Six Town Housing Limited (202208613)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208613

Six Town Housing Limited

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
1. a request for support with her energy supplier.
2. the support it offers, an energy visit and a request for repairs to take place after 2.30pm.
3. its complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in 2003. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable, but notes that it is not aware of what her vulnerabilities are or of any organisations supporting her. The resident has said she is a carer for a very ill family member, and struggles with her mental health.

The request for support with an energy supplier

In 2021, the resident says that she asked the landlord for its support with an issue with her energy supplier, and was informed that it did not provide support with such issues. In late May and early June 2022, the resident complained that the landlord had not helped her with a complaint to her energy supplier the previous year, as she had been subsequently informed by an external party that it was supposed to help with such issues. The resident said she had to deal with her complaint all on her own, and the outcome had not turned out as she had hoped as she now had an energy bill of over £2,000.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it said it did not provide financial or debt advice, but could make referrals to Citizens Advice. It noted that the resident had contacted Citizens Advice about her energy bill, and advised her to contact them if she was unhappy about the support they had offered.
In November 2023, the resident requested a letter to her energy supplier that stated how long she had resided in the property and that she was a vulnerable person; on long-term sickness with mental health and physical issues; and cared for a very ill family member. The landlord agreed, detailed what it could include in the letter, and advised the resident to contact her GP if she wished to provide certain medical information to her energy provider. After the resident raised dissatisfaction, the landlord referred to its previous complaint response about the level of support it could provide with the energy supplier.

The landlord’s response about the support it offers, an energy visit and a request for repairs to take place after 2.30pm

In 2018, the resident was in contact with the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team, after which it is was recorded in 2019 that she wished contact to cease.
In January and February 2022, the resident reported several repairs. For one, she requested an appointment after 2.30pm and was informed this could not be accommodated. Following this, the resident seems to have reported repairs outside of normal office hours for them to be attended after 2.30pm.
In April 2022, landlord staff emailed colleagues after seeing the resident. She asked for it to be recorded that she was vulnerable. She asked for someone to visit to talk her through how to use hot water with her ‘economy 7’ energy tariff. She also asked for all appointments to be after 2.30pm as she was a carer for a family member. In respect to appointments, staff commented that this seemed a reasonable adjustment that the housing regulator may expect to be accommodated, but other staff said the request could not be authorised as the repairs appointment system did not allow for this. A member of staff asked for the refusal to be put in writing to the resident, but noted there were occasions where it worked outside systems when adjustments were needed.
In May 2022, over a month later, landlord staff emailed the resident after chasing from her. They said that they could not agree to repairs appointments after 2.30pm as the system did not allow this, but they could contact the contractor to request their next available appointments, or ask the contractor to make an appointment directly with the resident.
In late May and early June 2022, the resident complained. She indicated that her being vulnerable had only been recently recorded on the system after a call about the complaint. She was unhappy that no one had been in contact about her request to explain how the hot water timer worked. She was also unhappy that there was a “one size fits all” approach and she had to agree specific repairs times. She said that this was not practical being a carer for a very ill family member, and she also said she was on long-term sickness with mental health issues. She raised concern that the service she had received was not in line with a poster that advertised that the landlord tailored its approach to meet people’s needs. She detailed that she found the landlord’s approach and lack of support distressing.
The landlord provided an initial response that confirmed the account now included a vulnerability indicator. It offered to arrange an energy visit to survey the property and advise how to use energy more efficiently. It said that the account had been updated with a preference for appointments after 2.30pm, but that there were occasions where this may not be possible for repairs appointments. It requested more information about the reasons for the request for repairs after 2.30pm, to understand how it could best support her vulnerabilities, and to consider whether it can arrange something specifically to support her needs under its reasonable adjustments policy.
The resident responded that staff had promised her that 2.30pm would be put on her records. She explained that as she was carer to a family member and juggling a lot of things, it would be more practical and less pressure for all repairs to be after 2.30pm.
In its June 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord restated its invitation for an energy visit. It said it followed a scheduling process which was only altered in certain circumstances. It noted that being a carer for a family member would not come under its reasonable adjustment policy, and said that if the resident provided more information, it could see if it could make changes under the policy. It noted that this related to its repairs scheduling system but could ensure that all other appointments were after 2.30pm.
In separate correspondence, landlord staff offered to refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment team, which she subsequently queried not being made aware of earlier. The landlord noted that the resident had previously been referred to the team, but had said in 2019 that she did not want to work with them any longer. It also explained that the team could not deal with complaints to utility companies, but could help deal with any debts and make referrals to Citizens Advice for issues beyond its remit.
After the resident requested escalation of the complaint, senior staff contacted the resident. They asked to arrange a call or visit to discuss the preference for repairs appointments after 2.30pm, and explained they wanted to ensure that she could access services in a way that addressed her needs.
In its 7 July 2022 stage 2 response, the landlord:
1. noted that the resident referenced a customer service policy and raised concern about its approach.
2. confirmed that vulnerabilities were recorded on its system after the resident gave permission for this.
3. said that its ability to tailor services depended on its remit as a social housing provider; its awareness of circumstances; and its policies and procedures.
4. said that it provided support to tenants to help manage their tenancy such as advice and information about its services; assistance claiming benefits; and referrals to other agencies. It said it did not provide financial or debt advice, but could make referrals to Citizens Advice, and also arrange for an energy advisor to visit.
5. invited the resident to engage with its tenancy support service, and detailed staff who could work with her to identify any support needs. It explained that the tenancy support service was led by customers’ needs, and could work jointly with partners such as the local authority to tackle challenges the resident may be facing.
6. noted that the resident had requested a full investigation and a meeting with someone in a high position. It noted that a member of its executive team had contacted her and tried to arrange a mutually convenient call or visit, to aid its understanding and discuss how the resident could access services in a way that addressed her needs.
7. noted that staff had explained the appointments it offered, and it asked for more information to ascertain if its reasonable adjustment policy applied. It said that in the absence of further information to substantiate the need for appointments after 2.30pm, it was unable to accommodate this.
Between July and August 2022, there was further correspondence between the landlord and resident. The landlord re-offered to arrange for tenancy support service staff to contact the resident, in order to work with her to provide services that met her needs while also following its policies and procedures. The resident restated that she was a carer and queried what more information the landlord needed to know about her reasons for appointments after 2.30pm. She noted that this had been accommodated in the past, and said she felt that she was being forced out of the property. The landlord noted that a large percentage of its customers were vulnerable and it had tried to meet to understand why appointments after 2.30pm were so important, as this was not a service it offered and it needed to efficiently deliver services. The landlord subsequently noted that the issue was clearly causing the resident distress and anxiety, and confirmed it had put in place plans to attend repairs appointments after 2.30pm. It asked the resident to contact certain staff if this failed and explained there may be larger repairs that it may have to make special arrangements about.

