Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202110343)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110343

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

29 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
    1. contractors attending during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    2. the level of contact from its contractors.
    3. Her personal information being shared.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Reports that personal information had been shared

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaints-handling body”.
  2. Throughout the resident’s complaint she has raised concerns about a potential data breach by the landlord passing her contact details on to its contractor. This issue would be more appropriately dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is able to investigate complaints about possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. It is not part of this Service’s role to determine whether the landlord had adhered to this act. Because of that, and in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) of the Scheme, this investigation will not address concerns that the resident’s personal information had been shared inappropriately.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She has a disability, which she has made the landlord aware of. The landlord employs a contractor to carry out electrical safety tests at its properties.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 January 2021. She said its contractor was harassing her in its attempts to carry out the electrical safety check. She had told the contractor that she had been advised by NHS Direct to self-isolate (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and not allow people into her home. She said the contractor had called her that day, and she advised them that she had the virus and needed to self-isolate. The contractor said they could still attend as they would wear personal protective equipment (PPE). She said she did not want anyone to enter her home for non-essential repairs or maintenance. She raised concerns that the electrical check would involve the contractor entering all rooms in her home, which would increase the risks of spreading the virus. She said the contractor had sent her a text message following the phone call saying the landlord had “instructed them to come in and [she] must allow them”. She asked the landlord to tell the contractor to “leave [her] alone”.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email that day. It said it would urgently look into the mater. On 25 January 2021 the landlord told her that it would not make any further attempts to gain access without consultation, or a prior discussion. It apologised for the distress and anxiety caused.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 10 February 2021. It said her electrical check was due and it had a legal responsibility to carry out the check and ensure her safety. It said its contractors were following government advice and would take steps to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It asked her to contact the landlord if she was shielding, unwell or self-isolating so it could “work together to maintain the safety of [her] home, while respecting and protecting [her] health and need to isolate”.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 30 April 2021. It said it had been unable to access her home and for the electrical check. It said if it were unable to complete the check, it would request court permission to force entry. It reiterated what it had explained in its letter from 10 February 2021. The landlord sent the resident a similar letter on 17 May 2021.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2021. She said she had researched her rights as a tenant with disabilities regarding the electrical check. She said she had found that “social landlords [did] not have a statutory obligation to conduct 5 year electrical safety checks”. She said this meant “all the harassment [she had been] subjected to” by the contractor, had been unnecessary. She said only private landlords had to carry out the check. She asked why the landlord had not asked whether she wanted the electrical check if there was no statutory requirement for it. She said it was optional, and she did not want it. She said that as her disability made her clinically vulnerable, she should not have been subjected to harassment from the contractor. She provided the information she had found on the internet. She complained that the contractor had harassed her over the previous 18 months with phone calls, emails and text messages.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord later that day to say the contractor had called her again. The landlord responded and said it would ask the contractor to refrain from contacting her whilst it addressed her concerns. It said its contractor had advised they wanted to carry out the check in all remaining properties. It said it would be useful to understand any adjustments it could make to ensure the resident was comfortable with the electrical check.
  8. On 28 May 2021 the landlord asked its contractor to refrain from contacting the resident until further notice.
  9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 June 2021. It said its legal requirement for the check was found in The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which said a landlord “shall keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity”. It said in order to comply with the Act, it carried out a variety of specialised checks. It said the electrical check was important for keeping its residents safe. It said its current electrical safety policy met up to date legal requirements, and also complied with the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) guidance which recommended a maximum period between inspections to be five years for rented accommodation. It apologised for the level of contact from its contractor. It said in January it had asked the contractor to put the resident’s address on hold and move her to a later programme. It explained that her on hold status was “removed during the administrative transfer of [her] address to a later programme. This resulted in the renewed level of contact with [her]”. It confirmed that the contractor would no longer contact her, and the landlord would take ownership of arranging an appointment. It said it would remain conscious of her concerns and ensure it complied with safe working measures by adhering to social distancing and using PPE. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 July 2021. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with the contractor having continuously contacted her. She reiterated that the landlord had no statutory legal requirement to carry out the check.
  11. On 22 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had asked its contractor about their contact with the resident. It said the contractor had sent the resident an initial contact letter, and had four records of phone calls (13 July 2020, 22 January 2021, 26 May 2021, and 27 May 2021). It confirmed the calls from May were due to an administration error and should not have happened. The contractor had said they were unaware of any texts sent to the resident.
  12. The resident responded to the landlord on 22 July 2021. She said it had sent her a letter threatening to take her to court. She reiterated that the contractor had sent her numerous texts and emails. She said she had deleted some of the text messages and emails from the contractor but still had “around 23 to 26 texts”, and two emails. She said the landlord had a duty of care to ensure its residents were not put under undue stress. She said the landlord should have known that the checks were optional for social tenants. She attached texts messages from the contractor from 1 March, 17 April, and 12 May which asked her to contact them to arrange an appointment.
  13. On 23 July 2021 the landlord enquired with the contractor about their level of contact with the resident. The contractor advised that their contact had been put on hold with the resident since 28 May. They explained that they had an automated text message system which sent residents reminders to book their check approximately every two weeks.
  14. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 30 July 2021. It reiterated that its legal requirement for the check was set out in The Act. It explained the resident’s tenancy agreement said she needed to provide access for inspections or repairs. It said the required frequency of checks was not clearly defined in law. It explained the contractor’s text messaging system. It said given the importance of the check for the resident’s safety, it found fortnightly text reminders to be proportionate. It said it would recommend the issue of regularity and volume of contact was considered when it next reviewed its service level agreement with the contractor.

