Sovereign Network Homes (202015554)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015554

Network Homes Limited

29 September 2022

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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. communication with him using hard copy correspondence;
2. approach to property management of the estate; and
3. employees’ interactions with him.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a one bedroom property on the first floor of an Older Persons’ Scheme. The resident is 81 years old. He has deteriorated eyesight.
On 2 September 2019, the landlord wrote a stage three complaint response to the resident. The landlord stated that it had considered the resident’s complaint about an email sent to the resident in error on 18 March 2019 which the resident felt to be offensive. The stage one and stage two complaints had found the email to be inappropriate and the landlord had apologised. The landlord reiterated its apology and stated that it had ordered that a training needs assessment be undertaken. The resident had also raised wider concerns about the management of the property, including health and safety issues. The landlord stated that an inspection was carried out and found that health and safety was being adequately managed. It referred to the nature of the comments the resident made about its employees and stated that it found them to often be disparaging and offensive. It noted that it expected the resident to adopt a more measured tone in the future.
On 24 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord complaining about having received communications from the landlord in hard copy. He referred to his previous complaint about being treated inappropriately by the landlord in light of his visual disability. He noted that the landlord had investigated his complaint. He stated that the landlord had assured him that there would be additional training given and there would be changes. However, he stated that the landlord had continued to send hard copies of correspondence. This included correspondence about important information about his rent and the other was about the landlord’s change of address. The resident asked the landlord to investigate the matter.
The resident sent the landlord a number of emails on 17, 24, 25, 26 and 28 August 2020.
On 19 February 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of an Investigations Manager. The resident claimed that in June 2018 the employee had made a number of inaccurate statements in a response to an MP about the replacement of the resident’s front door, which had been the subject of legal action.
On 25 February 2021 the resident complained that the conduct of employees of the landlord was in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) because he received some communications by letter, rather than electronically. His complaint was that the landlord was aware that he had a visual impairment and had previously undertaken to send all communications electronically.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its employees. The landlord stated that the resident’s complaint about conduct regarding the door replacement could not be considered through the complaints process because it had already been considered by court and it had not been raised within six months of the resident becoming aware of the issues giving rise to the complaint. The correspondence with the MP had been over two years before the resident complained. It noted that on 19 August 2019 the landlord’s stage three complaint panel apologised that it had failed to ensure that all communication was sent electronically. The landlord acknowledged that a piece of post regarding works to the meter cupboard had been sent by letter and apologised for this. It asked for further information on the letter so it could investigate it further. On 12 March 2021 the landlord followed up its request for further information.
On 12 March 2021 the resident raised a stage one complaint regarding employee conduct, further to his previous complaints about employee conduct. The resident further complained that the landlord was unreasonable to ask for further information about the correspondence that was sent.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. It stated that it attached a previous report from the Ombudsman about his complaint and that it had incorrectly represented this to the resident. It told the resident that his complaint about non-compliance with the DDA was not referred to in the Ombudsman’s determination or the court case. It upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. Regarding the request for further information about the further correspondence sent in hard copy, it confirmed this was made to help it identify which department had sent the communications, it subsequently was able to identify them. The landlord was satisfied that its employees had acted reasonably and not been discriminatory. It stated that it agreed with the resident that transparency was important, however it did not consider it appropriate for its contractors (being the fire risk assessors) to communicate directly with residents.
On 24 March 2021 the resident escalated his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He noted that the Ombudsman report had not been included with the stage one response as promised. He complained about how he had been contacted about the complaint. He reiterated his views that the landlord was seeking to intimidate him. He discussed his concerns about the Risk Assessments done by a third party.
On 12 April 2021 the resident made a further complaint about another employee. A key point of the resident’s further complaints was that he was not happy that it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for further details about the hard copy communications.
On 5 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had received a hard copy of a rent statement.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord wrote a stage two response to the resident regarding his complaints about the conduct of two landlord employees. The landlord attached the Ombudsman response previously referred to. It apologised that it had incorrectly referred to the subject matter of this originally. It stated that it was appropriate to refer to the incorrectly sent communications as it was investigating the matter. It stated that the person handling the complaint – a Complaints Manager – was the appropriate person. It apologised if the resident had felt that the reference to further information on the incorrectly sent communications was insensitive given the nature of his disabilities. However, it stated that given the circumstances and the knowledge of the resident’s condition at the time, it was satisfied that the employee had acted reasonably and had not been discriminatory. It rejected the resident’s complaint that it was insensitive to the DDA and noted that it had training and ensured awareness among staff. It stated that it was not necessary for the landlord to speak to the resident about his complaint before responding as the resident had clearly set out the issues it wanted investigated.
On 8 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to advise it that he had listened to the complaint response and rejected it.
On 23 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord reiterating his dissatisfaction.
On 6 December 2021 the resident made a complaint about another employee of the landlord and reiterated his previous complaints. The crux of his complaint was that the landlord had failed to respond to his disability appropriately and had breached the DDA.
On 14 December 2021 the resident complained about another employee of the landlord sending a hard copy of a letter.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 6 and 14 December 2021, treating them as a stage one complaint. The landlord noted that in 2019 it had taken steps to ensure all correspondence was sent to the resident electronically, including by placing a “flag” on the resident’s account. It stated that it had checked and this was still there. It stated that it had investigated and two of the employees the resident had referred to could not recall posting hard copy correspondence and asked the resident for more information. It apologised that it had sent the resident some hard copy correspondence as part of a mass mail out. It apologised for this and upheld the resident’s complaint about this. It stated that it would remind managers and explore if there were other means to ensure hard copy correspondence was not sent to the resident.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to an email from him of 5 January where he criticised one of the landlord’s employees. The landlord stated that the resident’s comments were “insulting, disrespectful and wholly uncalled for”. The landlord noted that the employee had spent a considerable amount of effort on addressing the concerns the resident had raised. The landlord noted that it had spent a considerable amount of time over the years addressing concerns raised by the resident. It stated that it could no longer justify devoting the staff time to this and therefore the resident’s contact would be limited to one email per month which should list any concerns the resident had. The landlord committed to responding within ten days of receipt of such email. Regarding the resident’s complaint about receiving hard copies of correspondence, the landlord confirmed that it had taken all possible steps to limit the possibility of this occurring again, but it could not guarantee this – it is a large organisation and things may slip through the net.
On 2 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked that his complaint about the actions of the landlord’s employees regarding hard copy correspondence be treated as a hate crime. He reiterated his long standing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to a number of different aspects of maintenance of the estate.
The Ombudsman has also been provided with a number of undated communications from the resident regarding his concerns about the safety of the housing estate, with a particular focus on fire safety concerns including relating to the replacement of his flat entry door.

