Trident Housing Association Limited (202105175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105175

Trident Housing Association Limited 28 February 2023

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 resident’s complaint is about:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the conduct of the landlord’s contractor.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the quality of the kitchen installation.

c.      The landlord’s complaint handling including the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and being given incorrect information.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident occupied a one-bedroom first floor flat under a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord has not informed this Service whether the resident has any recorded vulnerabilities, but the resident informed the landlord, in the course of the complaint correspondence, that she suffered from anxiety and depression that had been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic.

Legal and policy framework

3.     The landlord’s code of conduct for contractors stated as follows:

a.     It had a policy for dealing with incidents of harassment or violence against its customers. Any allegations of harassment by contractors would be investigated.

b.     Its policies on equality and diversity, harassment, violence at work, health and safety, and confidentiality applied in the contractor’s dealings with the landlord’s customers.

c.      The contractor should explain how long the work would take and ask if materials and tools could be left in a particular place, checking they would not cause inconvenience to the tenant.

d.     Treat all tenants and their homes with respect.

e.     Get permission from the customer before using sinks, electricity, and other services in the property.

f.        Ensure that all rubbish is removed on completion of works.

g.     The contractor should not smoke, eat, drink, or play audio equipment (in the property).

h.     Cause offence, inconvenience, or personal harassment to a customer under any circumstances. This includes unkind, embarrassing, and inflammatory or damaging words or gestures. Respect and sensitivity should be shown to all customers.

i.        Ensure that all works are completed to a satisfactory standard.

j.        Some female customers could feel nervous about having a stranger in their home. It was in the interest of both the contractor and the customer that the contractor was approachable but formal.

4.     The complaints policy stated as follows:

a.     The procedure was a two-stage process. A complaint should be recorded on receipt, send an acknowledgement letter to the complainant within 2 working days of receipt of the complaint and pass the complaint to the “responding officer”, a manager or service lead with the appropriate knowledge to effectively investigate the complaint. The landlord should response within 10 working days.

b.     A complainant could request a review, clearly stating the reason for the request. It would only consider an appeal where the complaint had not been fully addressed in the first stage or where there was further evidence provided by the complainant to consider. The landlord should respond at stage two within 20 working days.

c.      If a complaint was about conduct of a staff member, it would be managed in accordance with the landlord’s code of conduct or staff disciplinary procedures.

Chronology

5.     The landlord installed a new kitchen in the resident’s property which appeared to be part of an estate-wide refurbishment. The works began on 3 March 2021 and were carried out by a team of operatives for a contractor sub-contacted by the landlord. On 9 March 2021, the resident made a complaint by telephone regarding the behaviour of one of the operatives. A summary of the resident’s call was emailed to the landlord’s complaints team. Most of the content was relayed in the resident’s written complaint of 20 April 2021.

6.     The resident telephoned the landlord on 31 March 2021 to chase the complaint. The message was forwarded to a surveyor who telephoned the resident back. He subsequently discussed internally arrangements for visiting her property the next day. According to the landlord’s internal records, there were no notes made by the surveyor. There were no notes on its system records of the resident’s call with the surveyor and there was no direct reference to it in the surveyor’s internal emails. The only relevant note was that of 10 March 2021 with the surveyor noting he had spoken to its contractor and awaited his response and of 31 March 2021 stating that the landlord’s “contractor refutes all of our tnt’s (sic) claims against him and this has been explained (to the resident)”.The surveyor also recorded in the same note that the resident had reported issues with the kitchen.

7.     There were no other relevant notes between 10 March 2021 and 10 August 2021, except at 1 April 2021.

8.     On the same day, the resident phoned back the landlord to say she did not want the surveyor to deal with her complaint. On the same day, the landlord asked if she was sure she wanted to transfer the complaint to another officer, to which she responded that she did.

9.     According to a note of 1 April 2021, the resident telephoned to chase the complaint and to make a new complaint about the surveyor. She swore at the operator “for no reason because she’s frustrated” so the landlord “warned her about her language” and, as the resident continued to be abusive, the landlord ended the call. The resident did not dispute this, but stated she was not aware the operator could hear her.

