Sadeh Lok Limited (202113975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113975

Sadeh Lok Limited

6 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of TV aerial repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 3 July 2006. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord has advised this service that the resident has an acute mental health condition.
The resident pays a service charge, and this charge includes a contribution to the communal TV aerial.
The landlord repairs policy states that it will:
1. Keep in good repair, maintain, and ensure the proper working order of any installations which it has provided which includes communal aerials.
2. Carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, and non-emergency internal work repairs within an average of nine days. Non-emergency external works have no set time period, but it states the resident will be advised how long they have to wait for the repair. It also states where service standards are not met, customers may be eligible for compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will:
1. use its discretion when deciding whether a resident is eligible for compensation for service failure.
2. consider and investigate each case and take the following into consideration before reaching a decision on the type and amount of payment made:
  1. Whether the resident’s position can be re-instated.
  2. Length of time it has taken to resolve the problem.
  3. Difficulties a resident has had in pursuing their complaint.
  4. Disruption to the household.
  5. Personal circumstances.
  6. If any additional costs have been incurred.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to acknowledge complaints within two working days and respond in full within 10 days. It states it will keep residents informed if it is unable to meet these timescales.

Summary of events

On 31 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her TV had no signal. A repair job was raised the same day. An appointment was made for the contractor to attend on 1 September 2021, but the appointment was missed.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 2 September 2021 but could not repair the aerial as a part was required. The landlord received a quote from its contractor for the relevant part on 3 September 2021.
On 6 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to chase the repair and query why she had been told by the contractor that she had to pay £200. The landlord said it was investigating why she would be told that as it was a communal aerial.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord queried the charge with the contractor. On 7 September 2021, the contractor confirmed that a power supply unit was required to “boost the TV back to full signal”. A new order was raised on 9 September 2021 to complete the repair.
On 20 September 2021, the resident contacted this service to advise that she had not received a response to a stage one complaint about the TV aerial not working. She advised that she had raised this on 1 September 2021. We contacted the landlord to ask it to issue a stage one response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day (complaint A).
The landlord’s call logs showed that on 23 September, the resident advised that the contractor had attended that day to do some works to the aerial. However, they were unable to finish the work as she needed to get a new remote control.
On 1 October 2021, a stage one response to complaint A was sent to the resident. Within this, the landlord said:
1. The complaint was about the repair of the TV aerial and the fact that a stage one response had not been provided sooner.
2. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 August 2021 and an order was raised the same day for its contractor to attend to the issue with the TV reception. On 1 September 2021, the resident stated that she had a call from the contractor who had arranged to attend that day.
3. It then chased the contractor on 2 September and a quote was received for the works on 3 September 2021. The response to the quote was delayed due to annual leave. A response was provided, and an order for the part was emailed to the contractor, on 9 September 2021.
4. It was its understanding that the work was now completed.
5. It apologised on behalf of its contractor for the apparent failure to attend the appointment on 1 September 2021. However, overall, it believed that it acted and dealt with the issue in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable timeframe.
6. It enclosed a leaflet explaining its complaint stages and other sources for advice.
On 3 October 2021, the landlord’s emergency call out log shows that an electrician attended the property again. This was in response to a report from the resident of wires sticking out of the socket next to the TV. The report states the electrician found no faults and no issues with the socket.
On 5 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise that her landlord had attended to fix her aerial. However, it needed to come back, and a manager would contact her in 48 hours.
On 7 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service to advise she had received a stage one complaint response. We advised her that if she was dissatisfied with the response, then she could escalate the matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident confirmed on the same day that she had requested a stage two escalation.
The landlord’s records show that on 7 October 2021, the resident had also contacted it regarding an issue with loose wiring to the socket which was left from the previous visit. It stated that an emergency repair had already been attended to in respect of this on 3 October 2021 and that no fault was found. It advised that the electrician had not requested any follow up works. However, it suggested sending a maintenance officer to attend to avoid wasted costs of calling a contractor.
The call records show that the resident refused to allow access for this as she considered that the landlord should have been satisfied with her report. She requested that this issue was raised to the next stage of the complaint process. The landlord informed the resident that this would be a new complaint (complaint B) as it was a different issue and would be recorded as a stage one complaint.
On 11 October 2021 call records show that the resident called the landlord to advise that the TV signal fault had developed again following the attendance on 23 September 2021. The landlord contacted the contractor on the same date. It added that a housing officer would need to attend with the contractor. This was “to check to see if there is any foul play with the equipment or any learning needs for the resident.”
On 12 October 2021, the resident contacted this Service to say that the landlord had postponed the repairs again. We advised to wait for the stage two response, and she agreed to call back if this was not received.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to complaint B. It said:
1. It acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the works carried out by its specialist contactor in relation to the TV reception equipment.
2. The resident had contacted its office and had asked its specialist contractor to attend the property. This was in relation to loose wiring to a socket, which the resident said had been left following a previous visit.
3. According to its records the resident had called its emergency service already. An electrician had attended and reported there was no issue found with the socket. It was satisfied on this basis that there were no health and safety issues and no report back that any follow up was needed.
4. It referred to a telephone conversation within which it suggested that its maintenance officer attended the property if the resident had concerns. This was to avoid potential wasted costs by calling out its specialist contractor again. The resident was unhappy with the suggestion and asked for her complaint to be escalated. As the matter was a new complaint, it had been investigated at stage one of its procedure.
