Salix Homes Limited (202227281)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227281

Salix Homes Limited

30 November 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:
1. Handling of a waste pipe leak and follow-on works.
2. Customer service and staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which is classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and this was shared with the landlord prior to and during the repair.
A leak was reported on 27 December 2022 by the flat directly below the resident. The landlord attended the resident’s flat as it was identified as the source of the leak. The call out was during the Christmas shutdown period and was responded to as an emergency to check all affected properties. This was to ensure they were safe and to raise follow-on work as required.
The landlord stated that the resident reported that he could hear water but could not see any water ingress at the time, only a damp/sulphur smell. The landlord identified the leak was coming from behind the communal stack and advised the resident not to use his kitchen sink or washing machine until it was fully repaired.
The resident contacted the landlord several times over the next 2 days. During the initial call the resident queried when the repair would be carried out. He was informed that it would be in the New Year due to the Christmas shutdown. During the call the resident was also informed that it appeared the leak was coming from behind the soil stack. The resident was upset the repair would not be completed until the New Year as he believed the reference to soil stack meant toilet waste was entering his home. The resident said he could smell sewage and referred to his HIV which he believed could be impacted because of sewage in the property.
The resident made a formal complaint on 29 December 2022. He stated that he was not happy with the wait for the follow-on work for the ‘sewage leak in the main soil stack’. He continued that he did not feel listened to, and he felt that the advice provided to him regarding not using his washing machine was threatening. The resident also referred to a salt lamp being damaged when the landlord attended the property, he wanted everyone he had spoken with to be included within the complaint and for the job to be completed quickly.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 January 2023. It did not uphold the complaint about the wait for the follow-on work, it apologised and explained that only emergency repairs could be undertaken during the Christmas shutdown. It said it had listened to all calls related to the issue and partially upheld the complaint due to the resident being led to believe the landlord would be attending when it was not. It asked the resident to refrain from disclosing personal information as it can cause upset and suggested he speak to his GP. It stated that it had spoken to the relevant officers regarding the salt lamp and that they were not aware of the salt lamp damage, so the complaint was not upheld.
The resident was dissatisfied and took the case to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord sent its final response on 6 February 2023. It offered a goodwill gesture of £20 for the salt lamp and stated that it did not feel the criteria had been satisfied for compensation. The repair was completed on 11 January 2023. In its final response, the landlord outlined the outstanding work to be completed and said a decorating voucher would be provided once it was done. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s response, and he is seeking compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to his health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim if he wishes to pursue this. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation affecting his property.

The landlord’s handling of the waste pipe leak and follow-on works

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs related to water and gas supply, sanitary fittings, and drainage within the curtilage of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy lists a leaking water supply pipe or waste pipe where the leak cannot be contained as an emergency repair. The policy states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 8 hours of the landlord being notified of the repair. Records show that the landlord did initially respond to the leak as an emergency as it attended the property on the same day. As per its repairs policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to have made it safe, to determine what was required to complete the repair, and a follow up repair to be authorised.
The landlord requested the resident did not use his washing machine and kitchen sink until the leak was fixed. This may have been reasonable, however, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s disability, and whether this was a reasonable request, in the circumstances.
Following the initial appointment, the repair, in line with the landlord’s repairs procedure, should have been attended to within 5 working days. The landlord explained to the resident that non-emergency repairs would not be dealt with until after the Christmas shutdown. It was reasonable for the landlord to have a Christmas shutdown period. However, it should be made clear to residents what dates it is referring to and a date provided for when the landlord can attend. This was not initially communicated to the resident, which caused the resident to contact the landlord on numerous occasions following the initial appointment. This could have been avoided if the landlord had managed his expectations better.
During a telephone call between the landlord and the resident on 28 December 2022, the resident was informed that it appeared the repair was regarding a possible leak from the ‘soil stack’. The resident understood this to mean toilet waste and informed the landlord that if it was waste from the washing machine or kitchen sink, he could deal with that. The resident also referred to his HIV which he believed could be impacted by a leak from the soil stack. The landlord missed an opportunity to clarify or seek clarification on where the leak was from, and in doing so caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience for the resident.
On the 28 December 2022 in a later telephone call, the resident was informed by the landlord that it would attend the property the next day. The landlord subsequently decided that this was not required, but it did not communicate this to the resident. The resident was only informed that the landlord would not be attending when he contacted the landlord the next day to ask when it would be visiting the property. This caused the resident further distress and confusion as to how the repair was being handled. In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord acknowledged this failure and apologised for any confusion caused, but it did not offer the resident any compensation in recognition of its failings.
The repair was completed on 11 January 2023. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delays in the repair and attributed this to the resident’s requests for a particular contractor to attend. The Ombudsman believes it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s requests and the delays were reasonable, on this occasion.
Following the repair, the landlord provided a goodwill payment of £25 towards the resident’s laundry costs. The landlord also provided a repairs liaison officer to support the resident throughout the repair. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
In its stage 2 response dated 6 February 2023, the landlord outlined the outstanding follow-on works to the resident and the next steps for it. The landlord also confirmed that a decorating voucher would be provided once the work had been completed. The resident had also requested that everything affected by the leak be sanitised, however, the landlord explained that as the water was not sewage but sink and washing machine waste, a specialist deep clean would not be conducted. The landlord’s response in relation to the follow-on works was appropriate.
The works following the waste pipe repair were classed as appointed repairs, the landlord’s repairs procedure provides a target of 60 working days. This indicates that there was a delay in the follow-on work as it was not completed until 27 April 2023. While there was a delay, the landlord has stated that this was due to accommodating the resident’s requests for a specific worktop and the resident’s refusal of works on 28 March 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy does state that for requests which can be accommodated, that it should agree to them where possible to achieve the best outcome for the customer at the expense of waiting times. It is evident that the landlord acted reasonably regarding the follow-on works.

