Aster Group Limited (202229055)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229055

Aster Group Limited

14 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:
    1. Reports of no heating and hot water.
    2. Reports of a blocked sink.
    3. Reports about cuckooing at her property.
    4. Concerns of being bullied and threatened by staff.
    5. Reports that the resident has not received care.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The landlord’s records note that the resident has health conditions, including mental and physical health vulnerabilities.
  2. Between 9 November 2022 and the time of the resident’s complaint in March 2023, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water, that gangs had taken over her property and that she was being cuckooed.
  3. In March 2023 the resident sought our assistance to complain to her landlord. She complained that she did not have heating or hot water. We asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 of its complaints process.
  4. On 24 March 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that inspections on 17 and 20 February 2023 revealed that the resident had turned off the Economy 7 heating system because she believed it had been tampered with by gangs she thought had broken into her property. The landlord also confirmed that since January 2022, the locks had been changed 11 times due to the resident’s concerns about her property’s safety and fears of being cuckooed. However, the landlord stated that there was no evidence to support these reports or evidence of forced entry. The resident was encouraged to report any concerns to the police so that the landlord and the authorities could work together to address any crime-related issues.
  5. On 3 April 2023 the resident contacted our Service. Our records indicate that obtaining specific information about the resident’s complaint or why she remained dissatisfied was difficult. After clarification, we established that the resident reported having no heating or hot water and a blocked sink. She also mentioned needing the landlord to complete an emergency care order. We requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
  6. On 12 April 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. The landlord was unclear whether the resident wanted to escalate her complaint but proceeded with its complaint investigation.
  7. On 19 April 2023 the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint. It reiterated the stage 1 response regarding reports of no heating and hot water, and confirmed the immersion was tested on 3 March 2023 and found to be working. The landlord visited with police on 16 March 2023 but found no evidence of forced entry or the property being insecure. Additionally, the landlord addressed the reports of cuckooing and said it had no evidence of unauthorised individuals using the property but had raised the resident’s concerns to the police. During the telephone call on 12 April 2023 the resident said that staff had threatened and bullied her. The landlord asked for more details, but the resident did not provide any. Without more information, the landlord connected this to the resident receiving a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) in February 2023, suggesting that the resident may have felt threatened by it. The resident was encouraged to seek support to manage her tenancy.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her complaints.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. In the resident’s complaint escalation request, she informed us and the landlord that she had requested a care order but the landlord had not provided one. The landlord clarified that it was not a care provider and that the resident needed a Care Act assessment. The landlord had directed the resident to the appropriate service for support, but at that time, the resident had not pursued the assessment. 
  2. Under paragraph 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The landlord has explained that it is not a care provider and, therefore, this matter is outside our jurisdiction to investigate. We encourage the resident, with the help of the landlord, to re-engage with the appropriate service to complete an assessment. 

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues. We have been unable to contact the resident to clarify which matters remain outstanding. Therefore, we have investigated the complaints addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Assessment

  1. We understand the complexity and sensitivity of this case involving a vulnerable resident. We also acknowledge the challenges posed by the resident’s unclear complaint, making it difficult to understand her concerns fully. We recognise the additional difficulties the resident has faced due to significant health challenges during this time, making the investigation more challenging for the landlord and, subsequently, for us.

Heating and hot water

  1. On 6 February 2023 the resident reported a lack of heating and hot water, which the landlord logged as an urgent repair. However, the priority given to this job did not align with the landlord’s repairs policy. According to the repairs policy, a heating failure for a vulnerable resident is classified as a critical emergency and should be attended to within 4 hours.
  2. On 9 February 2023 the job was reclassified as a routine response due to the landlord’s requirement for police presence. Previous inspections, notably an inspection on 21 December 2023, posed difficulties, leading to a recommendation for future visits to be conducted in pairs or with police for staff safety.
  3. The landlord said the repair was addressed on 17 and 20 February 2023. However, the repair records referenced in job number WA203410 do not indicate that anyone checked the heating on either of those dates. Evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2023 to inquire when someone would attend to her heating. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the repair. The landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed and outside of its repair timeframe.
  4. The evidence available notes that the resident has turned off her heating system in the past. However, the landlord must still respond to the repair within the specified timeframes, particularly considering the time of year the report was made.
  5. We understand that the delay was partly due to the landlord needing to send two people for the visit. While prioritising staff safety is important, the lack of immediate action following the report is concerning, especially given the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should have procedures in place to ensure that two-person visits are carried out promptly and that repairs are not delayed as a result.
  6. While it is important to consider the resident’s experience, the evidence indicates that the heating system was in working order but was turned off due to the resident’s concerns that gangs had tampered with it. Although the resident’s actions were beyond the landlord’s control, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delay in attending to the matter. This was a service failure, and the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the delay.

Blocked sink

  1. The resident reported a blocked sink on 31 March 2023. The job was classified as urgent and should have been attended to within 5 working days as outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. There was a slight departure from this timescale by 2 working days. The repair was attended and the landlord renewed the trap and cleared the blockage on 4 April 2023. The delay was not significant, and there is no evidence that the resident was adversely affected by the delay. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s response to the repair.

Cuckooing

  1. The resident reported feeling unsafe due to gang activity taking over her property. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns demonstrated a considerate approach to understanding the potential impact of her vulnerabilities and ensuring she had the necessary support in place.
  2. We acknowledge that the resident was distressed by the reports she made. The landlord committed to addressing the resident’s concerns by coordinating with the police to secure the property, arranging lock changes, and liaising appropriately with other support agencies through partnership meetings.
  3. The landlord made support referrals to the mental health team to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the resident’s welfare and mental health and to provide the necessary support. At that time, the resident decided not to engage with support services.
  4. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not have any proof to suggest that the resident was being exploited or that a gang had taken over her property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for more information to substantiate her claims to enable it to take further action in conjunction with the police.
  5. We empathise with how upsetting the reports were for the resident but also for the landlord’s staff, who received calls detailing disturbing events. Throughout this case, it is clear that the landlord approached these matters with care, support, and empathy, showing respect to a resident who was crisis distressed.  It is commendable how the landlord handled extremely distressing calls from the resident and continued to proactively engage with support services with the resident’s welfare a priority.
  6. Our investigation has no evidence supporting the resident’s reports or that the landlord did not handle her concerns appropriately. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Bullied and threatened by staff

  1. It has been difficult to determine when the resident first reported feeling bullied and threatened by staff members. However, evidence indicates this matter was brought up on 12 April 2023, following the landlord’s call regarding the resident’s complaint.
  2. In the absence of evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for more information to investigate the resident’s reports. Despite this request, the resident could not provide additional information beyond her initial concern. The landlord believed the resident’s concerns related to the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) issued earlier that year. To show continued support, the landlord once again encouraged the resident to engage with the support offered to help maintain her tenancy.
  3. The landlord showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously by requesting specific information to investigate. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns, explained its position, and found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports. We are satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report and that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a blocked sink.
    2. The resident’s reports of cuckooing.
    3. The resident’s reports of being bullied and threatened by staff.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for care was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the delay in addressing her report of having no heating and hot water.
    2. Review the procedure for two-person visits. The landlord should explain how it will mitigate similar delays in the future when a visit requires two people to attend.