Platform Housing Group Limited (202108975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108975

Platform Housing Group Limited

1 October 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 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to his kitchen extractor fan.
   2. Investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

2. As per the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, routine repairs will be completed within 21 working days, and minor programmed works will be carried out within 90 days.
3. The landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy confirms that it “will keep [residents] fully informed of progress when dealing with the complaint and provide a formal response which will detail the outcome of any investigation”.
4. As per the landlord’s “customer feedback” document, it will contact residents within three working days of a stage one complaint being received.

Background

5. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

6. On 12 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had received a repair request to “fit [a] new extractor fan” to the resident’s kitchen. The request was recorded by it as having been completed on 19 January 2021, when it had repaired the extractor fan instead, as it was able to do so. The extractor fan was noted by the landlord as having been left in working order.
7. On 1 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that the resident had again reported to it that the extractor fan in his kitchen was not working.
8. On 16 March 2021, the landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident, who requested that it install a cooker hood in his kitchen. This was in line with the recommendations of the operative who had carried out the repair to the extractor fan. The landlord informed the resident that he would receive a call back from it about this within 48 hours.
9. On 19 March 2021, the landlord noted that the resident submitted his stage one complaint to it by telephone. He was unhappy, as he had not received the call back from it to discuss his request for a cooker hood in his kitchen, and therefore he felt that the operative was “lying to him”. The resident was advised that the correct timescale for a call back was five working days.
10. During the above call, the resident wanted to raise a complaint against the operative he had spoken to from the landlord on 19 March 2021, as well as the previous operative he had spoken to on 16 March 2021. They were unable to do this, as they had already submitted the above stage one complaint from him on its system. The landlord’s latest operative therefore suggested that the resident submit his full stage one complaint to it online. However, he felt that they had been rude and unhelpful. The resident wanted a personal written apology from the operative he had spoken to on 16 March 2021, together with training for the landlord’s staff.
11. The landlord’s records confirmed that the resident called it back later that day. He was dissatisfied with the previous operative’s tone that day, which was “rude and unhelp[ful]”. The resident was also unhappy that the previous operative had refused to accept his full stage one complaint to the landlord. It therefore apologised to him for this, and it explained that it would provide its staff with additional training because of his complaint.
12. On 24 March 2021, the resident requested the escalation of his complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure after speaking with the landlord again. He was dissatisfied, as he was told by it that he would be contacted within five working days regarding his request for a cooker hood. However, the resident had not received a call back about this, and he had not received a written acknowledgement of his stage one complaint. The landlord responded later that day to acknowledge his stage one complaint, and to confirm that it would contact him about this within the next three working days.
13. The landlord responded to this with a further call to the resident later that day. It explained that it was unable to review his request for a cooker hood until the following week as its repairs manager was on holiday, for which it apologised. The resident was happy for his stage one complaint to be closed by the landlord, and for him to speak to its repairs manager when they returned. He also wanted an update on his request for a “verbal apology” from the operative who had given him incorrect timescales above.
14. On 25 March 2021, the landlord recorded that it attended the resident’s property to complete a repair to check and overhaul his kitchen extractor fan, which it noted that it had left working on that date.
15. On 29 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that he could fit a cooker hood if he sought the appropriate permission from it for this, and if he arranged for this to be installed. It apologised for not informing him of this during an earlier call.
16. On 29 March 2021, the resident responded to the landlord. He explained that he had only enquired about a cooker hood as the contractor who had carried out the extractor fan repair had told him that this was not adequate for the room size of his kitchen. The resident would not be installing a cooker hood. He had also not heard from the landlord in response to his previous complaints to it, and he did not consider its above response of 29 March 2021 to have resolved them.
17. On 31 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it emailed the resident following a discussion with him on the previous day. It confirmed that it would be investigating the above communication that he had with its call centre, as well as regarding his request for a cooker hood, and that it would respond to him by 15 April 2021.
18. On 31 March 2021, the landlord recorded that it investigated the resident’s above complaint, which included speaking to the original operative he had spoken to on 16 March 2021. It found that its operative did advise him that he would get a call back from it within 48 hours. Therefore, the landlord would be carrying out additional training for its operative to seek to learn from this complaint.
19. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 April 2021, when it explained that it had investigated his complaint by using information that it had gathered from its various departments and its system. It apologised and upheld his complaint for telling him on 16 March 2021 that it would respond to his cooker hood enquiry within 48 hours, as it would usually expect to provide a response for this within three working days, for which it agreed to provide feedback to its operatives’ duty managers as part of its learning from his complaint.
20. The landlord also explained that it had responded to the resident’s report that he had been spoken to rudely by one of its operatives on 19 March 2021 by arranging a discussion between one of its team managers and the operative, and that further training would take place in the near future. Although it stated that, while it was sorry to hear how he had felt about this, it could not organise the personal apology that he had requested from the operative as its usual action for this had occurred when a manager had followed up the situation by calling him on 24 March 2021.
21. The landlord additionally apologised to the resident that its technical officer was on leave when his enquiry about the cooker hood was sent to them on 19 March 2021, for which he had contacted it again on 24 March 2021 as he had not heard from them. It nevertheless said that his kitchen extractor fan was the correct size, but that it had identified that an improvement could be made in the way that this was ducted to that would improve the airflow, which it was arranging with a sub-contractor. The landlord informed the resident, however, that the cooker hood was not something that it would install and that he would therefore have to arrange for this to be fitted himself, if this was something that he wanted, for which it gave him details to send it a written request for advance permission.
22. On 15 April 2021, the resident responded to the landlord to again request the escalation of his complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. He was unhappy as the extractor fan he had was “only running at the rate of a 4-inch fan”, and he felt that this needed to be a minimum of 8 to 10 inches. The resident had also not received calls back from the landlord despite his above requests for these. In respect to his complaint about staff conduct, he would only accept a “personal apology” from the operative he had first spoken to on 19 March 2021, or he would continue to progress his complaint about this. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 20 April 2021.
23. On 19 April 2021, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord because he had been told it would call him that morning about the extractor fan, which did not happen. He felt that he had been “lied to all [of] the time” by it.
24. On 15 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that it had completed improvements to the resident’s extractor fan by increasing the diameter of the pipework from 4 to 6 inches. Its records also noted that the extractor fan “was working just as the developers had designed and installed it”.
25. On 19 May 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
    1. It had arranged feedback for the managers of the operative who spoke to him on 16 March 2021 and had informed him that he would receive a call back from it within 48 hours, instead of three working days. Although the landlord recognised that the resident had also requested a “personal apology” for being spoken to rudely by another operative on 19 March 2021, it apologised “on behalf of [its organisation]”. It also confirmed that it had followed its internal process to rectify the matter by arranging the appropriate training for the latter operative.
    2. In respect to his extractor fan, it had identified the above improvements to the airflow for this, which its contractor would complete.
    3. It recognised that he had expressed concerns over the lack of contact from it, for which it had apologised and arranged staff training.
    4. It offered him £50 compensation for the inconvenience experienced by him because of his complaint.
    5. In conclusion, it was satisfied that, although it had ”not lived up to [its] expectations and may have caused inconvenience”, it felt that it had responded appropriately, with the work being arranged to improve the extractor fan.
26. The resident subsequently complained to this Service about the length of time that the landlord had taken to repair his extractor fan “after five months”, and that his constant chasing of it for “weeks on end and numerous failed callbacks” had a detrimental effect on his ill-health and wellbeing. He therefore requested a written apology from its operative who had been rude to him on 19 March 2021, with assurances that it would no longer promise to call back when it was unable to do so.

