Norwich City Council (202314396)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314396

Norwich City Council

30 September 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:
1. the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health of the landlord’s handling of issues.
2. the landlord’s handling of:
  1. the resident’s reports it had accessed her garden without permission.
  2. a rodent issue at the property.
  3. the resident’s concerns about how it communicated with her, and about it attending without notice or agreement.
  4. the resident’s concerns about insulation work.
  5. the resident’s request for an electric boiler and her concerns about how it had responded to an exposed gas pipe in her garden.
  6. the complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord since 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has recorded on its system that the resident has depression, chronic anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It has recorded that contact with her should be by email and that she should not be called.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord must give at least 24 hours written notice of any access appointment unless it is an emergency. The landlord sets out online that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 60 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy, available online, says that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says:
1. additional complaints raised during the investigation will be incorporated into the stage 1 response if it has not been issued or raised as a new complaint.
2. it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 days.
3. it will acknowledge when something has gone wrong and set out actions to put things right.
4. it does not, by default, offer compensation. It says this would usually only be provided when a resident has suffered a “genuine loss” as a result of its actions.
The resident complained to the landlord on 24 January 2023. She said its contractors had tried to contact her by telephone rather than email. She said:
1. she had depression, anxiety and PTSD.
2. she had made a request, as a reasonable adjustment, that the landlord contact her only by email as phone calls exacerbated her mental health conditions.
3. contractors for the landlord continued to try to contact her by telephone rather than email.
4. the landlord’s contractor had attended that day to repair her shower despite her saying she was not free that day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 7 February 2023. It said that an information flag was on the resident’s record stating that contact should be by email only. However, it said this flag was not clear enough, which had led to some of the contact the resident had received. It said it had requested that its IT team create a new flag type, which would clarify the resident’s specific communication requirements. In the meantime, it said it had made alterations to the resident’s records to make the communication requirements clearer on its primary systems. It said it had also removed the resident’s telephone number to prevent her from receiving any more calls.
The landlord noted recent contact with the resident by telephone had been made by its subcontractor, who had not been made aware of the resident’s communication requirement. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said this should not occur in the future.
The resident responded to the landlord on 27 February 2023. She said the matter was not simply “distressing or annoying” but had caused her “psychological distress”. She said she did not feel the landlord understood the impact of the unnecessary calls on her mental health when she was “fighting to keep my head above water”. The same day the resident emailed the landlord about:
1. concerns that her property had no insulation.
2. concerns about the way the landlord’s operatives had completed work on a gas pipe.
3. an enquiry she had previously made about an electric or heat pump boiler.
On 9 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord a further complaint about its contractor attending her property that day. She said:
1. she considered this to be a breach of her quiet enjoyment of the property.
2. the landlord should provide her with 24 hours’ notice if it wanted to inspect her property.
3. its actions had exacerbated her mental health conditions.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s concern about its handling of work to a gas pipe. It noted that the contractor who attended was unsure whether it was a gas pipe until its gas engineer attended. It said it then followed the standard procedure after identifying it was a gas pipe.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to outstanding concerns she had raised. It said:
1. a new flag type had now been added to its system which clarified the resident’s specific communication requirements. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. the boiler upgrade had to be a gas boiler. It said fitting an air source heat pump boiler required thermal insulation work. It said without doing this the running costs for the resident’s property would be significantly higher.
3. it noted that the resident had previously refused a gas boiler upgrade. It said its new policy stated that it would now not offer an upgrade unless the boiler had been condemned or was beyond repair.
4. it considered that standard procedure was followed when it identified a gas pipe in the resident’s garden.
In respect of the resident’s concern that a contractor attended without her confirming an appointment, the landlord explained its contractor’s scheduling system. It said it had sent the resident an appointment for an extractor fan repair on 8 March 2023, for the next working day. It said its contractor attended this appointment after not hearing back from the resident. It noted that it had since agreed an appointment for 6 April 2023 for this work. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and said it hoped it had resolved her concerns.
The resident responded to the landlord on 29 March 2023. She said the landlord had not answered her questions about whether she could have an electric boiler. She said it had taken so long to respond to her that she could now not have a new one. She said:
1. It continued to ignore “breaches of quiet enjoyment” of her property.
2. she had rats and a dangerous gas pipe repair.
3. no-one had contacted her to arrange insulation.
The resident told the landlord on 13 April 2023 that another contractor had attended that day unexpectedly. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. It said:
1. its senior service engineer had confirmed that a boiler upgrade would have to be a gas boiler. It said again that the resident had refused this upgrade when it was offered.
2. its insulation contractor had contacted the resident on 13 April 2023 about attending that day. It noted the contractor had attended but the resident refused access.
3. it had reminded its contractor that it should not attend the resident’s property without 24 hours’ written notice and confirmation of the appointment.
4. its contractor had now arranged to attend on 19 April 2023 to install insulation.
5. the resident had not reported rats in her previous complaint responses. It advised her to contact its pest control team to arrange treatment.
On 20 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that another contractor had attended her property that day without prior notice. She said that this could be “construed as harassment”. She asked that the landlord stop ignoring her right to quiet enjoyment of the property.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2023. It said that it had reminded its contractors not to attend the resident’s property without notice and confirmation from the resident. It apologised that this had not been the case, and it was not the level of service it would expect. It noted that the resident had not confirmed the appointment of 19 April 2023 for insulation work. It asked that she provide a suitable date for this work to be completed.
Subsequently, in September 2023 and January 2024, the landlord provided the resident with stage 1 complaint responses to further complaints she made about issues including:
1. the time it had taken to resolve a rodent and drain issue.
2. contractors accessing her garden without her permission.
3. arrangements to accommodate her during repair work identified by the pest control team.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering the evidence that is available, some of the resident’s complaints fall outside of our jurisdiction. These have been set out below.