Complaint handling

The resident complained in late May/early June 2022. She raised concern about the landlord’s approach and asked to discuss her concerns with senior staff. The landlord provided an informal response on 7 June 2022 and a stage 1 response on 21 June 2022, and a manager called the resident. The resident subsequently complained that 6 complaint points had not been addressed and that a request to speak to someone on a tenant panel was not accommodated. A member of the landlord’s senior leadership team contacted the resident and asked to arrange a call or visit, which the resident did not agree to.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 7 July 2022, which set out a position on the 6 complaint points and detailed how to progress the complaint to the Ombudsman or to a tenants complaints panel. The resident subsequently expressed dissatisfaction and the landlord restated how to refer the complaint to the panel. The landlord offered to progress the complaint to the tenants panel if the resident confirmed she wished to do this, after which she raised dissatisfaction with the obstacles the landlord was putting in place and asked not to be contacted further.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident about a request for support with her energy supplier

The evidence advises that the resident asked the landlord for support with a complaint to her energy supplier in 2021, and then complained in 2022 that this was not provided. The landlord’s main obligations relate to its role as a landlord, and while its tenancy support team may provide some additional support, this may be reasonably limited if it does not relate to the landlord and tenant relationship and if more appropriate organisations can assist. It does not seem unreasonable that the resident was signposted to Citizens Advice for a complaint concerning her utility supplier as this appears to be a consumer matter rather than one relating to her tenancy with the landlord.
The landlord also seems reasonable in its approach to a supporting letter the resident asked it to draft to her energy supplier. The landlord’s main obligations relate to its role as a landlord, and it was reasonable to tailor the letter in a way that it considered best reflected its records and its relationship with the resident, as well as to signpost the resident to her GP to provide a supporting letter if she wished to share medical information with her energy supplier. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration for these aspects.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the support it offers, an energy visit and a request for repairs to take place after 2.30pm