The landlord’s customer service and staff conduct.

The landlord’s customer service charter on its website states that it is committed to providing excellent customer service and it says that it will treat all customers with respect.
The landlord’s equality and diversity policy on its website defines equality as equal access to opportunities and services for all individuals and groups.
In his formal complaint, the resident raised concerns about not feeling listened to, threatening language being used regarding use of his washing machine, and he wanted everyone he had spoken with to be included the complaint.
The Ombudsman has listened to several call recordings between the resident and landlord which took place prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
In a telephone call between the resident and landlord on 28 December 2022, the resident stated that he could not live in the property and that he had HIV which could become worse because of the leak. The resident stated that the smell had intensified, and he was unable to cook. The landlord confirmed it would call the resident back later to discuss a decant. The resident continued to outline the impact the situation was having on him and became increasingly distressed. The call handler stated to the resident that he was being very aggressive and argumentative. They also stated that the resident was making him uncomfortable on the call by sharing personal information. The call notes stated that the resident terminated the call.
A further recording on 29 December 2022 was of considerable concern. The key findings are outlined below:
1. The resident apologised for any anxiety he had shown and how this may have been reflected in his calls. He said it was frustrating that he was receiving different communication from everyone. The resident then referred to a call from the day before when the call handler stated that he had made them feel uncomfortable. The call handler interrupted the resident to say that it was them who he had spoken to, and they confirmed that they did feel uncomfortable and upset by what the resident had shared. The call handler confirmed that they were referring to the resident’s HIV and the resident’s disclosure of his past trauma.
2. In the same conversation, the call handler stated that they were not able to deal with that type of conversation and that they have their own mental health issues. They said that the resident’s HIV and trauma had nothing to do with the repairs. They asked the resident how it was related to the repairs, but then they did not allow the resident an opportunity to explain and instead they argued with the resident insisting that it had nothing to do with why he was calling. The resident stated that the landlord should not employ people who cannot deal with residents who may be in a traumatic situation. The call handler said they disagreed and that they were there as customer service, not a counsellor. The call handler terminated the call with the resident.
The call handler’s conduct and handling of the calls over the 2 days are very concerning. The landlord’s customer service charter says that the landlord’s staff will be respectful of its customers. During the calls, the call handler was unsympathetic and inappropriate. It would have been more appropriate for the call handler to have directed the call to a senior member of staff who had the skills to engage with the resident, if they found that they were unable to do so.
In a further call between the resident and landlord on 29 December 2023, the resident called the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the time taken to carry out the repair. The resident was told that if he continued to use his washing machine and kitchen sink when he had been asked not to, then that could incur further damage which he could be responsible for later. The resident said he found that threatening and referred to the previous calls where he found the landlord to also be ignorant and dismissive. The call handler said they could raise his concerns as a formal complaint, the resident asked them to do this, and asked them to include that he was a disabled customer. The call handler’s advice to raise the formal complaint was appropriate, however, there was no reference to his disability included within the complaint.
The resident referred to his disability and trauma in several of the telephone calls, and on each occasion, the landlord failed to acknowledge this. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a legal duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments where there is a criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled’. As previously stated, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether this was the case for the resident. However, there is no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord considered this in any of its communication to the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, records available and correspondence between the resident and landlord indicate that the landlord did not fully listen to the resident and that some of the calls were poorly handled. The landlord has failed to comply with its own policies, and it failed to display due regard for the Equality Act 2010, and therefore the Ombudsman has found maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure where it is to respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 15 working days at the final stage. It is evident that the landlord responded to the complaints in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that at stage 1 a gesture of goodwill payment of up to £100 can be made in recognition of the time, trouble or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions, or lack of action. It states that at stage 2 a goodwill payment of up to £250 can be awarded for the same purposes. The compensation policy outlines examples of inconvenience caused which includes poor complaint handling and failure to follow policy and procedure.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it cannot rule out that the damage to the salt lamp did not happen and offered a goodwill gesture of £20 to cover the replacement and delivery costs. This was a reasonable response with the information provided. It is unclear whether the £20 was paid to the resident and the landlord should pay this if it has not done so already.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint where the resident said he did not feel listened to. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was told someone would be attending his property when that was not the case. While the landlord apologised for any confusion caused, it did not state the actions that will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again, as per its complaints policy.