The resident’s concerns about the impact on her health of the landlord’s handling of issues

The resident said the landlord’s handling of issues had a negative impact on her health. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, including on mental health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim. As such, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how she can make such a claim to its insurer.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

The reports it had accessed her garden without her permission and a rodent issue at the property

Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord in September 2023 and January 2024 about handling of a rodent issue and contractors accessing her garden without her permission. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to these issues in September 2023 and January 2024. There is no evidence the resident has requested escalation of these complaints or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, while the resident’s concerns are noted, these issues are currently outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these concerns, it would be appropriate for her to request escalation of her complaint. If she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she can then bring the complaint to the Ombudsman for consideration.

The resident’s concerns relating to how it communicated with her, and about it attending without notice and agreement.

Concerns about how it communicated with her

When the resident complained to the landlord in January 2023, she said its subcontractors had telephoned her a number of times. She outlined her previous request for contact to be by email only. While we have not seen the resident’s original request for this adjustment, we have seen records of her communication with the landlord in August 2022. At this time, she said she only wanted communication by email and referred to the previous request for this as “reasonable adjustment”.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 7 February 2023 the landlord acknowledged that a flag on its system was not clear enough regarding the communication method she had requested. It said it had made alterations to the resident’s record to make this requirement clearer and had also removed her telephone number from its primary records. The landlord also said it would request that its IT team add a new flag type to its system to clarify the resident’s specific communication requirements. The actions the landlord took in response to the resident’s complaint were reasonable and appropriate. It took reasonable steps to ensure the resident was not contacted by telephone in the future. It also apologised that its subcontractor had not been made aware of the communication requirement.
We acknowledge that the resident said she had suffered psychological distress and that the calls had a detrimental impact on her mental health. As outlined earlier, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health, including on mental health. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the impact of its failing on the resident. She told it on 27 February 2023 how the phone calls were a “significant cause of stress/distress” for her. She said there had been a year of mistakes before the landlord had taken her seriously. There is no evidence the landlord considered this during its handling of the resident’s complaint. Its complaints policy states that it does not by default award financial compensation. It says this would usually only be offered when there has been a genuine loss as a result of its actions. But that is not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This states that payment of compensation may be appropriate in circumstances including where there has been avoidable distress or inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s actions. In line with this guidance, and with consideration to the circumstances of this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider an award to the resident. We have ordered that the landlord review it guidance to its staff on consideration of awards of compensation.