The Ombudsman does not make definitive determinations about discrimination, but we can assess how a landlord has handled matters in the timeframe of a complaint.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy notes it has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for customers; provides guidance in respect to liaising with customers to understand their needs; and encourages trying to meet requests where it is reasonable to do so. The Regulator for Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard expects registered housing providers to provide choices that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants. The landlord has advertised customer service standards that include commitments to have a personalised, tailored and person-focused approach.
The landlord has a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments to those with protected characteristics, including disability. The resident said that she was off work with long-term sickness and had mental health issues, but it is not evident that she has supplied detailed information about any medical diagnosis to confirm the landlord had a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments. The landlord clearly sought to liaise with the resident to find out more information about her, which it is reasonable for a landlord to do in order to consider how it is able to best support a resident. However, there are aspects of the landlord’s handling which were not satisfactory.
The resident was in contact with staff in the landlord’s tenancy sustainment team in 2018, and asked to not be contacted by them in 2019. This shows that the resident was reasonably aware that the landlord can offer some support, however it would have been helpful for her to be reminded about the team before late June 2022, when there were clear opportunities to do so.
The resident requested an energy visit in early April 2022. The landlord did not respond to this until correspondence in early June 2022, and chasing from the resident, which the landlord did not acknowledge in its responses.
The resident requested for appointments to take place after 2.30pm in early April 2022. She did not receive a reply for over a month and she was then informed in May that this was not possible due to the repairs appointment system default timeframes. She seems to have been offered a solution whereby the landlord or resident could liaise with the contractor to confirm a suitable appointment, which seemed to potentially provide the outcome she was seeking. However, the response was delayed, and no attempts were made to consider her vulnerability in a suitable way. The rejection of the reasonable adjustment, simply because the system was not optimised for it, does not seem to have sufficient regard for the landlord’s obligations under the Equality Act to carefully consider reasonable adjustments. The landlord should have acknowledged this in its responses, and reviewed changes to its processes, to ensure that there was a more appropriate process for dealing with reasonable adjustment requests.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy suggests the Equality Act 2010 informs its approach to reasonable adjustments, while its customer services standard that mentions having a personalised and tailored approach seems to be aimed more broadly than customers covered by the Equality Act. The landlord could have more clearly considered and addressed the resident’s request against its aim to provide a personalised, tailored approach, rather than focusing on its ability to accommodate the request under its reasonable adjustments policy. There may be many circumstances where a more tailored approach could be reasonable to which the reasonable adjustments policy may not directly apply. However, it is unclear how the landlord considers these.
The information the landlord had could have reasonably been sufficient for it to consider whether the circumstances fulfilled the requirement for a more tailored approach, even if the information did not show that the Equality Act may be a consideration. The landlord seems aware since at least 2018 that the resident had some vulnerability. She also said that she was on long-term sickness, and cared for a very ill family member. It is generally recognised that carers can be impacted emotionally and physically even where family members are not involved. The combination of these factors could have reasonably prompted the landlord to clearly consider if a more tailored approach was possible, or to re-state any options that could help result in contractors attending after 2.30pm.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds a service failure for this aspect. The landlord took over a month to respond to the resident’s request for appointments after 2.30pm, and 2 months to respond about an energy visit. It initially refused the appointment request based on its system, rather than on consideration of the resident’s characteristics and if the request was a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. The landlord took steps to accommodate the request soon after its stage 2 response, however it could have demonstrated it considered relevant factors in a more holistic way; considered the solutions it offered earlier; and considered some process changes to ensure that services such as repairs consider reasonable adjustment requests in a more appropriate way.

Complaint handling

The resident complains that she requested a meeting, and for the matter to be referred to the tenants complaints panel, which did not happen. When a formal complaint is made, a landlord’s main obligation is to follow its complaints procedure. In the landlord’s case, this was to investigate and provide written responses to complaints at stages 1 and 2, and to enable the referral of a complaint to the optional stage 3 tenants complaints panel which was in place at that time.
It is good practice for a landlord to discuss a complaint with a resident, to ensure a resident’s concerns are fully understood, however there is no expectation for this to involve specific individuals unless that is a stated part of a landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, there was no obligation for senior staff to contact the resident when she made her complaint, or for any individuals in the tenants complaints panel to be involved until a stage 2 response had been provided. The landlord demonstrates that it went beyond its complaints procedure to give an opportunity for the resident to speak to someone senior, as she was called by a manager and invited by a senior manager to arrange a call or visit.
The landlord provided complaint responses in a reasonably timely manner after the complaint, and detailed how the resident could escalate the complaint after stage 2 to the tenants complaints panel. After the resident did not escalate the complaint in the way requested, she was informed that the complaint could simply be escalated if she provided confirmation of this, which was a positive attempt to minimise the onus on the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate. It responded in a reasonably timely manner; went beyond the requirements of the complaints procedure to give the resident the opportunity to speak to multiple senior staff; and provided reasonable opportunity to escalate the complaint. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration for this aspect.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a request for support with her energy supplier.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about the support it offers, an energy visit and a request for repairs to take place after 2.30pm.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £100 for the issues identified.
The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review and consider changes to its processes, to ensure that all services deal with reasonable adjustments in an appropriate way and include clear consideration of a resident’s characteristics and the Equality Act 2010 alongside the requested adjustment. The landlord should communicate the outcome to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord to review how to ensure that signposting on how to access its tenancy sustainment team is provided at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord to consider having a clearer policy and procedure for both consideration of reasonable adjustments and the tailored, personalised approach aimed for in its customer service standards.