Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202006511)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006511

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

21 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s management of the allocation of the property to the resident and its suitability.
2. The resident’s allegation that the landlord disclosed personal information to his sister.
3. The landlord’s handling of the connection and testing of the resident’s gas supply.
4. The landlord’s advice given to the resident regarding returning the property’s keys.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s management of the allocation of the property to the resident and its suitability.
2. The resident’s allegation that the landlord disclosed personal information to his sister.
Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to the allocation or suitability of accommodation under Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996 by or on behalf of local authorities such as the landlord. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, and in relation to the resident being able to place bids on future properties, instead fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and so a determination will not be made on these aspects of the resident’s complaint under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme.
The Housing Ombudsman also cannot consider complaints about the handling of personal data, including the resident’s concerns about the use or misuse of his personal data and the disclosure of this to his sister. This is because such complaints fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office, and so a determination will also not be made on this aspect of the resident’s complaint under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per the landlord’s empty property standard, on the day that the resident moves in, the landlord will notify the resident of key locations for utilities such as gas and electric meters.
As per the landlord’s tenant handbook, gas appliances should be checked every year. It states that the landlord will send a contractor to the property and the tenant should facilitate access to the property in order to carry out the work.

Background

The property to which this complaint refers is a two-bedroom, first–floor flat. The resident’s tenancy of the property began on 10 August 2020 as an introductory tenancy.

Summary of events

On 7 August 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and informed him that it had booked the property’s gas turn on and test appointment for 13 August 2020. It also advised that “this can only be completed once you have a live gas supply – so please ensure you have sufficient credit on pre-payment meters too”.
The landlord’s records confirm that the resident then contacted the landlord on 14 August 2020 as follows:
1. The resident wanted to complain that he was not advised that his meter needed to be in credit for it to conduct the turn on and test. This resulted in him travelling from London to the property in Sandwell on 13 and 14 August 2020 to allow access for the completion of the test.
2. An engineer had visited the property on 13 August 2020 but was unable to gain access. This appointment was rearranged for the following day, when it was unable to carry out the test due to there being no credit on the meter.
3. The resident requested compensation for the travel expenses he had incurred from travelling to the property on two separate occasions.
On 21 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, confirming the following:
1. The property’s original turn on and test was booked on 7 August 2020. This booking confirmed that the resident was advised that he would need a live gas supply and that the meter would need to be in sufficient credit. A welcome pack was also sent to the resident on the same date; this explained that the meter needed to be in credit in order for the test to be completed and included confirmation of the appointment date.
2. The resident was not home for this appointment on 13 August 2020. Therefore, a card was posted through the resident’s letterbox, and another appointment was arranged for the next day. On the second appointment, the engineer was unable to carry out the test as there was no credit on the meter.
3. In conclusion, it did not agree that the resident was not informed about the need to have credit on the meter for the test to take place. The landlord also did not agree that the resident was given incorrect advice, in relation to the need for the meter to have sufficient credit to conduct the test. Therefore, it could not award the resident compensation for the journeys that he had made for this.
The resident escalated his complaint to the second and final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 August 2020 as follows:
1. The resident felt that he was rushed into moving to the property, and felt “neglected”. He said that this had had a negative effect on his physical and mental health, and as a result the property was no longer suitable for his “medical needs”. The resident confirmed he was registered as disabled and the property, being on the first floor, was no longer suitable because the steep steps were causing “excruciating, crippling pain, and full sciatica”.
2. The resident advised that nobody from the landlord attended the test at the property on 13 August 2020. He also confirmed that, during the appointment of 14 August 2020, his electric meter was “not even on” and confirmed that the test could not be carried out.
3. The resident additionally referenced a report from the engineer during the above attendance, which is alleged to have stated that “the meter was good to go and topped up”. This led the resident to believe that the engineer was not telling the truth.
4. Travelling to London twice in two days added to the resident’s stress, anxiety and sickness, as well as costing £200 on travel.
5. The resident was seeing a physio in London and wanted to continue living in London to continue his treatment. He therefore wished to terminate his tenancy of the property, and did not feel his should be liable to pay any rent for this as he had yet to actually move into the property which had been vacant.
On 11 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident, confirming the following:
1. The resident had been advised to return the keys to a key safe at the property; however, when the resident travelled to the property there was no key safe there. This was due to key safes being removed once three weeks had lapsed since the tenancy was signed, and no notification of this was sent to the landlord. However, it apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience that this had caused him and upheld this element of the complaint.
2. In response to the resident’s concerns that he had felt rushed into taking on the tenancy of the property, the landlord explained that it tries to let homes out quickly for the benefit of the residents. In this case, the resident had expressed an interest in the property, and was awarded a “safety at risk – band one priority”, indicating a “very urgent” need for housing. Referrals were also made for assistance services for the resident to help with his move.
3. With respect to the property’s turn on and test, and the communication around the requirement for sufficient credit on the resident’s meter to enable the test to be completed, it reiterated that it had communicated this to him at the time of booking, and in the welcome pack sent to the resident by email on 7 August 2020.
4. It supported its stage one decision with respect to the communication on the requirements for the test to be completed, so that it could not award him compensation for the journeys that he had made for this. The landlord did, however, acknowledge that the resident was advised to return the keys to a key safe, which was not there when he arrived. It apologised for this inconvenience and offered him a goodwill gesture of £50 for any distress suffered.
On 11 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord to advise the following:
1. The resident felt that the investigation had been rushed, and that the landlord had missed out “a lot” of what the resident had told it.
2. The resident wanted to know why the engineer, who had reported that the resident’s meter was topped up, had not been mentioned.
3. The resident maintained that he was not informed credit had to be put on the meter and was not told anything of a welcome pack. Furthermore, he stated that he was at the property on both of the appointed days, and no cards were posted as no engineer had turned up.
4. He requested confirmation on how it had reached a compensation figure of £50 and did not understand why it was prepared to compensate for stress and inconvenience, but not for the wasted journey.
5. The resident also highlighted that the landlord had not addressed the issue of rent arrears for the property.
6. The resident felt that he was being “blamed”, and that the landlord was treating him in a “biased and really inhumane way”. As a result, the resident felt “very vulnerable and taken advantage of”. He highlighted his need for support during this time and expressed a desire to escalate the complaint.
The resident subsequently also highlighted to the landlord on 14 September 2020 that it had caused “a lot of problems and issues” to him, with him experiencing increased back pain following receipt of its latest email. He therefore wanted to escalate the complaint, terminate his tenancy of the property, and for it to put him in a position to bid for a ground–floor flat due to his back pain.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the above issues have exacerbated his medical conditions and that he seeks a response from the landlord about rent arrears for the property. However, it is beyond the authority and expertise of this Service to make a determination, in the way that a court or insurer might, on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the connection and testing of the resident’s gas supply and his medical condition or this being made worse by having to take the stairs leading to the property.
This Service also cannot currently consider a complaint from the resident about rent arrears for the property. This is because we are unable to investigate complaints about issues prior to their exhaustion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence that such a complaint from him has exhausted its complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the connection and testing of the resident’s gas supply

