Futures Housing Group Limited (202212340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212340

Futures Housing Group Limited

17 September 2024

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 resident’s concern regarding the requirement for him to pay for the call system through the service charge.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to stop paying for the call system after it broke following a fire.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy started in 2011. The property is on a sheltered scheme and is a designated sheltered property.
3. The landlord said the resident had informed it on its new user form where vulnerability information is recorded that he had ‘chronic back pain’. However, this Service notes that in a more recent new user form (2021), the resident has listed other health issues.
4. On 30 August 2022, a fire broke out in an adjacent property which caused damage to the hardwired ‘lifeline’ pull chord alarm system (lifeline call system) causing this to stop working. On the same day the landlord contacted residents on the scheme offering an alternative temporary system.
5. On 31 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the lifeline call system. He said it was the third time that year he had been told the lifeline call system was not working. The resident said he had been told it would not be working for up to 6 months and he said he should not have to pay for a service he was not receiving. He asked to stop making payments in relation to the call system until it was fully reinstated.
6. In its reply to the resident dated 1 September 2022, the landlord stated:
   1. It was unable to cancel the charge for the lifeline call system as this was not an optional service and was part of his tenancy agreement.
   2. Unfortunately, the cause of the system failure was outside of its control but it was doing “everything” it could to get the service functional again.
   3. It had offered him a ‘like–for–like’ system which it could install including linked smoke alarms, that would provide “exactly the same level of service”.
   4. At present it had no timescales for repair, but it believed the repair could take up to 6 months. It was sorry about this.
   5. If he would like the temporary call system to be installed, he needed to contact a member of its team (it provided contact details).
7. On 18 September 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He referred to his contact with the landlord on 31 August 2022 when he said he had asked to cease making payments for the call system while it was not working. The resident was unhappy about the landlord’s refusal of his request, and said it was wrong of the landlord to continue charging him for the service after it broke down following a fire. He acknowledged that the landlord had asked if he wanted a temporary system installed but he declined this as he said he never wanted or needed this service.
8. On 20 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would provide a response within 10 working days. On 29 September 2022, the landlord told the resident he would receive a complaint response by 4 October 2022 and that it would post to him the supporting documents attached to its 20 September 2022 email.
9. On 4 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response which said it had completed its investigation and stated:
   1. It understood it was frustrating when things go wrong, and it was sorry about this.
   2. In this instance the circumstance (the fire) was outside of its control.
   3. Its independent living manager had already provided a response to his complaint on 1 September 2022 and having reviewed this it was satisfied with the information provided to him.
   4. It had seen the disclaimer form he signed on 31 August 2022 which clearly stated the service was still chargeable. This was also stated in sections 2.3 and 2.8 of his tenancy agreement.
   5. As at 20 September 2022 its contractor was still unable to enter the building, but it would follow this up today to ascertain if they could enter the building safely to reinstate the system.
10. On 5 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying:
    1. He had received the signed disclaimer form dated 31 August 2022 that it had posted to him. While this form had his signature on it, the date looked like it had been changed.
    2. He had signed the disclaimer form when the lifeline call system had broken on two previous occasions that year however this was because he had been told it would be broken for a few hours or days only.
    3. He would not have signed a form stating he would pay when he knew he wanted to stop paying, that would be “daft”.
11. On 6 October 2022, the landlord replied to the resident explaining that the person who filled in the date originally put ‘31.09.22’. It said realising the error as they were in the month of August at the time and that September only had 30 days, ‘9’ was altered to ‘8’. The landlord said this was a genuine error and did not affect authenticity of the form.
12. The landlord reiterated that the resident had been offered a like–for–like replacement which he had declined by signing the disclaimer, which he acknowledged in a previous email to it. The offer to install this alternative remained should he change his mind at any time. It said it was working with its insurance loss adjusters and the local authority but as he would be aware, bringing things back to normality after a fire could be “a very lengthy process”.
13. On the same date, the resident replied stating he was glad the landlord was aware of the date on the form being changed but he was unhappy that the landlord had dated the form in the first place. He reiterated he had signed the form on previous occasions. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 October 2022 and told him it would provide a stage 2 final response within 20 working days.
15. On 17 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response. This stated:
    1. It understood the recent fire in an adjacent property had damaged the ‘hardwired’ system linking the resident’s call system. It reiterated this event was something outside of its control.
    2. To compensate for the hardwired system not working, it had offered every customer a dispersed unit and pendant, with a linked wireless smoke alarm. This ensured each affected resident was able to continue to receive support as they need it 24 hours daily, as all are directly linked to its 24-hour monitoring centre.
    3. It appreciated the resident said he never wanted the system, but he was fully aware this service was part of the tenancy associated with the property. He had also engaged with annual reviews provided under the service.
    4. It had reviewed the disclaimer form, and it believed the resident signed this on 31 August 2022 however it agreed that the date has been changed from what it could establish to be 31.10.22 to 31.08.22. It has spoken to the team responsible who advised this was an error which they rectified at the time. Given the date was in the future, and not a date pre-August, it had no reason to challenge their admission.
    5. It was satisfied that a reasonable alternative solution to the system was offered.
    6. It was satisfied with its stage 1 response as despite the admission of a dating error on his disclaimer form, the resident was fully aware that regardless of him refusing the temporary lifeline solution he would still be charged. Therefore, it would continue to charge the resident for this service.

