Regenda Limited (202210503)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210503

Regenda Limited

30 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a broken boiler including no heating and no hot water.
    2. Concerns that his emails had been blocked.
    3. Formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mobility issues and suffers from back pain.
  2. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property as well as the installations for the supply of electricity, gas, water, heating, and sanitation. This is compliant with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is responsible for responsive maintenance of heating and hot water. It categorises repairs as emergency (attend within 4 hours) or non-emergency (repair within 60 days). It defines emergency repairs as those which present a risk to the health of the resident or integrity of the property.
  4. Under the landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy, it can restrict how a resident can contact it and the volume of communication. The policy defines unreasonable behaviour as making unreasonable demands, unreasonable persistence or use of aggressive and abusive behaviour or language. The landlord may decide that a resident can only contact it by email unless it is to report an emergency repair. The policy says where it is unable to manage unreasonable behaviour it may take legal action by obtaining an injunction or seeking a possession order through the courts.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], or our staff, which affects an individual customer or group of customers.” Under the policy a resident can make a complaint by telephone, email, letter, or in person.
  6. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and will respond within 5 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days and will respond within 15 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet these timeframes it will agree any extensions with the resident.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The landlord should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
  8. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it can offer discretionary compensation for service failure. This can include for inconvenience, delay in providing a service, meeting a response time or for missed appointments.

Scope of investigation

  1. In emails to the landlord and this Service the resident has raised several different complaints and issues. Some of these complaints are being, or have been, considered by the Ombudsman outside of this current investigation. Therefore, the summary of events below only relates to the complaints listed above and is not a full summary of all communication between the landlord and the resident.

Summary of events

  1. On 18 January 2019 the landlord obtained an injunction from the county court which set out how the resident could contact it.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 16 August 2022, before 9:00am, to report that he had no heating or hot water due to a boiler breakdown. The landlord’s records state it raised an emergency repair to its contractor at 9:10am. At 11:06am,11:56am, and 12:56pm the resident emailed the landlord to chase the repair as the contractor had not attended. The contractor attended at 1:40pm but could not fix the boiler or restore the heating and hot water. A follow-on appointment was made for the following day.
  3. At 3:33pm the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint) that the contractor had arrived after its 4-hour response timeframe, and that he would be without heating and hot water for over 24 hours by the time the contractor re-attends the following day. He asked to be compensated for this.
  4. The following day, on 17 August 2022, the contractor attended and repaired the boiler. In an email the resident sent to the landlord that day he said the repair was completed at 12:20pm, and he had been without heating or hot water for 28 hours.
  5. On 23 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again to chase up his complaint. He said the landlord had ignored his emails. On 30 August 2022, in internal emails, a member of landlord staff said she had returned from leave and read the resident’s emails. The landlord said that, due to the injunction, the resident’s emails were redirected to a small team of staff to respond to. Due to staff absences the resident’s emails had not been read until that day but it would now raise his complaint.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response by letter on 2 September 2022. It noted that its contractor had arrived 4 hours and 28 minutes after the repair was raised, which was outside of its timeframe, and it apologised for this. A follow-on repair had been booked on the day and the boiler was repaired the following day. It offered £25 compensation for a missed appointment due to arriving late and explained how he could escalate the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  7. On 7 September 2022 the landlord provided a second stage 1 response. It apologised that it had failed to address the resident’s complaint about the length of time he was without heating and hot water and offered £50 further compensation. It also said again how the resident could escalate the complaint if he wished.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2022 and asked to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had failed to respond to his complaint in its first response and only provided its second letter after he complained further. He also asked for more compensation than that offered by the landlord.
  9. The same day, the resident and the landlord exchanged further emails about it allegedly blocking his emails. He had received an email saying that emails had not been received by a named member of landlord staff, despite him emailing the landlord’s generic address. The landlord replied to say that the named member of staff no longer worked for it and that was the reason for the automatic email. The resident replied that the landlord was blocking his emails and the landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint (the second complaint).
  10. On 16 September 2022 the landlord escalated the first complaint. It provided its stage 2 response letter on 20 September 2022 and said:
    1. It had accepted it did not attend to his emergency appointment within 4 hours within its first stage 1 response. It had offered £25 compensation for a missed appointment as per its policy.
    2. A member of its staff had brought to its attention that it had not responded to both elements of the complaint, and so it provided a second stage 1 response. It had apologised and offered £50 compensation for the time the resident was without heating and hot water.
    3. It concluded that the level of compensation offered was fair.
    4. It apologised for not responding to both elements of his complaint within its first stage 1 response. It said this was a service failure and offered a further £50 compensation for this.
    5. The total compensation offered was £125.
    6. How to contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 22 September 2022. It reiterated that it was not blocking his emails, explained how his emails were managed following the injunction, and confirmed that a particular member of staff had left, and this was the reason for the automatic undeliverable email message. It reminded him of his contact restrictions under the injunction and explained how we could escalate the complaint.
  12. In the resident’s email of 24 September 2022, he said he was still not satisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered for the first complaint. He also said the landlord was blocking his emails, and he did not accept the explanation it had given to him in its stage 1 response to the second complaint.
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 October 2022. It said it had investigated the second complaint and responded at stage 1. There was no further evidence for it to investigate and so, in line with its policy, it would not escalate the complaint. It confirmed it had provided its final response.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 2 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that it was still blocking his emails. He provided an example of the email he had received to prove this. The Ombudsman has been provided with several examples of the ‘undeliverable’ email message.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 December 2022 to repeat its explanation about how it handles his incoming emails. It confirmed that it had removed the former member of staff from the email group and said the resident should not receive any further ‘undeliverable’ email messages.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken boiler including no heating and hot water

