Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202324054)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324054

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

4 November 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 landlord’s handling of and communication about various repairs.
    2. Concerns relating to the conduct of staff.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom house.
  2. Between 6 April 2023 and the resident’s complaint on 21 August 2023, the resident reported several repairs, including a dripping noise after the toilet was flushed, a cracked bath panel, a faulty kitchen tap, and a crack in the ceiling on the landing above the stairs. During this time, the landlord responded and completed repairs.
  3. On 21 August 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the service she had received and complained to the landlord. Her complaint addressed various issues, including the repeated visits to fix a leaking toilet and the extended time it took to complete repairs. Specifically, she mentioned that it took 3.5 hours to replace the bath panel. She said the landlord failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the need to take time off work to accommodate multiple visits. Additionally, she reported instances of harassment, victimisation, and bullying by an operative who attended the repairs which she said was because of her protected characteristics. She asked for compensation for damages and deterioration in mental health, as well as a rent refund from April 2023 to August 2023.
  4. On 6 September 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 response, confirming that the resident had accepted responsibility for the crack in the ceiling and would need to repair it. The landlord scheduled an operative to attend on 18 September 2023 to replace the toilet flow valve, remove rubbish underneath the bath panel, and fit a new set of taps in the downstairs toilet. Additionally, the landlord said it sent text messages to residents for repair appointments and was working on a new communication system to improve updates. The resident was asked if she wanted to be involved in this process. Furthermore, the landlord said that it did not have enough information to conclusively show that the resident had been bullied or harassed by its operative and requested more specific details from her. The landlord said that it had responded to the repairs within its 28-day timescale and had no evidence that the resident lost the use of a room or part of a room at any point, so it was not able to provide a rent refund, but asked the resident to provide more details so it could investigate this.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, feeling it lacked empathy and was insincere in its apology. She said that the landlord had breached the tenancy agreement by leaving the property below a reasonable standard and refused to comply with her request to have all communication in writing. She felt threatened by the landlord’s request for personal details of witnesses to her reports of bullying and harassment by an operative. She was unhappy that a stock condition survey had not included the loft.
  6. On 5 October 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of the complaints process. It acknowledged and apologised for various issues, including multiple replacements of the flush valve, which had been replaced 3 times since April 2023. It apologised that the old bath panel was left in the resident’s garden when it was replaced which was later removed on 15 May 2023. It acknowledged that the operative who attended the downstairs toilet taps had not raised a repair to replace the kitchen taps and apologised for the miscommunication. The taps were replaced on 31 August 2023. The landlord apologised for an unannounced stock condition survey visit on 21 July 2023 and recognised the importance of keeping appointments. It assured the resident that communication would be in writing or email, except in emergencies. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered to repair the ceiling crack and £500 compensation to reflect its poor customer service and the impact this caused. Additionally, the landlord offered to survey the loft and complete a referral to housing support services.
  7. The resident did not accept the landlord’s compensation and has expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach to repairs and communication. She has indicated that she had felt victimised, harassed, and bullied by the landlord’s employee and has expressed a desire to move from the property. Additionally, the resident has requested that the landlord not conduct any further repairs in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to our Service that she only considers the issues defined above outstanding and that the other matters of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focused on and assessed the circumstances of the outstanding issues.
  2. As part of her complaint, the resident has requested damages for personal injury, harassment and bullying and detailed the psychological impact this has had on her. We acknowledge the concerns raised about the effect on her health and the distress this would have caused.
  3. The term ‘damages’ is the name the court uses for monetary compensation. It is not our role to award compensation in the same way the courts do. We can, however, award compensation where we decide a failure by the landlord caused distress and inconvenience. A court most appropriately considers personal injury claims, where liability can be established. Therefore, we have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. If the resident seeks damages based on how a court would award them, she should seek legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of and communication about various repairs

  1. We understand that the issue underpinning the complaint is the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of repair service received. Specifically, the landlord’s communication regarding visits, the time taken for repairs to be completed and the multiple attendance for the same repairs.
  2. For ease of reading, the landlord’s handling of each repair is considered under a subheading.

Toilet

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of a dripping noise after the toilet was flushed. The landlord attended and replaced the valve on 3 occasions after visiting 5 times between April and October 2023. It explained that the toilet was not broken.  When the valve closes, it is usual to drip for a short period.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s repeated visits, which, in her opinion, failed to resolve the issue. The evidence shows that after a visit on 5 September 2023, the operative reported being unable to detect any noise emanating from the toilet. Despite this, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and proactively offered to replace the valve with a different brand, demonstrating a resolution-focused approach to addressing the issue. It remains unclear whether the resident has accepted the landlord’s offer.

