Together Housing Association Limited (202329670)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. He reported issues with a leaking roof and the landlord arranged an appointment to attend the property. The landlord cancelled the appointment on the day, saying it was due to an increase in emergency repairs. The resident raised a complaint due to the short notice and reported lost income from waiting at home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:

• The landlord’s rescheduling of a roof repair appointment.
• The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s rescheduling of a roof repair appointment.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Acted reasonably in rescheduling the appointment due to needing to prioritise emergency repairs. It communicated appropriately and was not required to compensate the resident for loss of income.
   2. Unreasonably refused to investigate the resident’s initial complaint. It then appropriately remedied this failure by issuing a Stage 1 complaint response that included an apology and compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. In this case, the landlord called the resident to explain the cancellation and rescheduled his appointment promptly. The cancellation was due to emergency repairs arising because of weather-related issues which were outside the landlord’s control.
6. Although the landlord acted appropriately in rescheduling and updating the resident, its email on 21 November 2023 refusing to deal with his complaint within its complaints procedure lacked empathy and did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about lost income.
7. In line with Ombudsman guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, compensation for loss of income is not usually awarded. This is because residents are expected to provide access for repairs under their tenancy agreement. The landlord’s complaints policy also says it will not compensate for circumstances outside its control.
8. The landlord subsequently tried to put the matter right by contacting the resident about his complaint. In its complaint response dated 26 July 2024, the landlord explained it had to prioritise emergency repairs. Although the cancellation likely caused frustration, the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policies. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s rescheduling of the roof repair appointment.

9. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at the time when it initially refused to investigate. It excluded the complaint based on its belief that no service failure had occurred. The Code said that a landlord’s complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. The landlord’s complaints policy did not include as a reason for refusing to consider a complaint that it believed there was no service failure. Determining that no service failure occurred before investigating undermined the fairness of the complaints process.
10. By refusing to investigate, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issue early and failed to consider the impact on the resident. Its email dated 21 November 2023, in which it said it would not investigate the complaint, contained a number of grammatical and spelling errors. This likely communicated a lack of care by the landlord to the resident. However, it later carried out a complaint investigation and contacted the resident.
11. The landlord showed learning by reviewing its exclusions process and offered £50 compensation for inconvenience. Whilst the initial refusal was a service failure, the investigation and compensation provided reasonable redress.

Learning

12. The landlord showed learning by reviewing its complaint exclusions process. This subsequently led to a more appropriate handling of the complaint. This review showed an improved understanding of the importance of a clear route to escalation and a formal response, in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

13. We have not identified any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

14. The landlord’s email dated 21 November 2023 contained numerous grammatical and spelling errors. This was poor and likely communicated to the resident a lack of care and attention to his concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to call the resident before issuing its complaint response dated 26 July 2024. This was positive engagement and showed a willingness to try and resolve the issue.