As per the landlord’s tenant handbook above at paragraph 8, it was responsible for completing an annual gas safety check at the property. It further states that residents should facilitate access to the property in order to carry out the work.
The landlord has evidenced that it did so, with its records confirming that the turn on and test appointment on 13 August 2020 had been communicated to the resident over the telephone and by email on 7 August 2020. Therefore it acted fairly in its communications to the resident about this by notifying him of the appointment in advance. The landlord also acted reasonably in communicating the need for credit on prepayment meters to the resident over the telephone and by email on 7 August 2020.
In relation to the appointment for the turn on and test on 13 August 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that its contractor could not access the resident’s property for this, and therefore it booked a further appointment for the next day. It is noted that the resident has disputed that an engineer had visited the property on 13 August 2020. In relation to this assertion, the landlord’s contractor said that they had attended the property on 13 August 2020, and it is neither possible for this Service to establish the events of that date from the information provided nor is it our role to do so. Our investigation instead seeks to establish the appropriateness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about this.
It is only possible for this Service to be able to ascertain that the above missed appointment was re-booked by the landlord for the following morning on 14 August 2020. In conducting our investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, in view of the appointment being booked again for the following morning, and in the absence of further evidence in respect to this, the landlord took reasonable steps in this instance.
The resident’s email of 25 August 2020 refers to an engineer’s report which contradicted the landlord’s advice that it was unable to carry out the turn on and test on 14 August 2020. This Service has not been provided with such a report as suggested by the resident. Furthermore, the landlord’s actions and communications to the resident advised that it was unable to carry out the test because of the lack of credit on the meter to enable it to do so. As the resident has also confirmed the same, both parties agree that the landlord was unable to carry out the test on 14 August 2020 for this reason. As a result, there was a failure to ensure that there was sufficient credit on the resident’s meter for the test, as communicated by the landlord to him in advance from 7 August 2020, which its tenant handbook made him responsible for.

The landlord’s advice given to the resident regarding returning the property’s keys

Following the termination of the resident’s tenancy of the property in September 2020, he was obliged to return the keys to the landlord. Under its advice, he travelled from London to deposit these in a key safe at the property; however, this had been removed prior to the resident’s visit. This resulted in a wasted journey for the resident. The landlord acknowledged its failings with regard to this on 11 September 2020, and provided the resident with a reasonable explanation that key safes were removed without notice to it after three weeks and an apology. As it upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint, it offered him £50 compensation for any distress caused.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punish or to make an example of landlords and do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes into account a range of factors, including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord.
As per this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation awards of £50 to £250 may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, but of a short duration and that may not have significantly affected the overall complaint. The impact experienced by the resident could include distress, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble. As such, the landlord’s compensation offer to the resident of £50 was reasonable in addressing the impact on him for this aspect of the complaint.
This is because the landlord’s compensation award acknowledged that its invitation to the resident to return the property’s keys to it via a key safe that was no longer there had caused him a wasted journey in proportion to any unnecessary distress and inconvenience that this had caused him. It also did so at a similar level to that recommended for such a failure by this Service’s remedies guidance, and so it has been recommended below to re-offer this compensation award to him if he has not received this already as well as to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failing in respect of this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the connection and testing of the resident’s gas supply.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its advice given to him regarding returning the property’s keys satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has evidenced that it had communicated the date of the appointment for the turn on and test, and the requirement for credit on the meter to allow for the testing to be carried out, to the resident in advance of the appointment and that it rescheduled this appropriately for the following day after a dispute over the appointment being missed.
The landlord has offered compensation which is fair and reasonable in recognising the detriment to the resident from it incorrectly inviting him to return the property’s keys to it via a key safe that was no longer there, and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £50 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
2. Review its process in relation to the removal of key safes from its properties to seek to ensure that these are no longer removed without notice to it and its residents in the future.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
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.