10. The resident’s complaint dated 20 April 2022 stated as follows:

a.     Her first complaint was about one of the operatives “A” who had fitted her kitchen as follows:

i.        A left his large tool bag in places making access to her rooms difficult.

ii.      He played music “quite” loudly through a large speaker without asking permission. She would have tolerated music at a reasonable volume.

iii.    He left her front door and hallway door wide open for long periods, not only to go to and from their van.

iv.    In one instance, having left the door open and her closing it, he said he would close it and stared at her. She felt he was playing a “mind game”.

v.      The contractor sounded his van horn, as if to signal to her to open the door which she found “insulting and disrespectful”.

vi.    A took delivery of a food order rather than calling her. He told her he had the food and said “Run”, using a term of abuse, in a “sort of jokey” tone.

vii.  He asked her whether she had “the munchies”. The resident considered this was an implication she had been using cannabis, which she felt to be racist stereotyping. He played reggae music, which she took to be him implying that his reference to cannabis was not racist.

viii. He asked her questions such as “Did you have a quiet one last night?”.

She stated that he kept trying to make conversation.

ix.    A told her the work would be completed on the following Monday but they worked a full day and again on the next day. She felt that A was deliberately delaying the job.

x.      She believed that A had forgotten to make provision for fitting a washing machine, as had been previously agreed.

xi.    While they were looking for the electrical trip switch, he asked if it was in the bedroom which, as that would be unusual, she felt that was inappropriate.

xii.  She “felt like (the operative) was trying to test her boundaries from day one for sexual purposes” and “felt disrespected, uncomfortable, unsafe and harassed”.

xiii. Throughout the complaint, which events she described in detail, the resident described how she felt uncomfortable, shock, frustration, and annoyance.

xiv.              The work had been left unfinished and was “shoddy”. The work team had left rubbish and her shed door was damaged. She considered that leaving the rubbish was retaliatory.

b.     Her second complaint was about the surveyor she spoke to about her complaint on 31 March 2021.

i.            He had told her he had “spoken to the person in question and he’s refuted your claims”, and it was her “word against his, I’m not sure what you want me to do I’m stuck in the middle here” and laughed.

ii.            When she said he had laughed, he said “Well you’re now making false allegations against me saying I laughed when I didn’t”. She considered he was implying she was making false allegations.

iii.            She reported the rubbish had been left and that the work had been left unfinished.

iv.            She felt disbelieved.

c.      The third complaint was that she had not been told initially that the complaints department dealt with complaints.

d.     She added that when she was on hold, she swore to herself, but the operator had heard. The resident did not explain that she thought that she had been on hold. The operator said if the resident were nicer she would be treated better. The resident was then cut off.

e.     She suffered with anxiety and depression and her poor mental health was worsened by lockdown. When she contacted the landlord again, she cried and had a panic attack. She had previously been on good terms with other members of staff.

11. On 22 April 2021, the landlord wrote that a thorough investigation would be conducted which could take up to 10 working days. If she did not agree with this conclusion or outcome, she had a right to appeal within 20 working days.

12. In the meantime, the landlord arranged the completion of her kitchen but could not locate the correct telephone number for the resident.

13. The landlord replied on 10 May 2021 with its first stage response as follows:

a.     It understood that having major refurbishment work and people in the home could be very stressful. The landlord ensured that its contractors were of the highest quality and had good customer service.

b.     Her complaint was based upon her “micro observation and surveillance” which “only contrived to heighten an already stressful environment not only for the resident but also the operatives undertaking the work when they know every move and interaction was being recorded for no obvious reason. This only leads to misinterpretation of a situation when emotions and assumptions offer a different conclusion to an innocent action or communication. For instance, when she heard the word of abuse”, it suggested it could have been mistaken for a name of another operative that rhymed. It had spoken to the supervisor of the operatives and there had been a “total denial of all the accusations levelled at them”. If they had “in aversely” (sic) caused her discomfort, the contractor offered “their apogees” (sic).

c.      The resident’s second complaint was “very detailed in observations ..it is mixed with emotions and assumptions”, based on “facial expressions and laughing”, “so it was very difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion to resolve the matter because the surveyor and the resident had different interpretations”. It concluded that she and the surveyor should not have been put in this situation. She should have been informed correctly on its complaints procedure policy and the call was not treated as a complaint but as a “call back”. It apologised. This had caused “confusion and stress to both parties”.

d.     In relation to the third complaint, it stated that that while it understood the resident’s frustration resulting from the landlord’s error, it did not excuse the use of bad language.

e.     It was addressing several outstanding issues from the installation that it had identified.

f.        It had been a difficult time for many people due to the Covid pandemic, and “emotional and physical pressures” that came with it. The landlord has had to “adjust to those pressures” but at the same time provide a service to its customers and client. It offered its “apogees” (sic) and promised “to better next time” (sic). It would close the complaint once the defects were completed.