  1. When the resident called the landlord on 16 August 2022 to report that his boiler had stopped working it raised an emergency repair, in line with its repairs policy. Within its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately accepted that its contractor attended 28 minutes outside of its 4-hour response timeframe and that this was a service failure. It apologised and offered £25 compensation.
  2. Within its second stage 1 response, the landlord also accepted that the resident had been without hot water or heating for a period of 28 hours and offered £50 further compensation. The landlord had correctly attended, albeit 28 minutes late, as an emergency. It booked a follow-on appointment and reattended the following day when it completed the repair. The breakdown happened in August, and the resident has told this Service that he had an alternative method of heating at the time, using a gas fire, should he have needed it.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its service failure, apologised, and offered appropriate compensation. There were no further steps it could have taken to remedy the situation and its actions were very fair in the circumstances. As a result, there was reasonable redress, and no further action is necessary.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his emails had been blocked

  1. The resident first raised that he believed his emails were being blocked by the landlord on 15 September 2022, on the basis that he had received an automatic email which read “Your message wasn’t delivered. Despite repeated attempts to deliver your message, the recipient’s email system refused to accept a connection from your email system.” It is easy to understand why the resident formed his belief. He had emailed the landlord’s generic, non-person specific, email address. However, he had received the ‘undeliverable’ email associated with a named member of staff’s email address.
  2. The landlord replied to his email the same day, which proved that it had received his email. The landlord would not be able to reply to an email if it had blocked it and therefore prevented itself from receiving it. The landlord explained why the resident had received the automatic email. It is also noted that it is common business practice to use an automatic email response once a member of staff has left an organisation.
  3. After the resident replied that he did not accept the landlord’s explanation the landlord proactively raised a formal complaint at stage 1. In its response it provided a full explanation of how it managed his communications, and the reason for this.
  4. There was no maladministration. The landlord had not blocked the resident’s emails, it confirmed the reasons for the way it managed his emails, in compliance with its injunction and it explained why he had received the automatic emails.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. The resident raised the first complaint on 16 August 2022 by email. The landlord’s complaints policy allows for complaints to be made by email. Due to the arrangements the landlord put in place to manage contact, in line with its injunction, and staff absence his complaint was not read until 30 August 2022, which was a failing.
  2. Once the landlord read the complaint, it raised and responded to it within 3 working days, however this was 13 working days after it was made. This was outside of the landlord’s response timeframe of 5 working days, and the 10-working day timeframe under paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise, or provide a remedy for this.
  3. The landlord also failed to fully address the resident’s complaint within its first stage 1 response in breach of paragraph 5.8 of the Code. However, it recognised this and provided a second stage 1 response 3 working days later, in which it apologised for its error. Within its stage 2 response it apologised again for its error and offered £50 compensation, which was reasonable. The landlord had acknowledged and apologised for the error quickly. While it should have offered compensation as part of its second stage 1 response, its offer at stage 2 took this into account.
  4. The landlord raised the second complaint in response to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction about its explanation of the automatic emails he had received. It provided its stage 1 response within its 5 working day timeframe. Its response was clear and answered the complaint. Its decision not to escalate the complaint was also reasonable as the landlord had provided a factual answer to the complaint. It also correctly advised the resident that he could approach the Ombudsman.
  5. Overall, there was service failure. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failure to respond to the first complaint within its policy timeframe. It did not apologise, offer an explanation, or say how it had learnt from this. To reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £50.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
    2. no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his emails had been blocked.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken boiler including no heating and no hot water.

Reasons

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint as it did not respond to the first complaint within its policy time frame at stage 1. It was also in breach of the Code. It did not acknowledge this failing or apologise for it.
  2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken boiler including no heating and no hot water, as it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation.
  3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his emails had been blocked, as it had not done this. It clearly explained how it managed the resident’s emails, in line with its injunction, and the reason he had received automatic email responses.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the complaints handling service failure detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £50 for the time and trouble caused by the service failure.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the £125 compensation it offered within its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses to the resident if it has not already done so.
    2. Implement a rota, or other practice, to ensure that there is always a member of staff available to read and reply to the resident’s emails, which reacts to planned and unplanned staff absences.