The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202000917)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000917

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

29 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 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 handling of the resident’s reports about:
  1. supply of new communal bins.
  2. removal of a door mat and staff conduct.
  3. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at a two bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced in 2014.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement outlines that tenants should not leave “any items…in or on any Shared Areas…which could constitute a health or fire safety risk.” Section 5.63 goes on to state tenants should not “leave anything in or around the internal staircase and landing areas in the Building, including but not limited to doormats.” Section 5.64 outlines the landlord’s right to remove and dispose of any items which could constitute a health or fire safety risk in communal areas.
  3. The landlord’s Fire Safety Policy details that as landlord of over 30,000 properties it considers health and safety paramount. As part of this it aims to eliminate the risk of fire and aims to ensure safe evacuation in event of a fire. It aims to treat all residents fairly in delivery of the Fire Safety Policy.
  4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1, it aims to respond in 5 working days. At Stage 2, it aims to respond in 10 working days. Acknowledgements are verbal or written on receipt of complaints.
  5. The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows it to consider compensation based on  an issue’s impact and the degree of responsibility the landlord has for it.
  6. The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 sets out provisions for civil court proceedings.

Supply of new communal bins

  1. Between March 2019 and September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord concerning a large communal bin, missing since December 2018. The landlord’s records advise it took actions when the issue was raised, such as contacting the local authority to order the bin. In September 2019 the landlord informed the resident it was awaiting a price from the local authority, and the bin would be ordered once it received this. The resident states in one email that the impact this had is the two remaining bins fill up shortly after collection; rubbish spreads over the estate courtyard; and some rubbish is not collected by bin men. The resident is unhappy the landlord informed her multiple times the bin had been ordered and the length of time this was taking.

Removal of a doormat and staff conduct

  1. On 16 September 2019, the resident reports being at work and being contacted by a neighbour about people outside her door. The resident says on returning home no calling card was left.
  2. On 17 September 2019 the landlord carried out a fire risk assessment of the communal area of the two flats at the resident’s block. The landlord’s report identified items outside the resident’s flat were combustible and blocked escape, and notes a card was left.
  3. In her own account, the resident reports that while at work she was informed by a neighbour that people were entering her property. She contacted the landlord who advised they were unconnected with it and that its staff did not have keys to properties. After returning home to find no calling card was left, the resident says she contacted the police to report someone using a key to enter her property. In her own account, the resident says she received a calling card, dated 17 September 2019, on 11 October 2019.
  4. On 30 September 2019 the landlord visited the communal area and identified there were items outside both flats. It notes it sent warnings to both tenants. A card left at the resident’s property asked for all personal items in the communal area to be removed “as a matter of urgent requirement” and stated failure to remove them would result in the landlord removing them.
  5. On 2 October 2019 the landlord sent a letter to the resident. It explained it had recently inspected the communal area to ensure it meets relevant regulations and is being kept free of items including “carpets.” It explained communal areas are not an extension of the home and must be kept sterile and clear of any items in event of emergency. It noted items were stored in the communal area and asked for the resident’s help and support removing them with immediate effect. The landlord stated it would re-visit in 48 hours and it would remove and dispose of any remaining items.
  6. On 7 October 2019 the landlord visited the communal area. It noted removal of items outside one flat and additional items outside the resident’s flat. The following day the landlord sent a letter to the resident. It referred to the previous letter and stated it would organise removal of all items within 48 hours. It stated items would not be stored and would be disposed of.
  7. On 11 October 2019 the landlord visited and noted items were still in the communal area. The resident reports she was instructed to remove items including the doormat in an ‘intimidating and abrupt’ way. The landlord noted the area was left empty after the resident was asked to remove items and not put them back out. The landlord noted it would continue to monitor the area and on 24 October 2019, the resident’s doormat was removed from the communal area

Formal complaint

  1. On 30 October 2109 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She complained about staff on 11 October 2019 and being ‘targeted and bullied’. She requested an apology, return of property and for such behaviour not to reoccur. The resident also complained about the landlord double-locking communal doors in its visits; and lack of response and update about issues on the estate.
  2. On 6 November 2019 the landlord issued its Stage 1 response.
    1. It advised it could not see correspondence about estate issues but provided information about opportunities to discuss such issues.
    2. It confirmed it discussed staff behaviour internally and behaviour was not considered to have been abrupt. It apologised that the way the resident felt had not been its intention and assured her its actions had been in line with policies and processes.
    3. It detailed its contacts to the resident to remove items following its assessment on 17 September 2019. It stated the resident was given sufficient time to remove items and not doing so had led to their disposal.
    4. It advised double-locking was not something it normally did and apologised if this had happened.
  3. On 6 December 2019 the resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She clarified estate issues included a communal bin which had been missing since December 2018. She disputed the landlord’s version of events for some issues. She noted the landlord said it gave sufficient notice but asked for return of items within 21 days under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. She raised concern the landlord had not handled the complaint in line with its policy. She raised concern about the landlord possessing a ‘master key’ and queried if its keys could be used on the resident’s door. She restated her original desired outcomes.
  4. On 16 December 2019 the landlord issued its final response.
    1. It apologised if the resident had been led to think her own property was entered, but reassured her it only held a key for the communal door.
    2. It advised it had no obligation to let residents know when Fire Risk Assessments are or have been done, but was looking into doing this in future.
    3. It acknowledged the resident felt staff were intimidating but stated staff acted in line with responsibilities.
    4. It acknowledged the resident’s request to return a doormat. It advised the law quoted did not apply and that the doormat had been disposed of.
    5. It advised bins had been ordered but referred the resident to the local authority for bin provision and rubbish collection as the landlord did not provide these services. In regards to other estate issues, it explained what information it collected and provided some information from September 2019.
    6. It explained in regards to complaint handling that it attempted acknowledgement by phone, but the call went unanswered and there had been no voicemail facility.
    7. The landlord explained it had a legal obligation and while the Fire Risk Assessments may upset tenants they are for everyone’s benefit. It asked the resident to understand the reasons behind staff actions and apologised for any upset caused by any staff involved.
  5. Following the landlord’s final response, in February 2020 it provided the resident the opportunity to confirm its key did not work in her own door.
  6. In March 2020, the landlord internally discussed the bin issue and it was noted multiple attempts had been made to contact the local authority. The landlord again contacted the local authority, who informed the landlord they had asked for the bin to be delivered. In June 2020 the landlord contacted the local authority to ask when the bin confirmed in March 2020 would be delivered. In July 2020 the landlord informed the resident that after chasing the local authority several times, it had decided to purchase a new bin. According to the resident’s most recent discussion with this Service in September 2020, the bin was not yet replaced at that time.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service’s investigation is limited to assessing complaints which exhaust a landlord’s internal complaints procedure and usually events up until the final response. In correspondence, the resident raises other issues and claims the local authority were only contacted about the bin in March 2020. This Service previously confirmed to the resident that complaints need to exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. For new issues the resident has the right to complain to her landlord and exhaust its complaints procedure, in the same way as she has done for the complaints considered below.