14. The resident appealed on 13 May 2021 on the basis of the poor and unfinished work and the landlord should have accepted the operative’s account. His behaviour was evidenced by the condition of the kitchen. The landlord’s reply was full of spelling errors. The operative did not call his colleagues by name which did not fit with the landlord’s explanation that she had misheard a name for a term of abuse. Its description of “micro-observations” was insulting. Calls to the landlord were not recorded as stated in the landlord’s recorded telephone greeting. She had seen A in her street on 27 and 30 April 2021 which she later stated demonstrated he had been harassing her.

15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 June 2021 that the investigation would take 20 days and the landlord would then send written confirmation of the outcome to her.

16. According to an internal email of 13 July 2021, the parties had arranged to complete the snagging on 22 July 2021 with different operatives to attend.

17. The resident wrote on 13 July 2021 that she had been informed that day that the landlord had not received her appeal which the resident found to be “suspicious”. It would be expected that A would “deny everything”. The landlord appeared to have “parroted” what A had said and decided to accept his word over hers, suggesting that she was imagining what had happened or had misread the situation. His behaviour was evidenced by the fact that the works were incomplete. That he “was hanging around excessively” was evidenced by the kitchen in the property below took four days and hers six. When the team returned to carry out the works in the property below, A laughed loudly as she walked past and followed her in his van. The landlord should have listened to her calls with the surveyor.

18. On 16 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:

a.     It referred to its complaint policy as regards an appeal stating that a complaint review would require new evidence or it was demonstrated it had not investigated the complaint satisfactorily. It did not take the view the resident had provided new evidence or shown that her complaint had not been fully investigated. It gave her until the 19 July 2021 for the resident to provide this information.

19. The landlord wrote to the resident with its second stage response on 19 July 2021 as follows:

a.     It referred to the appeal it had received on 13 May 2021.

b.     The landlord had not upheld the appeal as she had not provided any new evidence or highlighted any areas where it had failed to address her complaint. It had had a telephone conversation with her to request any new information and asked what would resolve the complaint but the resident did not provide a “tangible” outcome she wished to achieve.

c.      The contractors were to attend that week to rectify any outstanding works and it would not send the same operatives that had previously attended.

20. The resident wrote on 19 July 2021 with a further appeal as follows:

a.     The work in the kitchen was poor and unfinished which did not demonstrate “professional people who work to a high standard” and evidenced her claims about A.

b.     The landlord’s letter of 11 May 2021 was not only full of spelling mistakes, indicating carelessness, but it was insulting to suggest she had misheard the operative using a term of abuse.

c.      She did not see how she could have misinterpreted events.

d.     She reiterated her points of 13 May 2021.

e.     She had spoken to the officer who dealt with the complaint at stage one who had answered his phone with “ok.”, instead of with a form of politeness like “How can I help you?” His response to her intention to appeal was “Ok well that’s your prerogative”, which she considered to be unnecessary and inappropriate. She felt that he was unhelpful about the process.

21. The resident informed this service on 17 September 2021 that the outstanding work had been completed at the end of July / beginning of August 2021 but to a poor standard and there had been a miscommunication regarding the space for the dishwasher. Her mental health had been affected. She wanted compensation for emotional and psychological distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

22. The resident reported how the events complained of affected her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the conduct of the landlord’s contractor.

23. Where there is a dispute between two accounts of an incident, the Ombudsman appreciates that it may not be possible for a landlord to conclude with any certainty which account to prefer. The Ombudsman is unable to make findings as to the conduct of A, however our role is to assess the way in which the landlord responded to a resident’s report. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out an investigation as far as it is able and reasonable to do so.

