Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202122789)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122789

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

6 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the relocation of the gas meter.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat located on the first floor of a residential building.
  2. The resident was due to have work done to the property, which involved re-fitting the kitchen. The resident was made aware that the gas meter may not be suitable where it stood due to difficulty in accessing the meter, and it was likely that it would have to be moved. On 30 April 2019, the resident received a letter from the landlord stating that the meter was to be moved outside of the property. The resident disregarded the letter as she thought it was a ‘generic’ letter for the other residents in the building, as she believed that she had been told in person that the meter would stay inside the property.
  3. The resident submitted her formal complaint on 4 June 2019. The resident said that whilst speaking to a member of the landlord’s staff on the phone about the meter, she had been spoken to in an unprofessional manner, which she found to be distressing. She said that she believed the agent had been ‘misogynistic’ to her. She also highlighted that as the meter had been moved outside, she needed to walk over wet and muddy grass to access it and, additionally, it was unsafe as it was located opposite a pub which the resident said left her exposed to harassment from the people attending. The resident asked for the meter to be put back into the property and, if that was not possible, the resident requested that the landlord put down paving slabs over the grass to allow easier access.
  4. The landlord issued its formal stage one response on 18 June 2019. It addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the effect the agent’s comments had on the phone but said that regarding the placement of the meter, a letter it had sent to her had clearly stated where the meter would be moved to. It confirmed that the meter could not be moved back into the property but agreed to fit paving slabs leading to the meter, as requested. The resident was not satisfied with the response and requested escalation of her complaint to stage one review on 27 June 2019. The landlord acknowledged this and issued its stage one review response on 12 July 2019. It addressed each aspect of the resident’s complaint and offered detailed explanations in order to answer the resident’s queries.
  5. It is unclear when the resident requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process, though it is evident that the landlord acknowledged her request on 16 August 2019. The landlord advised the resident that it would need additional time to investigate the complaint but there was then no further correspondence until January 2021, when the resident contacted the landlord again. From this point, the landlord issued a single point of contact (SPOC) for the resident to ensure clear communication during the complaint investigation.
  6. On 5 August 2021, the landlord met the resident in person at the property to discuss the issue, and to carry out a health and safety assessment to address the placement of the meter. This was done as part of the investigation into the complaint in order to give the resident a detailed and thorough final response. This final response was given on 29 October 2021. It explained that the meter had to be moved outside which was in line with the gas safety regulations and explained this in further detail. It also concluded that, in line with the assessor’s opinions, the placement of the meter was appropriate. The landlord also notified the resident of recommendations that had been made to the landlord that it would carry out to improve access further for the resident.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 5.1 of the gas safety policy states that the landlord will comply with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
  2. Section 8.2.2 of the landlord’s Internal Refurbishment Programme states that ‘the storage capacity of the new kitchen must not be less than that of the existing kitchen’.
  3. Section 8.4.6 of the Internal Refurbishment Programme states that ‘all gas and electric meters… must be left accessible for emergency access, maintenance and removal’.
  4. It should be noted that the landlord has two complaints policies, one earlier policy which was in place when the complaint started, and one cent policy which is the policy currently in place. This Service will investigate the landlord’s responses to each aspect of the resident’s complaint corresponding to the policy that was in place at the time of each issue.
  5. Section 4.5 of the landlord’s old complaints policy (August 2018-20) states that if the resident disagreed with the conclusion the landlord came to at stage one, the resident is to appeal within ten days of receiving the response letter.
  6. Section 5.2 of the landlord’s previous complaints policy states that the stage one appeal will be issued within ten working days.
  7. Section 9.1 of the landlord’s current complaints policy states that the landlord will acknowledge the resident’s complaint within five working days.
  8. Section 10 of the complaints policy states that a stage two response will be issued within twenty days. If this cannot be done, the landlord is to contact the resident and explain why and give a new date for when the resident should expect a response.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has accused a member of the landlord’s staff of being misogynistic during a conversation over the phone. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, this Service can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately in its investigation of the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the associated complaint handling.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the relocation of the gas meter

  1. When completing works to a property, the landlord is required to adhere to health and safety regulations that keep a property and its inhabitants safe in the case of an emergency. For example, section 5.1 of the landlord’s gas safety policy states that the landlord will comply with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. In this instance, it was identified by the landlord that proposed works ‘contravened’ these regulations as it would have left the gas meter ‘at the back of a cupboard space, too low to the ground and too near to water pipes’. It also would have involved moving a dishwasher for ongoing access to the meter.
  2. Ultimately, the landlord relied on the expertise of a member of its staff (a qualified gas engineer) to identify this and to conclude that the meter needed to be moved. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to move the gas meter outside was both reasonable and appropriate.
  3. On 21 January 2019, a copy of the planned kitchen work was approved and signed by the resident. The plan stated that ‘Meters cannot be accessed to service without pulling out dishwasher’. Section 8.4.6 of the landlord’s Internal Refurbishment Program states that ‘all gas and electric meters…  must be left accessible for emergency access, maintenance and removal’. If access to the meter required the moving of a dishwasher, then it would not have been in line with the refurbishment program, as this would not provide sufficient access in an emergency. This is a valid reason for the landlord to move the gas meter elsewhere.
