Accent Housing Limited (202221854)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221854

Accent Housing Limited

25 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The repair of a ventilation grill at her property.
   2. The conduct of a staff member of the landlord.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. The landlord arranged for the repair of an exterior ventilation grill at the property in October 2022. The wrong type of grill was fitted at the initial appointment and a follow-on appointment to fit the correct grill type failed due to no-access. The grill was successfully replaced on 25 November 2022.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 December 2022. The complaint included the following:
   1. The initial installation of the incorrect ventilation grill. The resident also highlighted the cold draught she experienced in the property while the repair remained outstanding and the adverse effect on her health the issue had caused.
   2. The failed appointment, which the resident advised was due to the operative failing to ring the doorbell. The resident explained that she was not at the property at the time, but if the operative had used the doorbell, she would have given permission to enter the rear of the property to complete the work. The resident noted that she had done this previously for repairs that only required access to the gardens of the property.
   3. The landlord’s poor communication when attempting to arrange a new appointment, including its failure to respond to her social media posts.
   4. The conduct of the landlord’s staff member, who she considered to have displayed a dismissive attitude and addressed her inappropriately. The resident requested a copy of the recording of the call.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord included the following:
   1. It explained that the wrong cover type was provided for the grill replacement work on 5 October 2022, which required a follow-on appointment to be made to complete the repair.
   2. It apologised for the operative not using the doorbell when they attended on 15 November 2022, and acknowledged that this should have occurred.
   3. It confirmed that the resident’s social media posts were acknowledged the day after they were sent and that the videos she provided were passed on to its technical team.
   4. It apologised for the resident being spoken to in an inappropriate manner by a staff member and informed the resident that it had taken steps to ensure in the future that she would be addressed appropriately. The landlord explained that as the telephone call was transferred between two departments, the recorded of the call had stopped and it therefore was unable to provide her with a recording.
   5. It offered £370 compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience the matter had caused her.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days and that recall appointments should be completed with 15 days. The policy defines a recall as a work order raised as a result of the work from the original appointment not being completed to a satisfactory standard.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a complainant discretionary compensation in circumstances “where we have failed to provide services, or the quality of the service provided has fallen below our agreed standards, including adequate response times; or refunding reasonable costs that a customer would not have incurred if not for our service failure.”

Scope of investigation

8. When raising a complaint with the landlord, the resident described the effect on her health this issue had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Grill replacement

9. On receiving the report from the resident about the issues with the grill, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
10. Initially, the landlord acted appropriately. Both the original and follow-on appointments were raised and attended within its published timescales for non-emergency and recall repairs detailed above. However, there was clear service failure in how it responded to the issue following these appointments. The operative who attended on 15 November 2022 did not make proper attempts to contact the resident prior to marking the appointment. The landlord’s internal correspondence also shows that there was confusion as to the outstanding issue following the resident reporting the failed appointment as the landlord initially recorded the issues as a faulty extractor fan.
11. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation, and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by completing the replacement of the grill and offering £370 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by improving its communication with the resident and ensuring its contractors confirm it has the correct items to complete the repair at the first appointment.
13. The landlord’s compensation offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website), which suggests a payment from £100 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the offer of £370 that recognised the failed appointment on 15 November 2022, the poor service experienced by the resident in chasing up the status of the repair, and the inconvenience that this caused would be appropriate in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
14. The resident has requested further compensation to recognise the increase in heating costs. The landlord’s internal correspondence includes internal emails sent on 19 December 2022, that discussed the resident’s social media posts and videos. The videos appeared to show a draught entering the resident’s property from the vent, which the resident had attempted to block. Therefore, in line with its compensation policy, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide its position on compensation to reimburse the resident for the increase in heating costs caused by the delay in replacing the grill.
15. In order for the landlord to calculate a suitable compensation amount, it would be reasonable for it to request evidence that showed the resident’s energy usage, such as utility bills that showed the difference in usage from when the grill was in place compared to when the repair to the girl remained outstanding. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and give its position on additional compensation, If necessary, it should explain what type of evidence it requires to consider offering further compensation for energy usage during the period the repair was outstanding. It should then write back to the resident on receipt of this evidence to inform her of its decision.

Staff conduct

16. As part of her complaint, the resident highlighted the conduct of the staff member she spoke to following the failure of the 15 November 2022 appointment. The resident informed the landlord that the staff member did not properly respond to the issue and addressed her in a belittling manner.
17. The poor communication from staff members was considered in the landlord’s compensation offer and its apology made in the stage two complaint response described above. It was also appropriate for the landlord to respond directly to the resident’s dissatisfaction with how she was addressed by the staff member. The landlord apologised for this in its complaint responses, explained that the staff member had been spoken to and it had taken steps to ensure the resident would be addressed appropriately in the future. The landlord has provided this service evidence that on 1 December 2021, internal emails were sent and notes added to its system explaining to its staff how to properly address the resident.
18. Therefore, in the circumstances, the landlord’s complaint investigation and subsequent actions were reasonable and proportionate. The landlord responded to the poor communication the resident received as detailed above, apologised for the manner in which she was addressed during the telephone call, and ensured that its staff were made aware of how the resident wished to be addressed the future. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total compensation offered across both complaints, along with the landlord’s apology, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the repair to the grill and the conduct of its staff, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved these complaints.

Recommendations

20. As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £370 compensation, it is recommended that this is now paid to the resident if the landlord has yet to do so.
21. It is further recommended that the landlord write to the resident and explain what type of evidence it requires to consider offering further compensation for energy usage during the period the repair was outstanding. It should then write back to the resident on receipt of this evidence to inform her of its decision.