5. It confirmed that it would be safe to assume that there was no immediate risk to health and safety following the visit from the emergency electrician. However, it was prepared to arrange a joint visit with one of its officers and contractor to investigate and resolve the matter.
6. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident was obliged to facilitate access to staff and any agents working on its behalf.
7. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It was happy to work with her to resolve the issue. However, it noted that the resident had advised during previous telephone calls that she did not wish for an officer to visit the property.
8. It considered this matter closed until the resident agreed to its suggestion of a joint inspection.
On 13 October 2021, the resident called this Service and stated that the landlord had said it was going to send a named officer to her property. The resident was concerned about this and advised that this particular officer had been rude to her previously. She added that he had put his hands on her neck, and so she could not agree to the visit. In response, the landlord advised that it would not send another member of staff out, and so she had raised a further complaint. The resident explained that she had been told she would have to wait ten working days for a response. However, she considered it to be all part of the same complaint.
On 14 October 2021, the resident called the landlord several times to advise that “the fitment had fallen out of the connection”. In addition, her TV signal was still not working. A further call was made, within which the resident said that the fitment was too small, and this was causing the fault. The landlord advised that this could have been due to technology and/or upgrades. In response, the resident stated that she wanted the specialist contractor to attend again and explain the issue.
Internal emails exchanged by landlord staff on 15 October 2021 show that the resident had been in touch again, to ask for her complaint to be escalated to a stage two complaint. The emails show that landlord staff asked the resident several times to provide grounds for the stage two and she did not provide any. The landlord reminded the resident of the terms of her tenancy and that she was required to provide access. The resident stated she had always provided access in the past but would not this time. She asked if the size of the part had been investigated with the contractor. It explained that the fault may be due to technology and that it required a joint visit to ensure that the job was being carried out to a satisfactory level as it kept getting call outs for the same job.
On 8 November 2021 after receiving contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord to chase the stage two complaint response. On 10 November 2021, the landlord contacted this Service to advise that:
1. The resident requested the escalation on 7 October 2021. However, it had informed her that this was a new complaint and would be dealt with at stage one of its complaint’s procedure.
2. The complaint was logged on 7 October 2021 and had been responded to on 13 October 2021. The landlord confirmed it had written to the resident to advise this and enclosed further copies of both stage one responses.
3. It had advised the resident that if she was dissatisfied, she should confirm which complaint she wished to escalate.
On 16 November 2021, the resident called the landlord to escalate both complaints to stage 2. In summary, she said:
1. She should never have been asked to pay £200 for the TV reception repair and this issue had taken too long to investigate.
2. Her neighbourhood officer had put his arm around her neck on a previous visit. It was on this basis that she was refusing any officer to attend her property with the contractor.
3. She reported on 7 October 2021 that the connection had come away from the wall again. She did not see the point in its request for a joint visit, as a repair was still required.
4. She had been without TV reception since 31 September 2021.
5. She wished for the repair to be completed without a joint visit and to be compensated for the lack of TV signal whilst still paying for her TV licence.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement for both complaint A and B.
On 2 December, the landlord issued a stage two response. In summary it said:
1. It would not charge £200 for the completion of the TV aerial repair. This was raised as a potential course of action in the event that the resident continued to report issues that did not subsequently require any repairs.
2. It required a joint visit following previous occasions where the resident had reported repairs and it found no works needed carrying out. This had occurred recently when its specialist contractor attended to a report of loose wiring and found no fault or works required. It did not have the capacity to respond to “false reports of repairs.” As such, it may recharge for visits which did not require work.
3. It was extremely concerned to note the allegation regarding one of its officers. It had investigated the allegation and found no evidence to support that this took place.
4. The officer in question had never visited the resident without another officer present.it had made enquiries with the second officer and could confirm that there was no evidence that unprofessional conduct, or incidents of such a nature, had taken place.
5. It asked the resident why she had not reported the incident at the time, and why it had not been reported to the police.
6. It took reports of such nature very seriously and would always investigate any concerns raised. However, if it found that such reports had been made maliciously and where there was no evidence to support that an incident took place it could take steps to prevent its staff being subjected to malicious allegations. This would be managed through its unacceptable behaviour procedure and could involve a restriction on communication.
7. It had reviewed previous communication and identified a pattern of incidents reported that related to people committing acts of theft from her home. This included household items and food. In addition, there were reports of acts of vandalism and damage being caused to her property. It was concerned about these allegations and suggested that the resident contact the police and any support agencies where applicable if she was the victim of such matters.
8. It upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to response times for complaint A, adding that it should have replied within 10 working days in line with its complaint procedure. It advised that this was acknowledged in its stage one response dated 1 October 2021, and it apologised for the delay in responding to her.
9. In relation to the stage one response for complaint B, it did not agree that it failed to investigate within its timescale. The complaint was raised on 4 October2021, and it responded in writing on 13 October 2021
10. It had reviewed the complaint and communication history. Having done so, it did not believe that it was appropriate for staff members to attend the property alone. This was in order to safeguard both the resident and its staff.
11. It offered support regarding health and wellbeing but stated that the resident had not informed it of any additional support needs. In addition, she had not consented to the landlord making referrals to any support agencies that may be able to assist. It encouraged the resident to speak to her GP.
12. It concluded that it was unable to uphold the majority of the complaint. In addition, it could not offer compensation for the period that the resident alleged that she had been unable to use her TV.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service. She advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage two response. The resident added that she wished to be compensated for the period that she was unable to watch TV as she had been paying her TV licence. The resident added that she disagreed with the dates within the landlord’s correspondence, and that the repairs remained outstanding.