  4. A further note was added on 25 January 2019 following a visit from a contractor which said that ‘[the resident understood] that there [would be] a considerable delay until meter position is clarified’. The notes added to the kitchen plan confirm that the resident was aware of the need to move the meter elsewhere. The resident said that during this visit she was told that the meter could stay inside the kitchen but perhaps be moved into a different place. However, the contractor confirmed that it had no recollection of telling the resident this.
  5. Whilst this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding based on her assertion about what she had been informed verbally during the contractor visit. There is no evidence to support her comments available to this investigation and, as such, it has not been established, in the evidence, that the landlord agreed to retain the gas meter within the property.
  6. In a phone call with the resident on 23 January 2019, the landlord explained to the resident that she had too many appliances within her kitchen and that this would be one of the reasons as to why the meter could not be moved elsewhere within the property. This was in accordance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 which only allows for a certain number of appliances in a kitchen (meters included), as well as a certain amount of storage space. In addition, as stated in section 8.2.2 of the Internal Refurbishment Programme, ‘the storage capacity of the new kitchen must not be less than that of the existing kitchen’.
  7. Additionally, a letter was sent to the resident on 30 April 2019 which clearly notified the resident of the plan to move the meter outside. The letter said that essential gas works were to be completed at the property and that it would ‘involve a new gas supply to [the resident’s] property and [the resident’s] gas meter being moved outside’.
  8. The letter gave a date and time that the work would commence and it also gave the resident two phone numbers with named contacts in case the resident had any questions or queries. However, the resident in her stage one complaint said that she ‘read this and just thought [it was] clearly a [generic] letter as [she had] already been told face-to-face it was being moved only a few meters into the cupboard’. This letter amounted to the resident’s opportunity to contact the landlord and present any concerns she had with the development. The wording of the letter also clarified the landlord position, i.e. that the meter would be moved externally. It is unfortunate that the resident was unaware of the significance of the letter, though no service failure can be attributed to the landlord in this regard as its correspondence was clear.
  9. Although the letter sent was clear in explaining the landlord’s intentions, the landlord did admit in its stage one review that communication had been poor in terms of explaining the reasoning for why the meter needed to be moved. The landlord said ‘there seems to have been very poor communication on [the landlord’s] part’, and offered an apology for the fact that the resident may had been ‘led to believe’ that the meter could remain inside the kitchen. It was not disputed that a member of the landlord’s staff explained to the resident that the meter was difficult for an elderly person to access due to it being ‘too low’. The stage one review explained that this reasoning was wrong and that it was ‘poorly communicated and not factual’. It clarified that it should have been made clear that the meter was moved due to the resident requesting a dishwasher to be fitted. It also assured the resident that the agent had been given relevant feedback to ensure that he makes clear any ‘regulatory factors which may affect any changes’.
  10. Given that the landlord gave incorrect reasoning to the resident for why the meter needed to be moved, it would be appropriate for the landlord to review its internal communication procedures to ensure that all agents and contractors are on the same page when dealing with planned works to a property. It is important that a resident is not confused by conflicting information given by the landlord as this can cause unnecessary stress and inconvenience. That being said, it is also up to the resident to take opportunities given to challenge the landlord’s position on work to be carried out. The letter dated 30 April 2019 gave the resident ample opportunity to do this, but it was not acted upon by the resident.
  11. Once the meter had been moved outside, the resident made clear in her formal complaint on 4 June 2019, that she felt it had been placed in a position that was ‘unsafe’ and caused a threat to her health and safety. She also explained that it had left her exposed to harassment from people frequenting the pub across the road. Additionally, the resident noted that the new placement of the meter forced her to walk over muddy grass in order to access it. She requested that the landlord returned the meter back inside the property, and if it were unable to do so, she requested that the landlord made it more accessible by placing slabs down by the meter. The landlord said that it ‘[understood] the location of the meter [had] caused [the resident] some inconvenience’. It agreed to fit paving slabs and installed these in the week commencing 21 June 2019.
  12. Regarding the alleged harassment from people across the road, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this. Although the landlord has no power to investigate reports of antisocial behaviour from non-residents across the road, it could have signposted the resident to the police in order to report the resident’s claims of harassment. Additionally, the landlord could have acknowledged how distressing these instances may have been for the resident and could have signposted her to organisations that help people deal with these unfortunate incidents.
  13. The resident remained unhappy with the placement of the gas meter and explained that she believed that it was still unsafe for her. On 5 August 2021, the landlord attended a meeting at the property to speak to the resident and also carry out a full health and safety risk assessment of the placement of the meter. As stated in the landlord’s final response, the assessor did not identify any issues with the paving slabs and found that they were ‘bedded in’ correctly for stability. It determined that the new placement of the meter was also appropriate and raised no recommendations regarding the distance from the front door, or the placement of the meter.