Assessment and findings

27. The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the complaint, and of the landlord’s failure to respond to his call back requests in a timely manner, on his ill-health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute his comments regarding his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused him.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to his kitchen extractor fan

28. The resident’s first report to the landlord of issues over the condition of his kitchen extractor fan was on 12 January 2021. In response, it repaired this on 19 January 2021, and it recorded that it left the extractor fan in working order. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take, despite it having originally being requested to fit a new extractor fan, as it found that it was able to repair this instead, and it did so within its above repairs and maintenance policy’s target repair timescale of 21 working days for such routine repairs.
29. The resident raised further concerns over his kitchen extractor fan not working with the landlord on 1 March 2021, which prompted him to request a cooker hood in his kitchen from it on 16 March 2021. This was reportedly suggested by the operative who had repaired the extractor fan to improve the ventilation in his property. There was a delay in the landlord reviewing the resident’s cooker hood request, however, due to its staff’s annual leave, which it communicated to him during a further call about this on 24 March 2021.
30. Although the landlord did repair the resident’s latest kitchen extractor fan issue within the repairs and maintenance policy’s above 21-working-day timescale again when it checked, overhauled and left this working on 25 March 2021. His cooker hood request to it was nevertheless responded to outside of its 48-hour and five-working-day target timescales for this, which it had given him on 16 and 19 March 2021, respectively.
31. Therefore, while it was not fair that there had been a lack of contact by the landlord in respect to the resident’s cooker hood request, it was reasonable for it to explain the above reason for this failing. As a result, he agreed to the closure of his subsequent stage one complaint of 19 March 2021 about this, pending a call back from it to discuss his request further.
32. On 29 March 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that he could fit a cooker hood in his kitchen, if he sought the appropriate permission from it for this and arranged this to be installed, apologising for not informing him of this earlier. As he then told it on that date that he would not be installing a cooker hood himself, and that he had instead only enquired about obtaining this from it on its operative’s above advice regarding his kitchen extractor fan being too small for the size of this room, it committed to responding to him about this by 15 April 2021.
33. On 15 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, in which it apologised to him for its delay in responding to his cooker hood enquiry due to staff leave. It confirmed, however, that his kitchen extractor fan was the correct size, but could be improved in the way that this was ducted to for improved airflow, which it was arranging. The landlord also explained to resident that a cooker hood was not something that it would install, and it reiterated its above advice to that he could do so himself with a written request to it in advance for permission.
34. On 14 May 2021, the landlord carried out the subsequent improvements to the pipework to the extractor fan in his kitchen, in line with its above commitment to do so on 15 April 2021. This was despite there being no fault with the extractor fan, which it had left working on 25 March 2021. This demonstrated the landlord’s desire to resolve the resident’s complaint about the condition of the extractor fan by improving this with the above ducting works for improved airflow.
35. This improvement was completed in 59 days following the resident’s request to the landlord for improved ventilation in his kitchen on 16 March 2021, meaning that this was done within its repairs and maintenance policy’s above 90-day target timescale for such minor programmed works. This was appropriate because it had improved and not repaired his kitchen extractor fan on 14 May 2021, which it had instead previously repaired and left working on 25 March 2021. This was despite the resident’s report that the landlord had taken “five months” to repair this, and so there was no failure on its part in either repairing or improving the extractor fan.
36. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident also reported that he had experienced distress from having to chase the landlord because it had not responded to his request for a cooker hood within the timescales that it had given him for this above. It was therefore appropriate that it offered him £50 compensation on 19 May 2021 for the inconvenience that he had experienced because of his complaint about this. This was proportionate the recognise any distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced from the landlord’s delay in responding to his cooker hood enquiry, as this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £50 for such repeated failures to reply to calls or correspondence.

