Six Town Housing Limited (202000098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000098

Six Town Housing Limited

15 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. repairs at the property;
   2. cigarette smoke entering the property.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. The resident has referred to a number of concerns she has, including: bin storage issues; alleged non-compliance with coronavirus regulations; problems with the front door; the landlord’s response to new repairs raised throughout 2020; noise levels coming from her property; and harassment from members of a tenants group. These all arose after the complaint which is under investigation here exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in January 2020.
4. The Ombudsman is not able to comment on specific issues which have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process in the first instance. This is so that we can be sure that the landlord has had an adequate opportunity to investigate and resolve the issues internally before we intervene.
5. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. It is understood that the resident has raised her concerns about the separate issues to the landlord and it is progressing the complaint through its complaint procedure. If the resident still has concerns after receiving the landlord’s final response/s in relation to those matters, she can raise new complaint/s with this Service.

Background and Summary of Events

6. On 9 December 2019 the landlord acknowledged a complaint that it had received from the resident about a call she had had with its Contact Centre after she had not received a utility payment card. It had listened to the call, and could confirm that it had been advised by the utility company that a card had been sent out, but the utility company would not give it any further information because the account was in the resident’s name. It understood why she was frustrated by the process, but it could not identify any abuse by its agent towards her, though it was clear that the resident became very frustrated during the call and the agent struggled to find a solution given that the utility company was a separate company.
7. The landlord said that it had been explained to the resident that it only provides temporary heaters when heating is broken, and that during the call, the resident had advised that her son could go to the shop for her. Finally, it said it had recorded that the resident has a mental health condition and a physical condition. It said it would be helpful to understand how they affect her.
8. The resident responded the same day to say that she did not accept the landlord’s explanation for what she thought was “abuse” by the call handler. She said the landlord should have already had her registered on its system as disabled. She asked if there was a next stage to its complaints process, and said the information given to her by the landlord in terms of instructions to use the gas and electricity payment cards had been inaccurate.
9. In a further email that day, the resident said that a reasonable adjustment should have been made to provide emergency provision of heating for disabled tenants. She said the neighbourhood officer had given her wrong information about turning on the gas supply. Finally, she explained that, after contacting another organisation, she was put in contact with a dedicated service that had the meters replaced within 24 hours. She thought the landlord ought to have put her in contact with that organisation.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2019 and advised that a response would be provided by 23 December 2019. The landlord then visited the resident on 17 December 2019 to discuss her complaint. Following the visit, it raised the following repairs with its repairs department: soil stack near the toilet leaked when it rained; the end cap of a pipe which would lead to a washing machine had the cap missing which was causing a leak when the sink was in use; when the front door was used, it knocked the radiator; and there were gaps in the bedroom window.
11. On 18 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident and referred to their meeting the previous day. It said it had passed the repairs she had told it about to the relevant team and would pass her request about the grey bin to the relevant person that day. It also said it would complete its complaint response and provide this to the resident by 20 December 2019.
12. In the resident’s response of the same day, she asked if the landlord recalled her telling it about the cigarette smoke from the neighbouring property which was affecting her health. She explained that she had needed to spend the previous night in her son’s house in an environment that was free from cigarette smoke. She thought that when the landlord’s contractor had upgraded the heating system to a combi-boiler, they did not close the gaps to external vents and, as such, the smoke from the neighbouring property was entering her property through gaps (as well as where the meter boxes were placed). She asked if the contractor could attend her property and seal the gaps.

1. On 20 December 2019 the landlord provided its Stage 1 response, as follows:
   1. The resident had said she was unhappy with the way she was treated during the phone call, as she felt attacked and accused of being a liar. It apologised that she had been made to feel that way, explained that it was working on a call quality exercise with teams, and confirmed that her feedback would be incorporated into that exercise; 
   2. The resident had advised that she had been given incorrect information for the issuing of emergency heating. It apologised if she was given conflicting information, and explained that it was looking at its process for situations whereby the service it provides may need to be flexed according to the vulnerabilities of the resident;
   3. It noted the resident had provided some suggestions about pre-payment gas meters and creating an introductory pack for new tenants and said it would pass on those suggestions to the relevant team.
   4. The resident was unhappy that it did not have the details of her disabilities recorded on its system, and so it had not taken them into account as part of her requests. It accepted that it did not have all the details of her disabilities recorded and that, given the information the resident had previously provided, its records ought to have been updated to reflect that information. It confirmed that it had made sure the necessary information had since been added to its system. It also said it would speak to the resident’s social worker, as she had requested.
   5. It confirmed that it had raised the repairs the resident had highlighted with its repairs team and had contacted the repairs team about the cigarette smoke issue that she had described. Its repairs team had advised that someone would be in contact with her about this.