  14. The landlord also showed that it had gone above and beyond to ensure the safety of the resident when checking the gas meter, and also by trying to find ways that ensured the resident did not need to venture outside to top up her meter. The landlord agreed in its final response to seek the services of a tree surgeon to attend the property and assess the overhanging branches of the trees outside. This was to ensure that the branches did not interfere with the street lights and therefore cause an unsafe level of darkness for the resident when topping up her meter at night. The landlord also confirmed that it had contacted British Gas on the resident’s behalf in order to seek alternatives to manually topping up the gas meter outside. The landlord outlined the options that it had found in its final response, and it also offered the resident further support to have a conversation with the provider again on the resident’s behalf.
  15. The landlord showed a commitment to improving the ease of access to the meter for the resident. It addressed the resident’s concerns of where the meter had been moved to by committing to a full health and safety assessment, and by laying down new paving in order to ensure the meter had safe access. It also thoroughly explained why the meter had been moved, and gave very reasonable notice that it would be doing so. Where its communication with the resident had fallen short, the landlord identified this, apologised and offered the relevant feedback to agents involved. It is the opinion of this Service that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the movement of the gas meter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

  1. When allegations of misconduct have been made about a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord is obliged to properly and fairly investigate the claims made by the resident. The resident explained in her formal complaint that a call with a member of staff had been ‘very unpleasant’ and that she was ‘spoken to in an unprofessional manner’. She pointed out that she believed that the agent was being ‘misogynistic’ as he had allegedly told her that she had ‘too many appliances’.
  2. In its formal response, the landlord explained that it had spoken to the agent in question, but he ‘[could not] recollect having a conversation with [the resident] and does not know who [the resident] spoke to’. The landlord apologised for any offense caused had a member of staff spoken to her in that way and assured the resident that should it be able to identify the agent in question, it would be brought to their attention so that they could learn from the resident’s comments. It should also be noted that in the landlord’s final response, this comment made by the agent about the appliances is explained to have been in reference to having to move the gas meter outside due to the number of appliances making the kitchen unsafe.
  3. On 27 June 2019, in the resident’s stage one review request, the resident expressed that she was unhappy with the response about the phone conversation. The resident asked for call logs to be shown and she also provided her own call log which gave the date and time of the phone call. The resident asked for an apology and an acknowledgement that the call had taken place.
  4. Following this request, on 12 June 2019 in the stage one review, the landlord acknowledged that the call had taken place on 23 January 2019, but asserted that the agent could not remember the conversation. The landlord also advised that not all calls are recorded but gave guidance to the resident on how she could ensure that future calls are. This was by providing a number where all calls are recorded, and also advised that the resident asks for her calls to be recorded in the future.
  5. It is clear that the landlord conducted a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the issue, including review of its phone records and discussing the allegations with the staff member in question. It also acknowledged that the call had taken place as the resident had asked and offered an apology for any offense caused. It is therefore the opinion of this Service that there was no maladministration by the way that the landlord handled the resident’s claims of misconduct by a member of staff.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage one acknowledgement and response were sent to the resident within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint procedure. As stated in section 9.1 of the complaints policy, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within five working days of receipt. Section 9.2 states that the response will be issued within ten working days. Not only were the responses offered within a reasonable time, but the responses addressed each and every aspect of the resident’s complaint. The same can also be said for the landlord’s stage one review response.
  2. However, although it is unclear exactly when the resident escalated her complaint to stage two, it is clear that there was a breakdown in the complaint handling regarding the investigation into and offering a final response. The escalation request was acknowledged on 16 August 2019. On 4 October 2019 the landlord said that it needed more time to investigate the complaint, but there was no further correspondence until the resident contacted the landlord over one year later on 20 January 2021.
  3. A delay of this length is unacceptable as it can cause frustration to the resident as it may make her feel that her voice is not being heard. It also shows a clear lack of urgency to resolve the resident’s complaint, and this could lead to the resident feeling that her complaint has not been taken seriously by the landlord. However, as far as the landlord is at fault for leaving a delay of such length, the resident should have chased the landlord for a response, which the resident did not do. This has therefore been considered by this Service when calculating compensation to be offered for the landlord’s service failure.
  4. Once contact had been made again in January 2021, the landlord offered a SPOC to the resident. This was appropriate as it showed the resident that the landlord intended to investigate her complaint thoroughly, and to keep the resident informed throughout. After the delay, it would have been reassuring for the resident to know that she had a named point of contact within the landlord’s staff, with whom she could voice her concerns, and chase the development of the complaint investigation. From that point onwards, the resident was informed of any delays and extensions to the investigation that had taken place.
  5. Although the landlord had given the resident a SPOC, it made no attempt to remedy nor formally acknowledge the delay that had taken place. It would be expected that for such a delay, the landlord would offer compensation to the resident, in recognition of the frustration and delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
  1. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the relocation of the gas meter.
  2. No maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.
  3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay in investigating and issuing a final response to the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal communication procedures to ensure that all agents and contractors are on the same page when dealing with planned works to a property, and ensure that the right information is relayed to its residents when relevant.