The landlord’s investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff

37. The resident reported concerns over the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff to it on 19 March 2021, regarding him previously being given the above incorrect timescales for a call back from them about his cooker hood enquiry, as well as of an operative being rude and unhelpful towards him on that date. It was therefore obliged to carry out an investigation into this, and to respond to him accordingly.
38. During the landlord’s subsequent investigation into the resident’s staff conduct complaint, it did identify that its operative had given him an incorrect 48-hour timescale on 16 March 2021 for a call back from it. This was not fair on him, as it had failed to accurately communicate its correct response three-working-day response timescale to him for this.
39. As a result, the landlord apologised for this, and for the resident’s reports that he had been “spoken to rudely” by one of its operatives, in its stage one and final stage complaint responses to him of 15 April and 19 May 2021, respectively. It acknowledged that it had failed to deliver the standard of service that it had expected to him, apologised for this, and confirmed that it had followed its internal process to address these matters by feeding back to its duty managers about its response timescales, as well as by arranging for training and for a team manager to speak to the above operative. These were fair actions for the landlord to take in order to recognise its failures to effectively communicate with the resident, as it acted in line with its internal process to resolve them.
40. The resident has also requested a personal apology from the operative he had been “spoken to rudely” by on 19 March 2021. In response to his request for this, the landlord provided a formal written apology to him in its final stage complaint response of 19 May 2021 “on behalf of [its organisation]”. This was a reasonable action for it to take, as it had provided a management apology for this to the resident, as the matter had added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to him.
41. The landlord had also confirmed to the resident in its stage one complaint response of 15 April 2021 that it could not organise the personal apology that he had requested from the above operative, as its usual action for this had occurred when a manager had followed up the situation by calling him on 24 March 2021. This was appropriate since the landlord had acted in accordance with its internal processes in relation to this, which was a fair action for it to take, and because the operative was not acting in a personal capacity but on its behalf during the above call with the resident.
42. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 19 May 2021, it additionally offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience experienced by him because of his complaint, as outlined above. This was also a proportionate level of compensation in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation to recognise this as a result of his staff conduct complaint, which suggests awards from £50 for incorrectly addressing residents so as to cause offence or upset to them.

Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about its:
    1. Handling of his requests for repairs to his kitchen extractor fan.
    2. Investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff.
44. This decision is dependent on the below recommendation being followed.

Reasons

45. There were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a cooker hood, but it repaired and improved his kitchen extractor fan in a timely manner, in accordance with its policies and procedures.
46. The landlord evidenced that it acted on the resident’s reports of his concerns over the conduct of its staff towards him, and it communicated the outcome of this investigation to him. It also provided him with a formal written apology for its failures, and arranged for manager feedback and training for the staff involved.
47. The landlord offered compensation to the resident that was proportionate to recognise the detriment experienced by him because of his cooker hood and staff conduct complaints, which was within the level recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance.

Recommendation

48. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the resident the £50 compensation that it previously awarded him in its final stage complaint response of 19 May 2021, if he has not received this already.
49. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
50. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.