Assessment and findings

Contractors attending during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations which supply water, gas and electricity. The resident is required to grant the landlord (or contractors working on its behalf) access to her home for it to inspect or carry out any repair and maintenance work, including electrical checks.
  2. The resident wrote to the landlord in January 2021 explaining her dissatisfaction with its attempt to carry out an electrical safety check during the pandemic due to the potential risks of having people in her home. She reiterated her concerns in May 2021 and said she had found information online which said the landlord had no statutory obligation to carry out the check, and she had the right to refuse it. She asked the landlord why it had continued to pursue the check if it was optional. The landlord explained that it carried out the check in order to comply with The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It said the check was important to ensure her safety and reassured her that it would comply with safe working measures. It also advised that she was required to grant it access in line with her tenancy agreement.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to carry out the check as it is required to keep the electrical installations in working order in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It is at the landlord’s discretion how it fulfils its obligation, and an inspection is a reasonable way for it to do so. It was also reasonable for it to remind the resident of her requirement to grant access. Although the resident’s concerns surrounding contractors entering her home during the COVID-19 pandemic were understandable, the landlord was entitled to request access to adhere to its obligations. It acknowledged her concerns and attempted to reassure her it would comply with safe working measures by giving examples (the use of PPE).
  4. Ultimately, the landlord clearly set out why it was required to carry out the check and explained that it would consider the resident’s reservations. It was reasonable for it to attempt to carry out the check, and its responses to her queries and concerns were also reasonable.

Contact from contractor

The resident reported to the landlord on multiple occasions that the contractor had been harassing her through text messages, emails, and phone calls so she would book the electrical check. 

  1. In May 2021, the landlord asked its contractor to refrain from contacting the resident whilst it looked into the matter. In its stage one complaint response it apologised for their level of contact. It explained that although it asked the contractor to put the resident’s address on hold in January, due to the transfer of her address to a later programme, the contact was renewed. It reassured her that the contractor would no longer contact her. It then carried out further investigations and found the contractor had sent fortnightly reminders to residents asking them to book the check. It said that given that the check was important, it found fortnightly messages to be proportionate.
  2. Although it is understandable that fortnightly text messages would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s explanation that they were proportionate was reasonable as safety checks are important, and it is necessary for the landlord to ensure the electrical installations are in proper working order in order to comply with its obligations (as explained above). The landlord also discovered that the contractor had called the resident four times and had sent one letter. It asked the contractor to refrain from contacting this resident, this was a reasonable and pragmatic approach to take to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns with the level of contact from the contractors. It apologised for the distress caused, explained why they had contacted her, and asked for the contact to end.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about contractors attending during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of contact from its contractors.

Reasons

  1. The landlord explained why it was important for it to carry out the electrical check, and why it was required to do so. It also took reasonable seps to investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns with excessive contact from the contractor.