Events after the final response.

The landlord has advised this Service that the TV aerial signal was reinstated on 23 September 2021. The resident has advised that the repair was completed in March 2022, and the signal was reinstated at that time.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, this Service applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These principles were developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes and are for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The three principles, which underpin the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, are as follows:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the TV aerial and record keeping.

The landlord’s attendance to the first repair report was within a reasonable time and in accordance with its repair policy, as detailed above. While it is noted that the repair could not be completed during the first attendance, this was not unreasonable given that a part was required.
The landlord’s policy states, “it aims to complete internal repairs within an average of nine days.” It states it “will contact the customer directly to explain how long they will have to wait for the repair to be completed.”
The records show that a follow up appointment was made with the resident to attend to install the required part on 23 September 2021. It is not, however, clear in records provided what contact took place in between, why it took 14 days, and whether this was because of delays in the part arriving and/or contractor or resident availability. The 14 days in itself was not an excessive delay however there is no evidence that the resident was kept updated as required under the landlord’ policy.
Records show that the resident informed the landlord that its contractor had attended to fit the part on 23 September 2021, but the work was not completed, and a further appointment was required. The landlord informed this Service on 20 February 2023 that the repair was completed and TV signal reinstated on 23 September 2021. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. We specifically asked when the TV signal was reinstated and for it to provide evidence in support of this. As such, while the landlord’s comments about the completion date for the repair are acknowledged, this has not been supported by evidence.
Records also show that the resident reported that the fault to the TV aerial had returned on 11 October 2021. The landlord raised a job on the same day and within two days offered the resident a joint visit with a member of its housing team. This response was reasonable given the resident’s known vulnerabilities and appropriate in line with the timescales set out in the repairs policy.
The landlord’s attempt to complete the repair was hindered by the resident refusing access at this point. However, she had explained why she did not want the officer to attend. The landlord appropriately investigated this issue in its stage two response and continued to offer a joint visit. While the landlord’s action were reasonable, the resident was reluctant to allow the joint visit to go ahead. In the circumstances, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore any further possibilities for gaining access, or for the visit to go ahead. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered informing the resident that she could have a friend or a family member present during the attendance. While the Ombudsman cannot speculate as to what the outcome of such a course of action would have been, it would have been a pragmatic way to try to progress the repair at this stage.
Whilst it is acknowledged the landlord would not have the capacity to respond to repairs which were not needed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to take measures to ensure that the previous repair work to reinstall the signal had been completed. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord did this. Rather, the evidence shows that the resident had reported that the repair was incomplete in September 2021, and that there was a further loss of signal in October 2021. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it responded to these reports or took steps to ensure that the necessary repairs were completed. The resident confirmed to this Service in March 2022 that the TV signal had been reinstated that day.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did not take appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the repair was complete within a reasonable period of time. The evidence also indicates that there was at least an intermittent fault with the aerial/signal between September 2021 and March 2022. The landlord did ultimately repair the TV aerial (and therefore fulfilled its repair obligation). However, it failed to carry out its obligations within the timescales detailed in its policy.
The Ombudsman’s investigation of the complaint has been hindered by a lack of clear repair records. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
It is noted that the landlord had concerns about “false reporting,” and that there were access issues. This did impact the landlord’s ability to complete repairs. However, proper record keeping, and a clear audit trail would have enabled the landlord to review its own handling of the situation and assess whether it had complied with its obligations when the matter was considered through its complaints process.
In summary there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the TV aerial repair and record keeping. The delay in completing the repair was the cause of inconvenience to the resident. In addition, owing to its poor record keeping, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a clear explanation about how it had handled the repair. The impact of this has been considered in the compensation award, and orders, below.
In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman own Guidance on Remedies. While the guidance is not prescriptive, it includes the following suggested ranges of compensation:
1. Awards of £50 to £250 – for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but where this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. For example, repeated failures to reply to letters or telephone calls.
2. Awards of £250 to £700 – where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. For example, failure to address repairs in accordance with its policy.
3. Awards of £700 and above – for instances of maladministration that have led to a several long-term impact on the resident. For example, a long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.