Assessment and findings

Outside of jurisdiction

16. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In his formal complaint the resident stated he was only paying for the lifeline call system service because of “lies said in court” by the landlord. The issue of the resident’s liability for the cost of the call system through the service charge was considered by the court in 2016. Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint regarding this issue will not be considered in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to stop paying for the warden call system after it broke following a fire.

17. The resident’s property is designated sheltered housing. The landlord operated a lifeline call system on the resident’s scheme. It provided this service to the resident as per the terms of his tenancy. This was a hardwired alarm system which connected calls from pull cords, pendant and smoke alarms to connect to the landlord’s monitoring response centre for support.
18. A fire that broke out in an adjacent property at the resident’s scheme caused damage to the hardwired lifeline call system. As a result, the system stopped working. The landlord informed the resident of this situation on the same day and offered an alternative ‘dispersed’ unit and pendant system.
19. By informing the resident of the situation promptly, the landlord acted reasonably. Furthermore, its offer to install an alternative service shows it acted in accordance with its procedure which requires it to offer a temporary solution in the event of a fault identified with the hardwired call system. The landlord’s procedure gives “a dispersed alarm” as an example of an alternative and this was offered in this case. The resident however declined the temporary alarm system offered and asked the landlord to stop his payments for the service until it was fully reinstated.
20. The resident raised a formal complaint when the landlord refused his request. In its stage 1 complaint the landlord reiterated its position and referenced the disclaimer form which it said the resident had signed. This form stated amongst other things that an alternative alarm and smoke alarm with the same functions had been offered but refused and that the service would still be chargeable.
21. In his escalation request the resident stated while the form contained his signature, he disputed signing the form on 31 August 2022 rather he had signed it earlier in the year on other occasions the service was not working. He said the landlord had changed the date on the form.
22. The landlord’s internal records indicate it had taken steps to get the resident to sign a disclaimer form after offering him the alternative system on 31 August 2022. However, the handwritten date on the disclaimer form had been amended. The landlord’s internal records show that as part of its stage 2 investigation, it made internal enquires with the relevant team regarding what had happened in regard to the date on the form. This action was appropriate.
23. In its final response the landlord acknowledged its team had changed the date from ‘31.10.22’ to ‘31.08.22’ but explained this was due to a ‘genuine’ error as the wrong date had been added to the form when signed by the resident which it then rectified. Having reviewed the amendment on the disclaimer form, on balance, the landlord’s explanation given is credible and consistent with the evidence. However, it is noted in its stage 1 response the landlord had suggested the date had been changed from ‘09’ to ‘08’. This is different to the stage 2 final response and this change would have caused the resident confusion. In the circumstances, to avoid any confusion or misrepresentation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to asked the resident to re-sign the form with the correct date once it had realised its error. Therefore, its failure to do so here indicates its approach was unprofessional and constitutes a failing.
24. This Service recognises that the temporary unit and pendant service offered was a portable system whereas the original was a hardwired system which included fixed pull chords. Nonetheless, as the temporary solution enabled 24-hour support via the landlord’s monitoring response centre, and also had a linked wireless smoke alarm, on balance this constituted a like-for-like service. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to continue paying for the temporary service until the lifeline call system was reinstated.
25. While this Service is unable to investigate events after the date of the landlord’s final response, we expect the landlord to demonstrate it followed through with any promises made during the complaints process. In this case, the landlord provided assurances that it would rectify the original hardwired lifeline service although it mentioned it could take up to 6 months. Given that the fault had been caused by a fire which required the landlord to work with third parties including loss adjusters to rectify, the length of time given was understandable. However, we are mindful that by February 2024, some 17 months after the lifeline call system had been damaged by the fire, the original system had still not been reinstated. In June 2024 this was still outstanding. At this time the landlord told us that it was waiting for “analogue to digital upgrade” which involved the local council and other organisations. Nonetheless, the lack of reinstatement of the original service for this extended length of time is indicative of the landlord failing to provide what it promised the resident.
26. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately by offering the resident an interim solution when the lifeline call system was damaged due to a fire in an adjacent flat. Although it was reasonable for the landlord continue to charge the resident, in the complaints process, the landlord was clear about the alternative solution being temporary. Therefore, the ongoing lack of reinstatement of the hardwired system indicates a failing by the landlord to do what it said it would do. The landlord’s amendment of the date on the disclaimer form was also poor practice. This constitutes maladministration by the landlord while handling of the resident’s request to stop paying for the lifeline call system after it broke following a fire.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy includes discretionary compensation as a remedy for a service failure. Its policy also states will it consider the severity of any service failure and associated impact when considering payment however its policy does not include amounts. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £150 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failing when handling his complaint. This amount falls at the low end of the range recommended for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance which recognises the resident has been impacted, although minimal. This is appropriate here.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraphs 42.e of the Scheme, the resident’s concern regarding the requirement for him to pay for the call system through the service charge is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s request to not pay for the call system after it stopped working following a fire.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s failings while handling the resident’s request to stop paying for the call system after it broke following a fire.
    3. If not already done so, write to the resident explaining the ongoing lack of reinstatement of the original lifeline call system and provide a timescale for this.
    4. Provide the Ombudsman evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

31. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to ensure it has up to date information for him regarding any health issues and vulnerabilities and that these are recorded on its system.