Assessment and findings

Hard copy communications

The resident has impaired vision and is unable to properly engage with written communication. He has requested that the landlord does not send him hard copy correspondence and that all correspondence be sent by electronic mail. The resident’s complaint is that the landlord has sent him hard copy correspondence on a number of occasions.
The resident has included in his complaint the point that he considers the landlord to be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. In this case, the Ombudsman considers that a court would be in a better placed to determine whether there has been a specific breach by the landlord of its legislative obligations. The Ombudsman is able to consider whether there has been maladministration by the landlord, but not if there has been a specific breach of the DDA. However, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord has treated the resident in a fair and reasonable manner in its communications with him, taking into account his visual disability. The resident’s request that the landlord send correspondence using electronic mail is a reasonable one, and the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to comply with the request.
In its complaint response sent to the resident in September 2019, the landlord apologised for failing to ensure that all forms of communication were sent electronically. It said that it would take steps to ensure that this would not happen again. The evidence indicates that, however, the landlord subsequently sent the resident hard copy correspondence on a few occasions. On 24 August 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that he had been sent a communication regarding rent and information on a change of address for the landlord by hard copy. It appears that a hard copy letter about works to a meter cupboard was also sent to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that being able to communicate effectively is important to the resident – and that receiving correspondence by electronic mail is an important part of that. The evidence indicates that the landlord has placed a flag that appears on its internal systems that notes that correspondence to the resident must be by email and not hard copy. It has submitted that its systems are not yet sufficiently sophisticated to automatically suppress paper correspondence. It notes that it has apologised every time an error has occurred and has raised it with relevant Heads of Service to limit the possibility of it occurring again.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has handled the resident’s requests about hard copy correspondence in a reasonable manner. It is unfortunate that there have been a small number of items of hard copy correspondence. However, there is no evidence that important or crucial documents have been sent to the resident only by hard copy and that there have been any significant issues resulting from the limited amount of hard copy correspondence. The Ombudsman understands that the resident feels that the landlord has dismissed his needs. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated that it has taken the resident’s requests seriously and has taken all reasonable steps to avoid it happening. Given the size of the landlord and that communications with the resident would be handled by a number of different areas, and in some cases external parties, it is realistic to accept that occasionally some hard copy correspondence may slip through. The costs to monitor more extensively every piece of correspondence to the resident would be prohibitive and not proportionate in this case.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there has not been a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident using hard copy correspondence.

