Blackpool Council (202124721)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124721

Blackpool Council

9 September 2022


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 landlords response to the resident’s:
    1. concerns about a risk marker placed on his tenancy file;
    2. reports of repair works to his boiler and plastering of his kitchen wall.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a house.
  2. The landlord has attached a risk marker to the resident’s tenancy which outlines certain conditions for its staff when attending the resident’s home, due to alleged previous incidents of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour by the resident. It undertakes a risk assessment annually.
  3. A repair was raised on 4 May 2021 due a pressure issue with the resident’s boiler. The boiler was inspected on 10 May 2021 and the landlord’s operative recommended replacement parts. The corresponding repair records noted that the resident was unhappy with the proposed works, due to historical issues with the boiler, and that he requested for the boiler to be replaced.
  4. On 21 May 2021, the landlord raised a repair job to “carry out plastering works to the kitchen and linings.” The job was cancelled on 7 June 2021, although it was unclear why. Both repairs were outstanding at the time of the complaint.
  5. In October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and made a formal complaint due to outstanding repair works. The resident alos believed that the landlord had made false allegations of ASB against him during his tenancy, which he said had impacted the completion of repair works at his home, and believed the landlord had discriminated against his mental health. In response, the landlord said that because it required police to attend the resident’s home during the completion of repairs, the police were unable to commit to the hours needed to carry out the works, but that these could be undertaken as long as the resident was not present at the property. It confirmed it had inspected the resident’s boiler in May 2021, but said he had refused the recommended works at the time as he wanted a new boiler. It agreed that it would now replace the boiler due to its age. It said that having reviewed its records, it was satisfied that it had wrote to the resident several times to make him aware that the risk marker was in place and that it was satisfied that it had acted appropriately in applying this, and also in regards to its handling of the repairs.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint as he disputed that he had refused works to the boiler. He said that he felt victimised and discriminated against, and that he had not been given the opportunity to refute the allegations made against him. In regards to the completion of the outstanding works, he said he was unable to leave the house due to his health condition.
  7. The landlord issued its final response on 8 December 2021. It said that it did not believe that the allegations made against the resident were fabricated, as it had reviewed a minimum of twelve historical incidents reported about the resident from different members of its staff and contractors, which implied a common experience of them at least being verbally abused. It said that having reviewed the situation, it had amended the risk marker so that only two members of staff were needed to attend repairs going forward, and that police attendance was no longer a requirement. It advised the resident its repairs team would contact him to arrange the for the outstanding repairs to be completed. It confirmed that’s its complaints process had been completed and included details for the Housing Ombudsman service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  8. The boiler was replaced on 18 January 2022, and the plastering works to the kitchen wall were completed on 22 February 2022.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to this service and he still believed that the landlord had made false allegations and discriminated against him. He described the impact that the situation had on his family and his health due to the landlord’s handling of his case, and the delay to complete repairs. To resolve the issue, he wanted the landlord to pay compensation for discrimination against mental health, and negligence.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Polices

  1. The landlord has a zero-tolerance policy regarding workplace violence and abuse. It stresses the importance of the safety and security of its staff members, and states that it will not tolerate acts or threats or physical violence, intimidation or harassment towards them. It outlines its employees’ duties to report the occurrence of these incidents in order for it to tackle this type of behaviour in the workplace.
  2. To prevent incidents of violence or abuse, the above policy outlines that the landlord will undertake a risk assessment. The policy states that the process should be undertaken in varying levels of detail depending on the relevant service activities, and is an ongoing and dynamic process. Where a risk is identified, the policy states that an action plan or strategy for dealing with potential concerns should be in place and clearly documented, with the methods used to prevent and respond to such behaviours. It states that it will ensure that all possible preventative action is taken to minimise the risk of similar incidents occurring.
  3. The landlord also operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy defines a ‘routine repair’ as any “non-urgent work where the repair does not cause immediate inconvenience or pose danger to occupants.” It states it will respond to these repairs within 28 days. It also defines ‘programmed works’ as works such as plastering and structural repairs, which it will respond to within 60 days.

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the course of this complaint, the resident has raised concerns about incidents of alleged antisocial behaviour and subsequent risk markers dating back to 2011. It is not evident that formal complaints about these concerns were made at the time the issues arose. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst these historical concerns provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on more recent events, specifically those surrounding the complaint raised in 2021.
  2. In his complaints to the landlord, and this service, the resident sought compensation for negligence and discrimination. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether negligence and discrimination has taken place, as these are legal concepts which are for a to a court to determine. Similarly, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would require a personal injury claim through the courts. It is the role of this service to investigate whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, and consideration has been given to this in the investigation.

