Cornwall Council (202347444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347444

Cornwall Council

18 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Concerns about the conduct of its contactors attending the property without identification.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy started in November 2020.
3. The resident has reported that he has a disability and is vulnerable due to being elderly.

Summary of events

4. On 7 February 2024 the landlord’s gas operative attended the resident’s property to complete an annual gas service. The operative failed to show identification.
5. The resident raised a complaint and escalated it to the landlord on 7 February 2024 about the operative’s lack of identification. The resident reported that this was not reasonable given that the operatives were visiting older vulnerable people. In both of the landlord’s complaint responses it agreed that it was unacceptable for its operative to not show their identification. It apologised and confirmed it had arranged for its sub-contractors to undertake training in wearing identification. The landlord said it would review this on a weekly basis. It also offered the resident compensation of £100 to cover the cost of the resident buying a camera doorbell to make him feel more secure. Also, £50 to cover its complaint handling failures.
6. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident said the landlord did not fully address his concerns. He reported that the landlord had continued to send operatives without identification. The resident said this had left him feeling scared in his own home fearing someone could break in and assault him.

Assessment and findings

7. The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

9. The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the conduct of its contactors attending the property without identification

10. The landlord’s repair guidelines state that when it attends residents’ properties it will introduce and identify themselves.
11. In this case, the landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property on 7 January 2024. The operative attended to complete a gas safety check which is a yearly mandatory requirement. This is confirmed under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 that landlords are required to carry out annual safety checks on gas appliances and flues (and ensure a record is kept and issued, or in certain cases, displayed to tenants) and carry out ongoing maintenance.
12. The resident reported that the operative failed to show their identification despite him requesting it. This understandably caused the resident distress given his disability and age. The landlord’s records show that at the time the resident contacted the landlord as he was concerned about the operative. The landlord provided reassurance that the operative was legitimate and working on its behalf. It apologised and provided reassurance that it would contact its sub-contractors to ensure identification is worn. This was reasonable as the landlord acknowledged its failings and provided assurance that it would make improvements.
13. Whilst this Service cannot comment on previous reports, the resident has said that 2 years ago he reported to the landlord that an operative did not show identification. This clearly remained a concern to the resident given his reported vulnerabilities.
14. In this case, the landlord had confirmed that operatives working on its behalf should wear identification. It is understandable that the resident was concerned that this did not happen during his gas safety check. The landlord apologised and provided reassurance that it was going to provide training on its processes regarding identification.
15. In the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses it acknowledged its failures to show identification. It agreed to make service improvements to ensure all of its operatives show identification. This is in line with our Complaint Code to acknowledge when things go wrong and make improvements to its service delivery.
16. In its stage 2 complaint responses it awarded £100 to cover the resident’s request for a camera doorbell. This aimed to make the resident feel more secure. This was in line with its own remedies’ guidance to award £100 for the failings identified. Also, our Complaint Code guidelines as it was customer focused in awarding compensation for the camera doorbell.
17. This service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of concerns about the conduct of its contactors attending the property without identification. The remedies offered were fair, put things right and the landlord learnt from the outcomes. Its offer of £100 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and reflective of its compensation policy.

The associated complaint

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
19. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
20. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 7 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. The landlord provided its response 9 working days later which is in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code.
21. The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process on 20 February 2024. The following day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 22 working days later. The landlord’s delays at stage 2 was minimal but still outside of its complaint guidelines.
22. The landlord apologised for its stage 2 complaint delay and offered £50 in compensation for its complaint handling delays. This is in line with its compensation guidelines as the delay was not lasting or a significant detriment. This is also in line with our Complaint Code.
23. With this in mind, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of concerns about the conduct of its contactors attending the property without identification
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

25. It is recommended that the landlord, if it has not already done so, to make the compensation payment offered at stage 1 and stage 2. This amounts to £150 to contribute to the cost of a ring doorbell.