Supply of new communal bins

  1. The landlord clearly considered the issue when brought to its attention and confirmed to the resident it took steps to resolve the issue by ordering a new bin, from the local authority. This demonstrates the landlord accepted its responsibility to replace large estate bins, to the extent that it will arrange bin replacement and payment with external providers, and confirmed to the resident that it was taking reasonable action within its powers. This Service would have liked to have seen further evidence of the steps the landlord took in relation to the issue. However, evidence about the issue and any significant adverse effect is also limited.
  2. When the resident raised the bin issue in her escalation request to the landlords final stage, the landlord confirmed in its final response bins had been ordered; that it does not deliver a service in relation to bins; and signposted the resident to the local authority “in relation to the provision of the replacement bins and the rubbish not being collected.” While supply of new communal bins is a protracted issue, it is clear this is not entirely in the landlord’s control. It was therefore reasonable to refer the resident to the local authority to raise bin supply and bin collection with them, since they are responsible for these services, to raise dissatisfaction directly to them.
  3. After its final response, the landlord confirmed it would exercise reasonable discretion to purchase a bin, which demonstrates its commitment to try to resolve the issue.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s responses to reports about the bin was reasonable, considering all the circumstances of the case.

Removal of a doormat and staff conduct

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out the type of complaints which the Ombudsman will and may not investigate. This sets out the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern employment or personnel issues. It is noted the resident complains about how staff behaved to her. In this case this Service has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and how it responded to her complaint about staff conduct.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy agreement, which the resident signed, confirms tenants are not permitted to leave items in shared areas which could constitute a fire safety risk. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord has the right to remove and dispose of such items. Having identified items that could constitute a fire safety risk during an assessment in accordance with its Fire Safety Policy, the landlord had the right to seek to enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement. In such circumstances, a landlord faces the difficult challenge of balancing its desire for tenants to live peacefully in their homes, unhindered by landlord action, with a legal obligation to take action about safety risks.
  3. While the resident disputes some course of events, it is not disputed the resident was asked to remove items in communal areas on 30 September 2019 (in writing); 2 October 2019 (in writing); 8 October 2019 (in writing); and 11 October 2019 (verbally). The resident did not dispute sufficient notice was given about removal of items from communal areas but requested their return under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
  4. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach or tort in the same way as the courts. However, it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably and fairly as it provided notice to all tenants at the block including the resident. The landlord’s removal and disposal of an item it identified could constitute a fire safety risk was in accordance with the tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable as it acted in response to a fire safety assessment, provided the resident with opportunity to keep areas clear, and provided notice of the action it would take if she did not.
  6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct was reasonable. It investigated the concerns, confirmed it discussed the resident’s claims internally then provided its position to the resident. The landlord apologised for the way the resident felt and for any upset caused her. The landlord provided detailed explanation about its actions. This demonstrates the landlord was sympathetic and transparent and that it sought to repair the landlord and resident relationship which had been affected by the actions taken in accordance with its policies, by offering appropriate explanation and apology.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses were issued in accordance with timeframes set out in the landlord’s Complaints Policy. It provided reasonable explanation about unsuccessful attempts to provide complaint acknowledgement. When the resident made the landlord aware she had not received the Stage 1 response, it provided a copy in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. In its final response, concerning the bin complaint, the landlord could have added more detail and assessment about the steps it previously took, in addition to action it was taking and may consider if delays continued. However, this was in response to the resident formally complaining about the issue for the first time, as it was not specifically mentioned in the initial complaint.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

Supply of new communal bins

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about supply of new communal bins.

Removal of a doormat and staff conduct

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about removal of a doormat and staff conduct.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about complaint handling.

Reasons

Supply of new communal bins

  1. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in response to the resident’s reports about supply of new communal bins. It confirmed to the resident it was attempting to order a bin from the local authority. It later confirmed it would exercise reasonable discretion to purchase a bin.

Removal of a doormat and staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s removal of a doormat was in accordance with policies and legal obligations and after reasonable notice was provided to the resident.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the complaint about staff conduct because it reviewed, investigated and responded to her complaint in a timely manner and in line with its Complaints Policy. There is also no evidence that its staff acted inappropriately towards the resident when asking her to remove items.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord responded reasonably and in accordance with its policies in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to confirm the bin on the resident’s estate has been replaced, and to take appropriate steps to arrange for it to be replaced if it has not been.