Complaint handling

The Resident submitted a complaint via this service and the landlord acknowledged the request on 20 September 2021 and responded within nine days in line with its policy (complaint A).
In its response it acknowledged a missed appointment by its contractor on 1September 2021 but stated that it still responded within a reasonable time frame in respect of the initial report. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this however in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to consider if any redress was due. This is because the resident would have been inconvenienced by the missed appointment.
The second repair visit took place 5 days outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. While it was not a significant delay it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the delay when it responded to the complaint. That it did not was a shortcoming in its complaint handling.
In addition, the landlord did not use this opportunity to confirm the date that the TV signal was reinstated. It simply stated that it was its “understanding that the work had now been completed.” Given that the resident had been consistent in reporting that there was a repair issue outstanding, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken further steps to confirm this with the resident or refer to its own records which noted the residents reports of the outstanding/unsuccessful repair. The response was contrary to good complaint practice as failure to deal with this meant the resident had to make a further complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve matters at the earliest stage and improve the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord then received a complaint as it did not send out its TV aerial contractor in response to the resident’s report of loose wiring from a faulty socket left behind from the previous visit. This was investigated at stage one (complaint B). It is not clear whether an acknowledgment was sent but a full response was provided within three 3 working days.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint. However, as detailed above, it offered the solution of a joint inspection rather than a visit from its specialist contractor. This response was reasonable in the circumstances to try to progress the repair.
The landlord acknowledged the stage two requests within one day and provided a response within 12 days. It clearly addressed some of the issues raised sensitively and reasonably. It recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered support which was appropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had submitted a complaint on 31 August 2021 and while it had delayed in responding, it had also apologised for this in its stage 1 response. The landlord’s view at stage 2 is not supported by the records provided. These show that a report of the repair was made on 31 August 2021, but a complaint was not made until the resident contacted this Service. Neither did the landlord offer any apology for delayed complaint handling in its Stage 1 complaint response, which focussed on a missed repairs appointment only.
The complaint response is therefore inaccurate and confusing, and inconsistent with The Complaint Handling Code which states “complaint investigations must seek sufficient, reliable information so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
It is not clear what records the landlord referred to during its investigation as the information does not appear in the records that have been provided to this service. It is clear that record keeping (retention and retrieval of accurate records) affected the landlord’s ability to accurately respond to the complaint.
The landlord stated it was unable to offer compensation for the on-going period that the resident reported that she had been unable to use her TV, but it did not provide reasons why. If its repair obligation had been met, and the repair completed in line with its policy then this would have been an opportunity for it to explain this and put things right. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor, and the Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord. The landlord’s failure to resolve matters at this stage meant that it missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship. To reflect this maladministration, an order of compensation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the TV aerial repairs.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and record keeping.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s TV aerial due to its poor communication with the resident regarding the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord had taken adequate steps to investigate and complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
There are concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. Its repair records regarding the TV aerial are unclear and it failed to evidence that it had satisfied itself that the TV signal had been restored. There has been a lack of clear records related to the handling of the complaint causing inaccuracies and confusion. Accurate and contemporaneous records are an essential aspect of a landlord’s service. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping failures have resulted in the finding of maladministration and have therefore exacerbated the overall detriment experienced by the resident.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service. Therefore, an order for remedy is made below.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £450 which is comprised as follows:
  1. £250 for the adverse effect caused by its failings in the handling of the TV aerial repairs.
  2. £200 for failure to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its current processes for recording its repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately in its records in the future. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website) The training should include:
1. The setting out of the complaint definition and the outcome the resident is seeking.
2. The need to seek clarification with the resident if any aspect of the complaint is unclear and the full definition agreed.
3. Assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues.
4. What outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether any urgent actions are required.
5. The importance of using clear plain language in complaint responses.
6. Addressing all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.