The landlord referred to the resident disclosing personal information to officers, and it stated that it would not have been relevant to the repair. The landlord asked the resident to refrain from such discussions with the team due to the upset this can cause. The landlord’s language in its response was inappropriate. The landlord failed to explore the resident’s disability and how the resident believed it was relevant to the repair.
Given the known disability of the resident, the landlord would be expected under the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
The landlord did not take the opportunity to use its complaints procedure to provide any remedies to the resident for its poor communication identified in the above sections. While it is understandable that mistakes can happen regarding use of terminology, the landlord has failed to acknowledge the causal link between the use of the word ‘soil stack’ and the impact this had on the resident. This failure impacted its ability to put things right for the resident and demonstrate appropriate empathy.
Following its stage 2 response and this complaint being referred to the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided further information regarding its complaint handling. The landlord stated that it has identified a call recording from 28 December 2022 which was not originally available when it investigated the complaint. It said it had experienced issues with call recordings not being available and it has changed its telephone system as a result. It said it would have upheld the complaint regarding the customer not feeling listened to and it confirmed that the call was poorly handled. It said should this information have been available at the time, it would have addressed this with the call handler concerned and a goodwill gesture of £100, in line with their compensation policy, would have been offered to the resident. The landlord has stated that it has since put in place learning actions to address the matter.
While the landlord has provided several appropriate learning actions, there is no evidence to suggest that it has contacted the resident to put things right. It is concerning that a pertinent call recording was not available at the time of the investigation and that the resident’s valid complaint was not upheld because of this, causing additional distress. While the call recording in question was not available, this was not the only recording which demonstrated poor call handling.
To conclude, the landlord’s handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory and did not treat the resident fairly. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity, it failed to put matters right by taking full responsibility for its failings, and it failed to offer compensation when it had the opportunity to do so. The Ombudsman finds maladministration because of the multiple failures of the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair and follow-on works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its customer service and staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology is to be made by a senior member of staff and the resident is to be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
2. The landlord to consider its overall approach to how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents and its duties under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure that similar situations do not occur going forward and for a senior management review to be conducted into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement.
3. The landlord to review its record keeping and implement any remedial action that may be required following the review.
4. If it has not already done so, the landlord should carry out the learning actions it outlined in its email to the Ombudsman, namely:
  1. One to one meeting with the officer concerned to openly listen to the call with their manager as an opportunity for self-reflection and self-evaluation, including an individual learning action plan.
  2. Additional call quality monitoring for this officer (including live listening) to establish any patterns of behaviour.
  3. Resilience training planned for the officer concerned and the whole customer service centre to help them deal with customers in difficult or stressful situations including where these may trigger a personal reaction.
  4. Team training on “seeing the person” and actively listening to everything the customer is saying rather than making assumptions about the cause of the issue.
  5. Repairs officers to attend a customer service centre team meeting to discuss language and terminology used in notes ie soil stack vs waste water stack and how this differs in different tall buildings.
5. Pay the resident a total of £520 which is comprised as follows:

£20 goodwill gesture for the salt lamp if this has not already been paid to the resident.
£300 for the significant failure in the landlord’s customer service.
£200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.