Handling of maintenance and repairs/Employee interactions

The resident has expressed concerns about a number of aspects of the landlord’s handling of maintenance and repairs to the property. He has raised particular concerns about fire safety issues and the landlord’s compliance with relevant standards. The resident’s concerns are of a general nature – in that they relate to the estate in general. With the exception of an issue regarding the fire safety door to the resident’s property, there do not appear to have been specific issues relating to the resident’s property – rather concerns about the general specifications of the estate and the landlord’s general approach to maintenance and repairs – including its approach to engaging with residents.
The resident has also raised issues regarding the manner in which a number of different employees have interacted with him. For the reasons set out below, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to consider these issues together.
The Ombudsman notes that one of the resident’s complaints is about the fire safety doors installed by the landlord. The evidence indicates that the specific issue about fire safety doors, which included an issue about accessing the resident’s flat, has been considered before court. It is therefore not appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the specific issue of the fire safety doors.
The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s property management cover a number of different aspects of the landlord’s general management approach. The Ombudsman does not consider that this is the appropriate forum to determine whether the landlord’s general approach to property management of the estate is compliant with the various regulatory requirements. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider disputes between residents and landlords about matters directly impacting on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their individual property. However, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the manner in which the landlord communicates and engages with the resident about the complaints he raised regarding the landlord’s property management.
The Ombudsman has therefore not made a finding regarding the resident’s complaints regarding substantive property management issues. However, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord communicated with the resident about these issues.
The evidence shows that there has been a large volume of communications from the resident. The resident has sent long communications to the landlord on numerous occasions.
In its 10 January 2022 letter to the resident the landlord stated that it had spent considerable effort engaging with the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this is supported by the evidence. The evidence does not indicate that the landlord summarily dismissed the resident’s communications or ignored his communications. However, the landlord has limited resources that it has a responsibility to use efficiently and allocate to individuals in a proportionate manner.
The landlord was reasonable to tell the resident on 10 January 2022 that he was limited to communicating by one email per month to raise his concerns. The landlord committed to responding within ten days, which is reasonable. There is no indication that the landlord would not have responded to the resident in an emergency situation and it is clear that the communication limit applies to the general estate management issues the resident was raising.
The resident has also complained about the manner used by individual employees. The Ombudsman finds that the evidence does not indicate that the landlord’s employees communicated in an inappropriate manner with the resident. The resident has claimed that the actions of employees have amounted to being a “hate crime”. However, the Ombudsman finds that the employees have interacted with the resident in a reasonable manner. The landlord has engaged with the resident about his complaint and provided reasonable responses within a reasonable timeframe.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its communication with the resident using hard copy correspondence.
In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its property management of the estate.
In accordance with section 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its employees’ interactions with the resident.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated that it has taken the resident’s requests to receive communications electronically seriously and has taken all reasonable steps to avoid it happening. It is realistic to accept that occasionally some hard copy correspondence may slip through.
The evidence does not indicate that the landlord has handled the resident’s communications about property management concerns in an inappropriate manner.
The landlord’s employees have interacted with the resident in a reasonable manner. The landlord has engaged with the resident about his complaint and provided reasonable responses within a reasonable timeframe.