appropriately handled the residents requested support needs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom and roof repair.

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the resident’s roof and bathtub, and to respond within good time once it has been made aware of issues which are in need of addressing. The Ombudsman has therefore considered whether the landlord did this, following the resident’s reported repair needs, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not. This is as the landlord allowed a reasonable length of time to elapse before taking the necessary steps to address the repairs and it is still unclear whether the repairs remain outstanding.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident first reported her roof issue on 14 May 2019. This should have been inspected and addressed within good time however, despite several chases from the resident, the landlord failed to do so. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did eventually visit the resident’s property on 20 June 2019 (over a month after the initial report), however cannot see any records to suggest that works were completed during this visit. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was inappropriate. Given the time that had passed, the landlord should have made the appropriate arrangements and should have shared its plan of action with the resident. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done.
The landlord’s repair records suggest that on 13 September 2019, a work order raised for the resident’s roof was completed. Due to the lack of information available, the Ombudsman has been unable to identify the work that was completed here, however the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was insufficient in resolving the matter in full as the Ombudsman can see, from the landlord’s internal records, that the roof repair was still outstanding in March 2020.
Similarly, the Ombudsman notes that the resident raised that her bathtub was leaking as early as 24 September 2019. This should have been addressed promptly and the leak stopped, however records suggest that on 11 March 2020, this too was still outstanding.
The Ombudsman appreciates that due to COVID-19 and an occasion in which the resident refused to grant entry, there was some delay in arranging repairs in early 2020. The Ombudsman acknowledges, however, that on 28 May 2020 the resident raised her dissatisfaction that these repairs remained outstanding. The Ombudsman is pleased that the landlord proposed to address this in its response on 4 June 2020 and accommodated the residents request for specific operatives to undertake the roofing work. The resident also confirmed that she was content with the delay this would cause. By 10 July 2020 however, these repairs still remained outstanding. This was subsequently raised by the resident in her complaint response and further discussed in a conference call on 5 August 2020. Still, the Ombudsman cannot see that any works were undertaken.
In the landlord’s final response, it failed to recognise the length of time that had passed and the subsequent impact on the resident. There was no acknowledgement for the landlord’s delay and no offer of redress was made in recognition. In an attempt to put things right however, the landlord did propose to arrange an inspection on 26 August 2020 within which, any outstanding issues could be reported and raised. The Ombudsman notes however that following a re-schedule of this appointment, the landlord failed to attend. The inspection subsequently remained outstanding until 28 September 2020. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs was contrary to its repair obligations and good practice. Inspections and follow up visits were not undertaken within a reasonable amount of time, as the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy suggests it would be, and the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord sought to keep the resident informed of its intentions to complete the work (and when).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

While the Ombudsman has not had sight of any communication sent to the NHO (or her manager) prior to the complaint in May 2020, the Ombudsman is able to identify a communication failure in the landlord’s delay in acknowledging and responding to the residents complaint.
The Ombudsman notes that on 13 May 2020 the resident raised her complaint with the landlord. This should have been acknowledged soon after receipt, and in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, responded to within 10 working days. The Ombudsman can see, however, that the landlord failed to confirm receipt of the resident’s complaint until 22 May 2020 (following a prompt from the resident’s advocate) and subsequently did not provide a response until 4 June 2020. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was delayed. The Ombudsman cannot see that a reason was provided for the landlord’s delay or that an apology was offered within the landlord’s complaint response. As the delay was only by a matter of days, the Ombudsman has not considered this to be a service failure. The Ombudsman has, nonetheless, made a recommendation below to improve the landlord’s service and ensure that complaint timeframes are upheld.
The resident did raise her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s failure to communicate information to her and in a particular instance, miscommunication (where she stated she had been told that there was no longer a system in place to offer support). As the Ombudsman has seen no record these instances mentioned however, no comments have been made specifically. The Ombudsman does note, however, that the resident included several questions in her correspondence and not all were responded to. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have at minimum acknowledged these, and where possible, offered a reasonable response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requested support needs, namely, to have a female representative present during all repairs,

the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom and roof repair.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. While the landlord failed to make the appropriate arrangement, resulting in a male operative arriving at the residents property and the resident feeling unsure of the support in place, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord took reasonable steps to assure the resident that the adjustments were still in place. The landlord offered the resident an apology in recognition of its omission and explained that it would continue to manage the resident’s requirements, also making mention to other support services. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did ask the resident to attempt to make arrangements for a friend or family member to be present in the first instance, before it searched the business for a female representative. While this was different to its original proposal, this was not unreasonable. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord assured the resident, following her expressed concern, that she would not be questioned about her experience when requesting a female representative / operative. It was fair that the landlord agreed to accommodate the resident’s communication requirements and appropriate for the landlord to arrange a conference call to better consider the resident’s ongoing support needs.
2. The landlord failed to undertake the reported repairs within good time. The landlord was provided with several opportunities to undertake the works, however this remained outstanding (for over a year, seemingly) contrary to the landlord’s repair obligations. What’s more, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord made any effort to keep the resident updated on the delay (particularly where COVID-19 had impacted its services) or its plan of action. The Ombudsman is additionally displeased that the landlord failed to promptly make arrangements to address the issue, as it said it would, following its stage one response. Adding to this, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to honour the proposed appointment made in resolution at stage two also. This was inappropriate.
3. The Ombudsman has criticised the landlord for the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint, however as this delay was minimal, has not considered this to be a service failure. The Ombudsman did also note that the several of the resident’s questions went unanswered. While the Ombudsman cannot identify that this resulted in any obvious adverse impacts to the resident, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation for the improve of the landlord’s complaint handling service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s service failure, in respect of its handling of the resident’s repairs, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £300 compensation. This is to account for the unreasonable delay, the inconvenience during this time, and the landlord’s failure to uphold its repair obligations.
The landlord should also write to the resident and outline its plan of action (including specific dates for repair), if the works to her bathtub and/or roof remain outstanding.
The landlord should make the above compensation payment within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should, if it has not already, provide the resident with the tenancy documents mentioned, in order to evidence its claim that the need to share contact details with its contractors was explained at the start of her tenancy.
In order to improve its service, the landlord should also ensure that it manages its complaints appropriately, responding to all issues raised by residents and upholding the prescribed timeframe set out in the complaints policy. The landlord should seek to resolve complaints and put things right at the earliest opportunity.