13. On 6 January 2020 the landlord met with the resident in her home to discuss her outstanding concerns. Following that meeting, the landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 16 January 2020. The issues raised, and the landlord’s responses were as follows:
    1. No one from repairs had contacted the resident about the smoke entering her property following her complaint, even though she was told she would be contacted – It apologised for this delay.
    2. Repairs staff did not attend at the correct appointment date and did not give notice when they did attend – It accepted that its repairs staff had missed an appointment to carry out a repair on 19 December 2019. It said this was unacceptable and apologised for this.
    3. No repair appointments had been made for the repairs agreed at the meeting on 17 December 2019 – There was a delay in arranging all the repairs, but the jobs had been processed and were waiting to be appointed. The repairs to the soil stack and pipe leading to the washing machine had been completed. The repairs to her bedroom window, and front door to help prevent the ingress of smoke had been arranged for 23 January 2020.
    4. The resident had raised an issue about bins – It had advised her at the meeting that the bins were the council’s responsibility. However, it would provide her with a lockable bin shed.
    5. The resident was unhappy with the approach taken by one of the landlord’s staff members, as she felt the staff member had not taken into account the impact the situation had had on her – It was sorry she felt that way as its staff member had only been trying to empathise, though it accepted she did not feel it came across that way.
14. In August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord about a number of new matters and said that the expanding foam around the soil stack had helped a lot with the smoke entering the property. However, she said it was still coming in from behind the electricity meter, and so she had sealed the gaps behind the meter with foam herself.
15. The resident brought a complaint to this Service. The relevant points she made in relation to this complaint were:
    1. The brick shed made available to her by the landlord was not suitable as it was not weathertight, so she had to store home maintenance items such as paint and ladders in her living room.
    2. Cigarette smoke was still entering her property, and she thought this was coming through a single soil stack that serves a number of properties.

Assessment and Findings

16. The resident advised the landlord of a number of repairs that were needed during a home visit of 17 December 2019. It is not known if she had raised those repairs with the landlord’s Contact Centre previously. None of the repairs would be considered an emergency, though some of them were more urgent than others (the ones causing leaks). The repairs to the leaks were carried out at some point before 16 January 2020 and the landlord arranged for the remaining repairs to be completed on 23 January 2020. The landlord’s repairs policy says that non-urgent repairs will be carried out as soon as possible. Given that the landlord had arranged for all the repairs to be addressed just over a month after they had been raised by the resident, that timeframe was not unreasonable.
17. The landlord accepted that its contractor had missed one repair appointment in December 2019 and apologised for this. That was an appropriate response as the resident did not appear to have experienced any particular inconvenience as a result of the missed appointment.
18. After the resident advised the landlord in December 2019 that cigarette smoke was entering her property, it arranged for this to be looked into in January 2020. Again, this was appropriate response actioned within a reasonable timeframe. From the resident’s later email of August 2020, it appears that the landlord had arranged for expanding foam to be used to fill gaps around the soil stack and that this had materially improved the situation. This demonstrates that the landlord took practical steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and to rectify the problem.
19. Although the resident told the landlord in August 2020 that the expanding foam had helped a lot, she has recently advised this Service that smoke is still entering the property – she believes it is still coming through the soil stack. It is not known if the resident has advised the landlord of this, but it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out another inspection to see if there is anything further it can do to prevent the smoke from entering the property.
20. The resident told the landlord that she had not had a grey bin when she had moved into the property and the landlord advised her that this was the council’s responsibility. However, the landlord did tell the resident in its Stage 2 complaint response that it would provide her with a lockable bin shed.
21. It is understood that the resident has a brick shed allocated to the property. Based on the resident’s complaint to this Service, it appears that the landlord did indeed provide her with access to that shed. However, she has advised that she cannot use it because it is not watertight. She has provided this Service with photographs, though it is not clear from these why she cannot use it.
22. It is not known if the resident has advised the landlord that she cannot use the shed because it is apparently not watertight, and the reasons for that. If she has not done so, she may wish to raise the issue with the landlord, though based on the available information, it appears that the landlord has provided the resident with access to a shed, as it said it would, which was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the:
    1. repairs requests;
    2. reports of cigarette smoke entering the property.

Reasons

24. The landlord completed all repairs raised by the resident within approximately one month, which was a reasonable time frame and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. It also took appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of smoke ingress in a timely manner.
25. The landlord told the resident that it would provide her with a bin shed, and it has done so. The resident has told this Service that she cannot use the shed because it is not watertight, though it is not clear why that would prevent her from using it. She may want to raise her concerns about the shed not being watertight with the landlord.

Recommendations

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should carry out a further inspection to see if there is anything further it can do to prevent smoke from entering the resident’s property.