24. The detail of the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s complaint was not clear as there were no notes of the landlord’s conversations with the contractor. The surveyor’s email of 31 March 2021 implied that he spoke to A directly as his email of 31 March 2021 referred to claims “against him”. There were no records of that discussion and no explanation why the surveyor considered the resident’s claims were unfounded. The response letter of 11 May 2021 referred to the responding officer’s conversation with the supervisor, demonstrating he had carried out a separate investigation into the resident’s complaint. However, again, the landlord did not provide any notes of the conversations with the contractor to this Service. While the landlord itself noted the surveyor left no notes, it is not clear why the landlord did not provide notes of the second conversation. Either way, the position is not satisfactory.

25. While this indicated a weakness in the investigation, there was no definitive evidence that the landlord could have taken further steps in order to investigate the resident’s reports. The resident considered that the issues with the kitchen and leaving rubbish were retaliatory and that the team prolonged the job and A was in the resident’s area for his own purposes was evidence of A’s conduct. However, the Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to consider that this was insufficient on which to base a conclusion. There may or may not have been an underlying motive, but would be very difficult for a landlord to assess motive on the basis of the reported issues.

26. While not doubting the sincerity of the resident, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to take steps against the contractor or award compensation to the resident where it was not able to establish the facts with any certainty. While it was possible that A would deny reports that may have been true, as unsatisfying as this was to the resident, who was clearly distressed, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord had no means of ascertaining the exact facts.

27. However, there were aspects of the landlord’s approach which were unsatisfactory, which was particularly inappropriate given the nature, range and seriousness of the resident’s reports. The resident’s claims covered a wide spectrum of behaviour, ranging from at worse, a racist attitude, sexual predatoriness and the use of abusive language, to, at best, unintended behaviour that was over familiar. Given the requirements in the landlord’s code of conduct for contractors, to be sensitive and “approachable but formal”, the landlord’s response was inadequate, given it was so unspecific. There were references in the resident’s complaint to issues such as leaving tools in an inconvenient place and playing music, which were standards cited in the contractor’s code of conduct. Apart from the personal comments, it limited itself to a generalised denial and did not, for example, explain why the works took six rather than four days. The landlord’s response did not take the nuances into account except to state that the contractor apologised, “if” the team had inadvertently caused the resident discomfort. Moreover, its position was that it believed the contractor and disbelieved the resident, and without citing reasons for doing so, rather than maintaining a neutral position in the face of conflicting narratives, as it did in the complaint regarding the surveyor,

28. The landlord is referred to paragraph 52 (f) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has treated the complainant in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s approach and tone lacked empathy. By critiquing the resident’s style of expression and referring to her psychological state as the cause of her responses to A, it was also presumptuous and personal in tone and content. In asserting that the “mode” of the complaint she had made to the landlord created a stressful environment for the operatives, it made an assumption that the team was aware of the resident would be making a complaint, even before she had made it. It was unreasonable to criticise a vulnerable resident for her approach in making a complaint. It also indicated that her complaint was detrimental to the contractors. Such an approach to complaint handling risks discouraging a resident from making reports of complaints.

29. While the landlord was entitled to object to a resident using words of abuse to its staff and adopt a zero-tolerance approach, in particular without setting out any proper grounds, the incident of the telephone call on 1 April 2021 would have been better dealt with separately, rather than as if that was the conclusion of the third complaint.

30. While it is true that lockdown affected the population in a variety of ways, and the resident herself said it had affected her, the landlord’s approach came across as unprofessional and lacking in objectivity, added to which the response contained typographical errors which indicated a lack of proper care by the landlord.

31. While the landlord may not have been in a position to reach a definitive conclusion as to the events, the Ombudsman finds maladministration as to the manner in which the landlord responded to the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the quality of the kitchen installation.

32. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report about the quality of the works by attending the property the following day after the resident’s reports, to take photographs and to identify the outstanding issues. It was reasonable of the landlord to use a different team of operatives to carry out the remaining works.

33. The landlord did not provide any evidence to the Ombudsman as to what the snagging list consisted of. However, the evidence showed there were clearly issues to address. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have proactively inspected a property after a significant refurbishment. There was no evidence that there was a plan to do so. There was then a significant delay from 9 March 2021 to July 2021 in carrying out those works. While this may have been partially explained by difficulties with the resident’s contact details and the impact of the pandemic, this was not addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.

34. While the Ombudsman would expect a certain amount of snagging following a kitchen installation, the Ombudsman finds service failure given the cumulative effect of lack of communication, the unexplained delay, and the lack of a proactive post inspection. The level of compensation the Ombudsman will order will reflect that the impact was not of significant duration.