Attending without notice and agreement

The resident complained to the landlord that its contractor attended despite her saying she was not free that day. But it did not respond to this concern in its stage 1 complaint response of February 2023. That was a failing. It was a missed opportunity to take steps to address the resident’s concerns. She could reasonably expect the landlord to provide her with notice of an appointment, and sufficient opportunity to decline or rearrange it if it was not convenient. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It should reasonably have considered actions it could take to ensure undue distress was not caused to her when arranging and attending appointments.
The resident complained again on 9 March 2023 that a contractor had attended another appointment at the point she was responding to say it was inconvenient. She said this had caused her to “burst into tears and feel quite distressed”. Later the landlord noted internally that its contractor’s scheduling team had contacted the resident on 8 March 2023 about the appointment, which was following day. It noted that this was not enough notice.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response of March 2023. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced and explained its contractor’s scheduling system. But there is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and what she had said about how the issue had affected her. It would have been appropriate for it to consider reasonable measures to prevent future instances of contractors attending at short notice without confirming the appointment was convenient.
In January 2024 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals. This outlines that landlords should move to a ‘human-centric’ model of service provision where they respond to a vulnerable person’s individual needs and circumstances. We acknowledge there may be occasions when the landlord needs to arrange immediate attendance, such as for emergency repairs. In such circumstances it may not be possible for it to provide advance notice to the resident prior to attending. However, for routine repairs, the landlord could reasonably have put in place adequate instructions to ensure its operatives and contractor confirmed appointments with the resident by email prior to attending. That it did not explore steps it could take to do this, and reassure the resident of this, was a failing. Had it done so, it could have prevented the resident being caused further undue distress when contractors attended without appointments on 13 and 20 April 2023. The resident told the landlord that she was felt “harassed” by its failure to respect her right to quiet enjoyment of the property.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response of May 2023 that it had reminded all its contractors that they should not attend without 24 hours’ notice and confirmation from the resident. It apologised that this had not been the case in the past. It said that it had now reminded all its contractors of the need to provide notice and confirm appointments with the resident. But we have seen no evidence it has added information/instructions to the resident’s records about this. This investigation does not cover the resident’s concerns about contractors accessing her garden without permission. However, it is clear from the resident’s complaint about this matter in September 2023 that she remains concerned that operatives have attended at times she has not agreed. In light of this, we have recommended that the landlord review whether sufficiently clear information has been added to its records to prevent these issues reoccurring.
Overall, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about how it communicated with her and that it had attended without notice and agreement. We have considered the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In light of this, we have ordered an award to the resident aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Insulation work

During her complaint the resident raised her concerns that her property had not been insulated. In its stage 2 complaint response of March 2023 the landlord said that although the property had insulation, a cavity wall survey had identified pockets where insulation was missing. It said its contractors had sent the resident an email to arrange to complete this work, but it understood she had not responded to this.
Subsequently the resident told the landlord at the end of March 2023 that, contrary to what it had said, no one had contacted her to arrange the insulation work. She said that what the landlord said about the contractor trying to contact her to complete this work was “not true”. In response the landlord did not address this specific point. Instead, it focused on the fact the contractor had since attempted to attend on 13 April 2023 to complete the insulation work. It said the resident had declined this appointment as she had wanted 24 hours’ written notice. Records we have seen show the resident had responded to the contractor about the insulation work. The contact the contractor made with her prior to attending on 13 April 2023 was in respect of it completing a survey. She had responded to its email to confirm a suitable date in February 2023 for this. The landlord should reasonably have acknowledged its earlier error in stating the resident had not responded to its contractor. It should also have apologised for this. That it did not do so was a failing. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about insulation work. While the resident has now confirmed this work has now been completed, the landlord caused confusion to the resident, and it failed to acknowledge and apologise for its mistake. The resident also spent time and trouble clarifying this issue and complaining. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident to recognise the impact of its failings.

The resident’s request for an electric boiler and her concerns about how it had responded to an exposed gas pipe in her garden.

Electric boiler

Records we have seen from the resident show her correspondence with the landlord in August 2022 about its offer to upgrade her gas boiler. In this correspondence, the landlord told the resident that the boiler upgrade would be a gas boiler. It said that the cost of running a heat pump boiler would be significantly higher and it had taken this into account in the decision to provide a gas boiler upgrade only. We have also seen correspondence the landlord sent to the resident’s councillor in which it said that changing the way it provided heating and hot water to its tenants would take a number of years. The resident sent emails in October and November 2022 to her local councillor questioning whether the landlord would consider installing an electric boiler. However, we have seen no evidence this correspondence was sent to the landlord. In her email to the landlord on 27 February 2023 the resident said she wanted a more sustainable option. She queried the possibility of having a heat pump or electric boiler. We acknowledge why the resident wanted to explore this possibility. But the landlord’s responses to the resident in March and April 2023 were reasonable. It is unfortunate that the landlord’s policy in respect of boiler upgrades changed during the time between first offering this and the resident’s complaint. We understand that this would have been disappointing for the resident. However, we acknowledge that the landlord’s ability to offer such schemes is subject to change and dependant on factors such as budget constraints. We have found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of this issue.

