The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

One Vision Housing Limited (202205703)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205703

One Vision Housing Limited

25 September 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. report of a deactivated communal entrance door, to the building of his property.
    2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a ground floor property, situated in a purpose-built block of flats (the building).
  2. On 28 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the communal entrance door to the building of his property, was not locking. The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on the same day to advise that it had been instructed by the landlord to deactivate the building’s electronic door entry system, due to another resident being unable to access the building.
  3. On 1 June 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He stated that he was unhappy it had taken the landlord until 31 May 2022, to reactivate the communal entrance door to the building of his property, and that he was only made aware of the door’s reactivation by another resident within the building. He highlighted that when he contacted the landlord on 28 May 2022, he was advised that someone would call him back to explain why the door had been deactivated, however, the landlord had failed to contact him. The resident explained that as a result of the communal entrance door to the building being unsecure, he was forced to stay with his sister for three nights as he was worried about his safety.
  4. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 July 2022. It explained that during non-working hours, another tenant was unable to access the building, due to their key fob not working. It explained that instead of deactivating the building’s electronic door entry system, its contractor should have advised the tenant to temporarily use the intercom system to ask neighbours within the building to provide them with access. The landlord advised that it had recently enlisted a new contractor to respond to its out of hours repair requests, and that its contractor was unaware that the communal entrance door to the building should have remained secure at all times. It reassured the resident that it would make sure its contractor was notified of its expectations regarding the security of the building, for all future instances. The landlord stated that the communal entrance door to the building was reactivated by the next working hour, apologised to the resident, and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  5. On 19 July 2022, the landlord sent a further response to the resident’s complaint. It highlighted that it was the resident’s choice to stay at his sister’s house, and that he should have reported an issue with the communal entrance door to the building at the time of its deactivation, so that the landlord could have raised an emergency job for its contractor to attend and reactivate the door.
  6. On 24 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He disputed the landlord’s claim of not reporting the issue with the communal entrance door at the time and offered to provide screenshots of his telephone call log, in support of his complaint.
  7. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 5 October 2022. In this it advised that it had been trying to contact the resident by telephone to discuss his complaint further but had received no response. It reiterated the points made in its stage one complaint response.
  8. The resident contacted this service on 28 November 2022, to ask for his complaint to be investigated. He told this service that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation as to why the communal entrance door to the building of his property was deactivated, and that he was unhappy with the length of time taken by the landlord to respond to his stage two complaint. He expressed that the landlord’s actions had affected his mental health, and that he wanted an apology, along with an increase in compensation to reflect the distress caused to him.

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of his complaint, the resident has said that the landlord’s delay to secure the communal entrance door to the building and the handling of his complaint, has affected his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to establish if there is a direct connection between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Matters such as this are better suited to a court to decide as the courts have different powers to the Ombudsman. The courts can call on medical expert witnesses and award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the exterior and structural elements of its properties and facilities. This includes communal areas of flats, such as access routes and communal entrances.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out that emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours if there is a risk to health and safety. It explains that immediate repairs may not always be possible but that it will resolve an issue as expediently as possible, keeping users of the system informed of the expected timescales for completion.
  3. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that he is required to pay £7.98 a week in service charges for communal facilities, which includes for the provision of the door entry system.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a broken entrance door, to the building of his property.

