West Kent Housing Association (202214015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214015

West Kent Housing Association

24 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s decision to remove the hardwired lifeline.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s tenancy commenced in March 2017 and she occupies a one-bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The accommodation is for independent adults over 55. The resident is elderly, vulnerable and advised she has a number of health conditions.
3. In January 2022, the landlord took steps to disconnect the external wire to all the lifelines in the accommodation. Subsequently, it sent its contractor to remove the contact boxes from each property.
4. On 1 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint stating she had not been informed about the decommissioning of the system, that the decommissioned hardwired lifeline was a fixture/fitting, and although she wanted a lifeline, she could not afford to pay for the new digital unit. She understood that her housing benefit had previously paid for the lifeline via service charges.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 March 2022. It said the lifelines had been decommissioned on 21 January 2022 and apologised that a letter stating this had not been sent to the resident. Further, its decision to remove the hardwired system within the properties was to allow tenants to choose and pay only for the service they receive. It recognised its contractor attended without an appointment to remove the units and apologised for this. The landlord reminded the resident that it had provided her with options in 2021 and offered to maximise her income to enable her to afford the new equipment.
6. The resident subsequently requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She said that she had moved to the property because it had a lifeline and met her needs. She was not happy that she was now being asked to pay for a service that she previously received for free.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 April 2022. It reiterated its position in its stage 1 response. In addition, it said the first discussions took place in 2016 at a pull cord check and consultation letters were sent to residents advising them of the five-year plan for removal. It acknowledged that the resident said she had not received these letters and apologised. In response to her concerns about the legality of the issue, the landlord said there is no provision in the tenancy agreement that prevents it from removing its items from the property. Additionally, it acknowledged that the resident had advised that a local authority had offered to provide her with a lifeline and pay for her system.
8. The resident referred her complaint to this service on 29 September 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to remove the lifeline and that she would have to pay for a new digital unit, which she said she was unable to afford.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to remove the hardwired lifeline

9. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.         Put things right; and

c.         Learn from outcomes. 

10. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
11. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure its residents were given sufficient information about its plans to remove hardwired lifelines and were offered alternative options, and that their concerns were responded to in an appropriate timeframe.
12. During 2016 and 2017, the landlord said it advised its residents with lifelines in this particular complex that it intended to carry out a programme to remove hardwired (analogue) lifelines and, if the resident wished, to replace them with a digital alternative (plug and play unit) from a selected provider at the resident’s own cost which would not be funded through housing benefit.
13. The government grant that funded the lifelines ceased in April 2018 at which point most of the lifeline costs were covered through housing benefit. However, the resident was still required to pay for the monitoring cost. The landlord was no longer able to provide hardwired alarms such as were previously used as it had made arrangements to convert to digital alternatives, given the announcements made by BT regarding the digitalisation by the end of 2025 of its public switched telephone network.
14. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that housing benefit was not governed by it and covering service charges for a lifeline system would be at the discretion of the local authority. It also said that it is not a legal requirement to have a lifeline in sheltered accommodation. In July 2021, the landlord further clarified that if the resident chose not to accept the digital alternative, she had the option of purchasing her own system or not having a lifeline at all.
15. The rollout of digitalisation and the consequent phasing out of analogue systems is outside the landlord’s control. As such, its decision to remove hardwired lifeline systems deemed incompatible and replace them with modern mobile technology, in good time ahead of 2025, was reasonable. Indeed, the landlord indicated that over 50% of its residents felt a lifeline service was not required and that they were being charged with no choice in the matter.
16. The landlord had an obligation to ensure its residents were safe in their homes but also to update the resident on any changes that could impact this. Although the landlord has provided templates of its consultation letters, there is no evidence that all of these were sent to the resident, as no copies of these letters are addressed to the resident. It is, however, likely that the resident received the letter of July 2021 as she noted that she had replied to it.
17. The resident said the landlord acted unlawfully in removing a fixture/fitting, however, it was within the landlord’s power to remove the fixture/fitting it was responsible for. A landlord can remove or add a service: however given that the system being removed was a lifeline system, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to at an early stage, individually assess the needs of each resident from whom the hardwired system was to be removed, and offer personalised assistance accordingly
18. While the removal of the lifelines appeared to have been a large-scale operation, the landlord’s contractor did not communicate effectively with the resident the date the service would be decommissioned. The resident advised she was unaware of it being decommissioned and stated it was only when the contractor attended to remove the lifeline unit inside her property, that she learned that it was no longer functioning.
19. The resident’s statement is supported by an internal landlord email seen by this service which stated that the resident’s property, along with others, did not receive notification from its contractor of the intended decommissioning date nor of the intended date for the removal of the units. This was in spite of such notifications having been promised in the landlord’s consultation.
20. Although the landlord had no legal obligation to provide the lifeline for this type of accommodation, its failure to share the date the service would be decommissioned with the resident – particularly in light of her known vulnerabilities – placed her in a compromising position for some time. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
21. The cost of a new digital plug and play unit from the landlord’s selected provider was approximately £2.24 per week and this was to be paid for by a resident should they wish to have an alarm. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord cannot be held accountable for the resident’s decision to decline a new digital unit. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord missed an opportunity to proactively support the resident by contacting the local authority on her behalf and alternative lifeline providers. Instead, in its formal responses, it put the onus on the resident to seek alternative help and to apply for a personal alarm system herself.
22. The Ombudsman notes that the resident felt very strongly she should not have to pay for a service for which she previously did not pay, aside from the cost of monitoring. The landlord noted in its internal correspondence that it cannot offer something which is not available, nor set a precedent by offering something it cannot offer to all residents. The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord sought to provide assistance in maximising her income, but the resident declined this offer.
23. The Ombudsman has seen that following contact from the resident, the local authority offered to install a digital unit and fund it for one year, aside from the cost of the electricity. However, the resident has advised this service that she returned the digital unit almost immediately because of her concerns about electricity costs.
24. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it advised her she could consider moving to a type of scheme called ‘Extra Care’ where a hardwired lifeline system is still used. The resident disputes that she was told this. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence this was explained in any of its previous communications or consultation letters.
25. Although, it was reasonable for the landlord to replace hardwired lifelines with modern mobile technology ahead of 2025, it did not adequately communicate the planned dates for the removal. Its communication at times was misleading as seen in its consultation letters which suggested: “it will not remove the resident’s existing lifeline without there being a suitable alternative in place, if the resident still needs it”. This did not happen. While the lifeline remained in the property, it was inoperable as it had been decommissioned without notice in January 2022. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s decision to remove the hardwired lifeline, at the time it did, was unreasonable and warrants a finding of maladministration.
26. Given that there was a lengthy period between the date the initial consultation letters were sent out and the date of decommissioning the lifelines, there should have been a more robust process of communication. For example, a housing officer could have visited each resident well ahead of the planned decommissioning date, to ensure that each individual was fully aware that the present system was to be decommissioned and to fully discuss their options.
27. Although the landlord apologised for its failings, it made no offer of redress to reflect the impact this would have had on the resident. Moreover, the landlord has not demonstrated it has learned from the outcome of the complaint nor set out the steps it would undertake to prevent the recurrence of such a situation.
28. The Ombudsman recognises in March 2023 that the landlord offered to fund the resident’s lifeline as provided by the local authority for a further year, up to a maximum of £300. This was a reasonable approach to take and has been recognised as an attempt to provide the resident with some resolution. This service notes, however, that the resident returned the lifeline and so the landlord could not follow through with this.
29. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that in March 2023, the landlord offered compensation of £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has considered this in the orders below.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove the hardwired lifeline.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £50 offered in March 2023 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its failings in communication, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident a further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in communication as identified in this report.
    3. Arrange a personal visit to the resident by a housing officer who has carried out the appropriate research in advance, to set out all the options, including all associated costs, that would enable her to have a lifeline service that she could be happy with.  If such a system can be identified, and the resident chooses to have it, then the landlord should honour its offer fund the system for the first year up to a maximum of £300.
32. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to make the above payments to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

33. The landlord should ensure that it is communicating changes such as disconnecting lifeline services to residents as and when it is happening. This could be vital information in the instance of an emergency.
34. The landlord should review the 2022/23 and 2023/24 service charge schedules and consider contacting the local authority benefits team as there are charges for Warden Call System and BT line being paid to it from housing benefit and the resident no longer receives a lifeline service.