Exposed gas pipe in her garden

The resident raised concerns to the landlord at the end of February 2023 about work it had completed to a pipe in her garden. She stated that she was concerned the landlord’s employees had attempted to complete work on a live gas source when they were not trained to do so. The landlord provided its response to this point on 16 March 2023. This response was thorough. It explained that the contractor who attended had been unable to remove the pipe as it thought it may be a water or gas pipe. It explained that a supervisor had then attended that day along with a gas engineer. It said the contractor then arranged for the “gas board” to attend after identifying it was a gas pipe. It said this was in line with standard procedure. The landlord’s response to the resident was reasonable and outlined appropriate steps taken by its contractor after establishing it was a gas pipe. We note that the resident confirmed that the contractor had arrange for Gas Safety to attend. She said it had attended quickly and arranged for the pipe to be shortened. While we acknowledge that this situation caused some concern for the resident, we have found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the matter.

The complaint

The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint of January 2023 was timely. It also took appropriate steps to resolve the lack of clarity around the resident’s communication request. However, as noted earlier, it failed to respond appropriately to the concern she had raised that a contractor had attended an appointment she had declined. As outlined, the landlord missed the opportunity to address and resolve issues of contractors attended prior confirming appointments. We have also seen other failings in the landlord’s handling of this complaint. It sent 3 stage 2 complaint responses to the resident between 23 March and 18 May 2023. We acknowledge that these addressed new issues the resident had raised or respond further where she remained unhappy with response already provided. But it handling of the complaint was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code or its own policy.
It may sometimes be appropriate to incorporate further points of complaint into a stage 1 response. But by adding these to its stage 2 response, the resident was denied the opportunity to have all her concerns considered at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. It was apparent from her subsequent correspondence that the resident was confused and concerned by the landlord’s handling of her complaints. In her email of 29 March 2023, she questioned why it had not acknowledged receipt of her complaints or provided a stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for its failure to acknowledge the complaints and for not making clear that the March 2023 was intended to answer all questions that had been raised. But its poor handling of the complaints resulted in a number of a stage 2 responses that mixed issues that had been addressed with newly raised ones. It convoluted and confused issues.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Its failings meant it did not take earlier steps to resolve issues with contractors attending without confirming appointments. It also caused confusion in its handling of the resident’s various complaints. This resulted in the resident’s concerns about its failure to follow its own complaints procedure. It also denied her the opportunity to have issues considered at stage 1 of the complaints process. With consideration to the circumstances, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings. We have also ordered that the landlord review failings we have identified to ensure steps are taken to prevent these being repeated. It should also remind staff of importance of raising new unrelated issues as new complaints, rather than adding these to stage 2 responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health of the landlord’s handling of issues falls outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the follow issues falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have yet to conclude the landlord’s complaints procedure:
1. the resident’s reports the landlord had accessed her garden without her permission.
2. a rodent issue at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about how it communicated with her and about it attending without notice and agreement.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about insulation work.
3. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an electric boiler and her concerns about how it had responded to an exposed gas pipe in her garden.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with guidance on apologies contained within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact of its failing in respect of the request about how it communicate with her, and about it attending without notice or agreement.
  2. £100 for the impact of its failing in its handling of concerns raised about insulation work.
  3. £200 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. review its guidance to its staff on consideration of awards of compensation. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that guidance is clear that compensation can be awarded when its actions have resulted in avoidable distress or inconvenience.
2. review the failings identified in this report and consider whether appropriate processes and guidance are in place to ensure it can recognise and respond to and record vulnerabilities. This review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.
3. review failings we have identified in its complaint handling to ensure steps are taken to prevent these being repeated. It should also remind staff of the importance of raising new unrelated issues as new complaints, rather than adding these to stage 2 responses, unless this is agreed with the resident.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review whether sufficiently clear information has been added to its records. This is in respect of the resident’s communication requirements and issues of contractors attending without notice/agreement from reoccurring.
2. provide the resident with details of how she can make a personal injury claim to its insurer, should she wish to do so.