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord’s contractor deactivated the entrance door to the building of the resident’s property, leaving it unsecure. The landlord acknowledged that its contractor did not follow the correct process and reassured the resident that its contractor had been made aware of its expectations for the security of the building in the future. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. There is some evidence of the landlord acting fairly, as it acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the deactivation of the communal entrance door to the building of his property. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s actions went far enough to ensure it fully addressed its failings.
  3. The communal entrance door to the building of the resident’s property is a facility that is used by several residents living within the building. There are no records to demonstrate that the landlord notified its residents that the communal entrance door had been deactivated, or when it had been reactivated. As a result, the resident explained to the landlord that he was only made aware of the door’s reactivation by another resident within the building. This was inappropriate, and in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, as soon as its offices had reopened, it should have apologised for the inconvenience caused, and communicated to all residents within the building when it expected the communal entrance door to be resecured. Clear and effective communication on a landlord’s part is an essential element of all aspects of its overall service delivery, and it demonstrates to its residents that it is taking the appropriate steps to resolve matters as soon as reasonably practicable.
  4. Additionally, the landlord advised the resident that the communal entrance door to the building of his property was reactivated by the next working hour, which would have been 30 May 2022. However, the landlord’s repair records state that the door was reactivated on 31 May 2022, which is also in line with what the resident claimed. This discrepancy meant that the communal entrance to the building of the resident’s property was unsecure for four days instead of three. While the Ombudsman would consider this as a minor discrepancy, it is unlikely that the extra day was taken into account by the landlord, when it offered the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. As such, the Ombudsman will take this factor into account below, when considering whether the offer of redress by the landlord was enough to put things right.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it offers two types of discretionary redress when a service failure is identified. This consists of compensation to recompense for a loss of service as a direct result of the landlord’s actions, and a gesture of goodwill to maintain good relations with its residents when an inconvenience has been caused. As the landlord’s compensation policy is discretionary, the Ombudsman cannot assess how it agreed on the figure of £50 compensation or why it felt this was a reasonable amount to offer the resident for its failings. However, the Ombudsman notes that the resident is charged £7.98 a week in service charges which includes for the provision of the communal door entry system, therefore, it was reasonable that the compensation offered to the resident by the landlord covered this charge.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £100 in cases where we identify a single or limited number of minor failings in the landlord’s service delivery. Considering the landlord’s poor communication and inaccuracy over the reactivation of the communal entrance door, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord has adequately offered the resident compensation that is proportionate to the overall failings identified within this investigation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should pay the resident a further £50 compensation to put things right. This brings the total to £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the failures set out aboveand is inclusive of the landlord’s earlier offer of £50, which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
  7. The resident has told this Service that he incurred out of pocket expenses when staying at his sister’s property, such as contributing to the cost of utilities. While there is evidence of the resident reporting that the communal entrance door to the building of his property had been deactivated, there is no record of the resident providing the landlord with prior notice of his intention to stay at his sister’s property because of this. As such, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to pay for out-of-pocket expenses where it was not given the opportunity to provide an alternative solution beforehand. However, the Ombudsman has considered the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the course of four days, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, has been proportionally reflected in the order made above for compensation.
  8. Finally, it was appropriate that the landlord looked to learn from its errors by explaining how its contractor should have responded, and reassured the resident that its contractor was now aware of the correct procedure.
  9. In light of the above points, the Ombudsman considers that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a deactivated communal entrance door, to the building of his property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one of its process within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide the resident with a stage two response within ten working days.
  2. The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 1 June 2022, and failed to provide its response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Instead, the resident was provided with a stage one complaint response on 14 July 2022, which was 30 working days after the resident had raised his complaint. The landlord explained to the resident that the reason for its delay to respond, was because it thought that his report of the broken entrance door to his building, formed part of another complaint it had been dealing with, which related to antisocial behaviour (ASB). While the Ombudsman notes the landlord’s explanation, its records show that its ASB complaint response failed to address the resident’s report of the deactivated communal entrance door. This suggests that the resident’s complaint regarding the communal entrance door had been overlooked and demonstrated a lack of care and due diligence in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint. This would have understandably left the resident feeling as though the landlord had not understood the importance of his concerns.
  3. The landlord received the resident’s stage two complaint on 24 July 2022, and failed to provide its response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The Ombudsman notes that two days after the resident had submitted his stage two complaint, the landlord asked the resident for clarification on whether he wanted his further comments to be considered at stage two of its complaints process. There is no evidence of the resident responding to this email, and so it appears the landlord overlooked responding to the resident’s stage two complaint until intervention from this Service, 52 working days later. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident’s stage two complaint was a clear expression of dissatisfaction, and a response to his comments was required, regardless of whether it was to be considered as a stage two complaint or as a general enquiry. The landlord should have called the resident to discuss his concerns further and from this it could have clarified the appropriate next course of action. If it was unable to reach the resident over the phone, it should have provided a written response to his comments in line with either its service enquiry timescales or formal complaint timescales.
  4. Additionally, the resident’s stage two complaint specifically challenged the landlord’s claim that he did not report the communal entrance door had been deactivated or that he felt unsafe. The resident also offered to provide evidence of his call log to demonstrate that he called. It was inappropriate that the landlord’s stage two complaint response failed to address these points. There is evidence that the resident reported the issue with the communal entrance door on the day it occurred, and that he expressed his concerns about his safety, therefore, the landlord should have apologised and accepted that it had made a mistake when claiming that he did not. This would have demonstrated that it was in acknowledgement of its error and would provided the resident with some assurance that he was being listened to.
  5. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident highlighted within his complaint that the landlord’s contractor deactivated the communal entrance door for an individual who was not a resident within the building. The resident has also emphasised this point to this service, to demonstrate the landlord’s lack of consideration for his safety. The landlord’s stage one response does not directly address the resident’s assertion, only referring to the individual as a ‘customer’, therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord checked or confirmed if the individual was a resident within the building. The landlord should have reassured the resident that it was confident it had responded to a report raised by a resident within the building, and it could have done this without compromising resident confidentiality. The Ombudsman would like to remind the landlord that responding to its residents’ complaints in full is essential, and that residents should receive a comprehensive response to their complaints, which addresses all the concerns that have been raised.
  6. Considering the above points, the Ombudsman has concluded that landlord’s delay to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage one and two of its complaints process, and its failure to address his complaint in full, amounts to service failure. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the failures set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a broken entrance door to the building of his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £50 compensation for its poor communication and inaccuracy over the reactivation of the door to the building of the resident’s property. This amount is in addition to the £50 compensation it already agreed to pay, which should also be paid now unless it has been paid already.
    2. £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to issue the resident with a written apology for failing to address all the points raised within his stage two complaint. It should review the evidence provided by the resident which shows that he called on 28 May 2022, and an explanation should be given as to why this was not apparent in its records when investigating his complaint.