The landlord’s decision to place a risk marker on the resident’s tenancy file

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the resident’s alleged behaviour occurred or amounted to ASB. Instead, the Ombudsman will investigate whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances, in accordance with its polices and best practice.
  2. The landlord has a duty of care to protect the welfare of its staff members and to treat any report its staff make about unreasonable behaviour in the workplace seriously. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to take steps to protect its staff by placing conditions on the manner in which it provides its services. Any such conditions should be regularly reviewed and residents should be informed.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord noted that it had informed the resident on several occasions of the risk marker placed on his tenancy and reiterated it had made this decision based on the number of reports it had received from multiple members of staff. This response was in line with the evidence presented to this service. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has been aware of these measures for a considerable period of time and has not previously raised a concern.
  4. Given the number, nature, and frequency of allegations reported about the resident by the landlord’s staff members, the landlord’s decision to place a risk marker on the resident’s tenancy was reasonable and proportional to the reports it had received.
  5. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to regularly review its decision to put in place measures which affect its service delivery, and it is evident that the landlord has regularly reviewed its risk assessment for the resident. This is also in line with its policy.
  6. While conditions on the delivery of service may have an impact on the ease and expedience of delivering the service, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s services should nevertheless be provided within a reasonable timeframe, and appropriate communication should be given where issues arise. The impact of the landlord’s conditions in this case, i.e. that police must be present, is discussed further below.
  7. The resident indicated that he did not understand why the landlord “all of a sudden” decided to downgrade the risk controls as part of its final response, indicating that he may have believed that this was because they were not warranted in the first place. It is evident that around this time, prior to its final response, the landlord undertook a further risk assessment review on 7 December 2021, which was in line with the annual review it had consistently undertaken up-to that point. Although this review noted that there was a recent allegation that was still being investigated, it also noted that there had been no recent reports of physical threats or harm which would have warranted ongoing police presence at that time. Accordingly, the landlord reduced the control measures in place. This was an appropriate action, and ultimately the landlord utilised it complaints process to communicate the new control measures to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repair works

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repair works concerned in this complaint.
  2. While the landlord’s risk assessment conditions may result in some impact to the delivery of its services, the landlord still has an obligation to take meaningful steps to resolve any repair issues within a reasonable timeframe. It would still be expected to keep the resident informed in a transparent manner of any difficulties it faced in arranging for these to be completed. In this case, the time taken to respond to and complete the repairs clearly exceeded the timeframe for routine and programmed repairs, and the landlord has not demonstrated that the delays were unavoidable. Additionally, it did not provide the resident with sufficient explanations for the delays.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord had historical discussions with the police in 2020 about their availability for appointments regarding repairs. It is unclear if the landlord had relied on these discussions when deciding how to progress with plastering works to the resident’s kitchen that were raised in May 2021. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had further discussions with the police either during or after this period, nor did it demonstrate that it liaised with the resident to discuss any difficulties/delays it faced. It is also not evident that it considered making any reasonable adjustments to the conditions on its service delivery in light of the issues at that time.
  4. Having identified the issues, it is unclear what action the landlord took, if any, to address the issues prior to its initial complaint response where it advised it could undertake the works if the resident wasn’t present at the property. This was around six months after the works were raised, which was an unreasonable timeframe and led to avoidable frustration for the resident.
  5. In its response, the landlord also noted the works to the boiler had remained outstanding because the resident had refused the works. Based on the landlord’s internal correspondence, it made internal enquiries regarding whether repairs or a replacement should be actioned in May, August, and September 2021, which indicated that the resident was awaiting a decision. The evidence did not show that these enquiries where responded to, nor the resident updated, nor that the landlord proposed any further interim repairs in the meantime. The earliest evidence of it discussing this further with the resident was in response to his complaint made in October 2021. It was, therefore, unclear why the landlord advised the resident had refused the works given the approval to begin the works was never given. It is also unclear why the internal discussions took the length of time they did, which was also unreasonable in the circumstances.
  6. In summary, it took between eight to nine months to complete the works. There was also poor communication with the resident throughout, and no adequate explanation for the delays. While it is reasonable for there to be some delay due to the conditions relating to the risk marker, in this instance, the delays far exceeded what was reasonable, and in the circumstances, amounted to service failure. While the landlord has taken appropriate steps to prevent the issue from reoccurring by altering the conditions for its risk marker, an amount of £250 compensation is nevertheless appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and poor communication.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a risk marker on the resident’s tenancy file.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of repair works.

Orders

  1. The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failure identified by this investigation.
  2. In light of the failings found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this service within four weeks of this report.