Octavia Housing (202004061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004061

Octavia Housing

16 December 2020

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair the shower rail and the operative’s behaviour.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord at the property, a three-bedroom flat. The landlord is a registered social landlord who contracts to a third party for the repair and maintenance of its properties.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints policy, the policy aims to resolve any dissatisfaction within set time periods. The landlord is required to acknowledge a complaint by a resident within three working days. If a resident makes a complaint at stage-one, the landlord would try and resolve this issue or provide an explanation and target date within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, they then have 10 days to ask for the issue to be investigated at stage two. There are two options the resident can choose from at stage two of the complaints process. The resident can choose for the complaint to be reviewed by a senior manager and a written response within 10 working days. Or the resident can choose for the complaint to be reviewed by a complaints panel within 20 working days and a written response provided within 10 working days of the hearing.
The Landlord has provided a code of conduct for guidance for service providers. The policy states that in order for works to be carried out as efficiently as possible it is important that service providers demonstrate its three core values, to be ‘reliable, responsive and respectful’. Under section 5 of the policy ‘any allegations of harassment by you, your employees or sub-Service Providers will be investigated. If proven, the contract with you may be terminated’.
The landlord has provided a copy of their compensation policy, Section 3 highlights that the landlord offers compensation where it does not meet its target response times for repairs (emergency repairs: within 24 hours, urgent repairs: within 5 working days, routine repairs: within 15 working days) residents who have requested certain repairs may be entitled to compensation where the repair is not completed within the landlord’s published timescales. Section 5 also states that if the landlord can offer gestures of goodwill where a resident is significantly inconvenienced in other circumstances (at the discretion of managers, but in regard to its compensation procedure).

Summary of events

It is acknowledged by this service that the resident had made two pervious formal complaints to the landlord about the level of service provided by the landlord’s operatives in the past, one in 2011 and the other in 2017. It is also acknowledged that there had been long running issues of antisocial behaviour at the property in regard to the resident’s neighbour. This is concurrently being investigated by the Housing Ombudsman as a separate complaint.
On 11 December 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding an incident that took place with one of its operatives. The landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to complete some repairs issues including the installation of a shower rail. The resident said that she asked for a screw-in fixed shower rail be installed as it was the same as the one being replaced. The operative confirmed that that would be the case, when the rail was being installed by the operative it was an extendable shower rail and not screw in. The resident alleged that when she asked about the screw-in type rail the operative ‘threw a fit, ran down the stairs shouting’. The resident claimed as the operative was leaving he said ‘you see what I told you, I am going out of here; I’m going to call the office’.
The landlord issued a formal response to the resident’s stage one complaint on 12 December 2019. The landlord investigated the complaint by liaising with the operatives manager who in turn talked to the above-mentioned operative. The manager expressed that the operative ‘profusely apologised and said that he did not realise that he had come across as rude or aggressive and stated that he was sorry if he did come across that way’. The landlord relayed to the operatives management that ‘operatives were not to attend resident’s properties with any preconceptions about the residents and that it should remain professional in the resident’s homes’.
On 16 December 2019, the resident called the landlord and asked for escalation of her matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response and that she would like it to be escalated on 17 December 2019. The landlord stated that the resident could have it reviewed in one of two ways:
1. By a senior manager and a response would be provided within 10 working days.
2. By the landlord’s complaints panel – the panel would meet within 30 days of the resident confirming or clarifying any outstanding issues or outcomes. The complaints panel would comprise of three members including an independent Chair and the resident would be invited to present their case. The landlord highlighted that the office would be closed from 24 December 2019 to 2 January 2020.
On 30 December 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response stating that it wasn’t ‘factual’ and ‘trivialised the complaint’. The resident stated that the initial complaint was in regards to ‘slander/defamation of character’ by a neighbour, who is also an employee of the landlord. The resident suggested that through the employees working relationships with the operatives, the operatives had come to her property with preconceived ideas about her behavior and were disrespectful. The resident thinks that the behavior of the operatives over the years is ‘vial and unacceptable’ and asked to be compensated in the amount of three thousand pounds. The resident asked for her complaint to be determined by the complaints panel.
The landlord confirmed that the resident would like the complaints panel to deal with her stage two complaint on 3 January 2020. The landlord enclosed a form asking for details about the aspects of the resident’s complaint that she felt were outstanding or where she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord asked that the resident complete and return the form by 16 January 2020, and that she would receive a date for the panel meeting.
The panel was originally due to convene on 18 March 2020. This meeting was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The resident wanted a panel meeting at a later date when it could take place. The resident later decided on a desktop review as it became apparent that face to face meetings would not take place due to the continuing pandemic situation. The desktop panel review took place on 1 June 2020.
The landlord provided a report for the desktop complaints panel, the report reviewed the summary of complaint, complaint response, any delays to service delivery and matters outstanding and required outcomes.
1. The report assessed the complaint response and found that the landlord investigated the complaint and spoke with the operative involved. The landlord said when it spoke to the operative about the ‘you see what I told you’ statement, the operative advised that he was not referring to the resident and was sorry if it appeared that way. The landlord reiterated to the management of the operatives that it’s operatives were not to attend resident’s properties with any preconceptions about the residents and that it should remain professional.
2. The report assessed that there were no delays to service delivery by the landlord.
3. The report addressed matters outstanding that required outcomes and the report stated that the resident did not complete a panel hearing calcification form supplied on 3 January 2020. The report highlighted two outstanding issues:
  1. That the operatives staff have preconceived ideas about the resident due to ‘slander/deformation of character’ by her neighbour who is a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord responded that there was no evidence to support the idea that the resident’s neighbour had influenced the behaviour and views of the operatives. The resident’s neighbour is a member of the landlord’s staff but had very limited day to day involvement with the repairs team and certainly not in a way that would enable it to influence the operatives’ behaviour. However, the landlord regrets any distress that had been caused to the resident in this instance and had investigated the matter and apologised to her.
  2. The resident wanting to be compensated in the amount of three thousand pounds. The landlord believes that inline with the above comments the request for compensation was ‘unreasonable and unwarranted.’
On 1 June 2020, the desktop panel review took place and a written report was provided. The panel determined that there were two aspects of the complaint and it dealt with each in turn:
1. Operatives of the landlord were abusive to the resident and came with negative preconceptions due to slander/deformation of character by the residents neighbour who is a member of the landlord’s staff.
  1. The panel examined the way the landlord handled the complaint including talking to the operative’s manager. When asked about the incident the operative profusely apologised for any stress that may have been caused and that it had not intended to be rude or aggressive behaviour towards the resident. It was agreed by the landlord that this may have caused distress and took steps to ensure that the operative would not attend the resident’s home in the future. The panel determined that given there was no independent collaborative evidence of the alleged behaviour, it was not possible for the landlord to take any further action. The panel also decided that there was no evidence at all of any deformation of character by the resident’s neighbour who is a member of the landlord’s staff. Therefore, the panel did not uphold this section of the complaint and did not accept that £3000 compensation was justified. The panel decided that the landlord had taken reasonable steps in relation to ensuring this behavior does not happen again.
2. The panel also examined the breakdown of service provisions at the resident’s property.
  1. The panel acknowledged that the operative attended the property on 3 December 2019, to replace a shower rail. The operative then left the property without screwing in the shower rail. A second operative attended the property on 12 December 2019 and fixed the shower rail to the wall with screws as the resident original requested. The panel upheld this part of the review and offered the resident ‘£50 be given for the breakdown in service provisions’.
3. The panel was satisfied that the landlord had now complied with its policies and procedures and that the resident’s complaint was addressed in a fair and reasonable manner. The panel expressed that this decision concludes the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair the shower rail and the operative’s behaviour.