The landlord’s complaint handing including: her complaint about staff conduct and being given incorrect information.

35. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about its surveyor in accordance with its policy, namely by referring to the landlord’s code of conduct. The code itself does not appear to be on the landlord’s website and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. There was no evidence that the landlord made enquiries as to the resident’s report of her conversation with the surveyor. There was a lack of investigation as the landlord did not listen to the calls or seek the surveyor’s notes. Had it done so, it would have ascertained sooner that there were limited

notes at the time. This may have been due to the landlord not recording its calls or making notes. Not to do either is unsatisfactory and, if the landlord states that it records its calls, that is less satisfactory still, and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

36. It was unreasonable to state in its complaint response of 10 May 2021 that the surveyor was impacted by the landlord giving incorrect guidance, as it made his conversation with the resident. While it took responsibility for the cause of the stress, it implied an unspecified criticism of the resident’s approach. However, on the basis of the evidence before the landlord, and the differing accounts, the landlord could only conclude it was unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

37. While the evidence indicated that the landlord forwarded the resident’s complaint of 9 March 2021 to its complaint team, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not log or acknowledge the complaint. This was exacerbated on 31 March 2021 by the landlord treating the resident’s call to the surveyor as a call back. The landlord accepted that the resident had been misinformed about the complaint process however, there appeared to be some confusion about the events, whether the error occurred on 9 March 2021 or 31 March 2021. Moreover, while it is not clear whether it would have been the appropriate choice, given the complaints policy, the evidence indicated that, initially, the surveyor was “responding officer”, until the resident requested a transfer. The landlord’s position was therefore contradictory in stating the call should not have been transferred to him.

38. The landlord acted reasonably in acknowledging and apologising there had been an error in the information it had provided. The Ombudsman considers an apology to be a reasonable response to that particular issue, given that while the resident was caused stress and frustration, as the Ombudsman considers that the impact was of short duration.

39. However, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling overall. There were significant delays in the landlord’s responses, from 9 March 2021 to 19 July 2021 as well as some confusion whether the landlord had received her appeal of 13 May 2021. It did not address the resident’s complaint comprehensively. While it reasonably kept the complaint open until the installation defects were resolved, it did not address the complaint or other issues, such as the contractors leaving rubbish behind. In assessing the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman takes into account the accumulative impact on the resident of the various service failures this report has identified.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the conduct of the landlord’s contractor.

41. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the quality of the kitchen installation.

42. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling including the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and being given incorrect information.

Reasons

43. While the landlord was unable to make definitive findings in the resident’s complaint, the records of its investigation were inadequate and its approach in its correspondence was unsatisfactory.

44. While the landlord addressed the flaws in the kitchen installation, there was no evidence of a post inspection and there were largely unexplained delays in addressing the snagging.

45. There were delays in the complaint handling, the complaint responses were not comprehensive, and it did not comply with its own policy as regard staff complaints.

Orders

46. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £550 within 4 weeks as follows:

a.     £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the conduct of the landlord’s contractor.

b.     £150 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the quality of the kitchen installation.

c.      £200 in relation to landlord’s complaint handling, including the resident’s complaint about staff conduct and being given incorrect information.

47. The landlord should, if the resident agrees, within 28 days, record with all its services that the resident is vulnerable, in order to inform the appropriate standard of response from the landlord.

48. The landlord should confirm compliance with the Ombudsman within 28 days.

Recommendations

49. The landlord should consider offering the resident mediation with itself in order to improve the landlord and resident relationship.

50.  The landlord should review its arrangements with its contractors to ensure they comply with the landlord’s Code of Conduct including ensuring that works are completed to a satisfactory standard.

51. The landlord should ensure that it monitors its contractors’ performance, including carrying out post-inspections, where appropriate, such as larger projects.

52. The landlord it should review its approach to record keeping in the light of the findings of this report and ensure that accurate and contemporaneous notes are kept of all contacts.

53. The landlord should consider a review of its customer care, including:

a.      whether it should records telephone calls and to ensure any telephone greeting accords with its practices.

b.     Taking care in remaining an objective tone and that it does not discourage complaints.

c.      The landlord should make every reasonable effort to ensure that its correspondence does not contain typographical errors.

54. The landlord should ensure that its Code of Conduct is accessible on its website, if it is not so already.

55. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.