It is accepted that the resident had minor repairs issues at the property which she reported to the landlord. The landlord sent an operative to the property to fix the issues on 3 December 2019 in line with its service standards. It is apparent that there was an issue at the property and the operative left without screwing in the shower rail and completing the repair. A second operative attended the property of the 12 December 2019 and screwed in the shower rail. Under the landlord’s compensation policy minor repairs should be completed within 15 working days.
The evidence provided does not specify the date in which the repairs were reported to the landlord, the resident did not however specify a delay in beginning the works in their complaint. It is accepted by the Ombudsman that the operative failed to complete the repair, for whatever reason, which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord’s operative had an obligation to carry out the repair as ‘efficiently as possible with the least disruption’. The fact that another operative had to attend the property on 12 December 2019 to screw in the shower rail in indicative of a breakdown of service. However, it was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in light of this failure and this was sufficient to put it right.
It is difficult to assess the behavior of the operative as the evidence provided to the Ombudsman was one party’s statement against another. However, the Ombudsman is able to assess the landlord’s response to the complaint. When the resident reported the complaint to the landlord, the evidence provided demonstrates that it immediately contacted the operative’s manager and questioned the operative on what took place at the property. The landlord informed the resident the next day that the worker’s behavior was not directed at the resident and apologised on behalf of the operative. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the incident may have caused distress to the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord communicated to the operative’s manager that the operative was not to attend the resident’s home in the future. The landlord relayed to the operative’s manager that it should not have any preconceived notions about the resident. It is clear that the landlord took appropriate steps in line with its policies to ensure that an incident like this does not happen in the future.
There is no evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman that would suggest that the behaviour of the operative was caused by the resident’s neighbour, who happens to work for the landlord ‘slandering or defaming’ the character of the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 10 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 11 December 2019 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 12 December 2019. The resident asked for a review of the decision on the 16 December 2019. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two review on 17 December 2019.
The landlord asked for the resident to complete and return the complaint information form by 16 January 2020. This was not completed by the resident which caused a delayed the matter being considered by the panel. The panel was originally due to convene on 18 March 2020, however it is accepted that this meeting was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. The desktop panel review took place on 1 June 2020, it is accepted that the landlord did communicate to the resident and inform her of the delay due to Covid-19 and kept her updated. The landlord’s complaints handling was in line with its policies at both stage one and two of the complaints process, although there was a delay at the stage two, desktop panel review, it was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and communicated to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to the amount of compensation offered for the landlords response to the residents request to repair the shower rail and the operative’s behavior.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

It is accepted that the landlord had an obligation to repair the shower rail at the property. The landlord was made aware of the issue and notified its operative to perform the repair. The operative failed to complete the repair at the property which caused a nine-day delay until another operative came and fixed the issue. The landlord offered the resident £50 for the break down in service provision which is inline with its compensation policy. From the evidence provided it was unclear what transpired at the property between the resident and the operative, however the landlord took the necessary steps to investigate the incident and ensure that the incident would not occur again in the future.

The complaints handling by the landlord was in line with its policies at both stage one and two of the complaints process, although there was a delay at the stage two, desktop panel review, it was due to the Covid-19 pandemic and communicated to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord to reoffer the resident the £50 compensation for the delayed repair at the resident’s property and the operative’s behaviour.
The landlord should use this complaint as a learning exercise to identify where it can improve its procedures and communication with its contractor to prevent similar instances happening in future.
The landlord to take steps to ensure that its repair staff and contractors are ‘reliable, responsive and respectful’.
The landlord should develop a repairs policy to clearly outline the timeframes and obligations when completing repairs.