Bath panel

  1. The landlord promptly apologised for leaving the old bath panel in the garden when it was replaced, not fitting it back correctly, and not sealing it after clearing rubbish from under the bath. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to return and rectify the work. It remains unclear whether the resident agreed to this.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction after reporting that the operative took 3.5 hours to replace the bath panel and board a small space by the toilet. This resulted in inconvenience for the resident, who had to cancel her afternoon plans after being informed that the appointment would be completed between 08:00 and 13:00. The resident was unhappy that the operative arrived at 16:00, which the resident said was misleading and dishonest. The landlord apologised for any perceived dishonesty and potentially breaking the resident’s trust.
  3. While there is no evidence to confirm why the timeslot was changed, it is clear that this caused inconvenience. It is acknowledged that operatives may face delays if a repair takes longer than anticipated. However, prompt communication from the landlord to update the resident is essential. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the repairs. Still, unforeseen circumstances can lead to extended repair times, which may cause inconvenience to residents.

Ceiling crack

  1. The resident accidentally cracked her ceiling in the loft by standing on the plasterboard instead of a joist. Despite the resident’s responsibility to repair the damage, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for the ceiling to be repaired as a goodwill gesture. This demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to resolving the complaint and strengthening the relationship with the resident.

Loft

  1. The resident was unhappy that the surveyor did not inspect the loft during the July 2023 visit. The landlord explained that the property, built in 2018, had documentation for the loft insulation. Despite the landlord’s explanation, the resident’s concerns about the inadequate loft insulation were acknowledged, and the landlord offered to conduct a re-inspection. It remains unclear whether the tenant accepted the landlord’s offer.

Communication

  1. The landlord recognised that its communication with the resident should have been better. At times, its communications had been unreliable, which impacted the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  2. For example, the landlord had arranged a stock condition survey for 25 July 2023, but unexpectedly showed up 4 days earlier on 21 July 2023. This upset the resident and reinforced her concerns about the landlord’s disregard for her communication preferences and failure to honour scheduled appointments. This unannounced visit would have had a detrimental impact on the resident.
  3. In a similar instance, the landlord inadvertently overlooked the resident’s email regarding an appointment cancellation. As a result, the landlord attended the resident’s address, causing distress and leaving her feeling unheard.
  4. Under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the resident’s needs and responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged a failure in its staff’s adherence to scheduled appointments and the subsequent impact on the resident. The landlord expressed regret for any inconvenience caused to the resident and for not always adhering to her communication preferences. It demonstrated learning from the complaint by re-emphasising the importance of staff adhering to scheduled visits and communication preferences whenever possible and updating its system to ensure her communication preferences were highlighted.
  6. The evidence indicates that the resident requested the landlord to change its policy for booking repairs. While the landlord was not obligated to change its policy, it acknowledged the learning from the complaint. It invited the resident to participate in a working group to implement a new communication package to enhance its communication with residents. The landlord demonstrated a commitment to learning from the outcomes by proactively identifying areas for improvement, particularly in its communication with residents.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord acknowledged its service failings, apologised to the resident, and offered £500 in compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy awards £500 when the landlord has accepted full responsibility for the service failure, which has significantly impacted the resident. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving significant service failure that may not have permanently impacted the resident. The compensation offer should also be considered, along with the landlord’s goodwill offers to conduct a loft survey, replace the toilet valve and repair the ceiling crack, which the landlord is not obligated to do.

Staff conduct

  1. We cannot comment on the appropriateness of the operative’s behaviour but acknowledge the resident’s distress. Our investigation assesses the landlord’s response to the reports and its adherence to policies and procedures.
  2. The resident’s complaint detailed behaviour from an operative who visited her property in April 2023. She said that this behaviour included sexual advances, xenophobic comments, and gestures of a sexual nature, causing the resident to feel frightened, humiliated, insulted and unsafe in her home.
  3. It is unclear when the resident reported the behaviour to the landlord. However, in her complaint, she stated that during a call to book a further repair in May 2023, she requested that the same operative did not attend. Although we do not doubt the resident’s account, we do not have evidence to verify this call. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence of her request within its contact records.
  4. The resident expressed distress regarding the same operative visiting her property in July 2023. However, due to a lack of evidence, we cannot confirm whether the landlord was informed of the inappropriate behaviour reports before the resident’s complaint. Consequently, we cannot determine whether the operative was sent with the landlord’s prior knowledge.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord missed an opportunity to reassure her that the operative would not return to her property. It later acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have provided this reassurance earlier. Had it done so, it may have minimised some of the distress caused.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a somewhat generic response stating that internal investigations are conducted and appropriate training and procedures implemented if necessary. We recognise that it may not have been appropriate for the landlord to share details of its investigation with the resident. However, in describing the impact, the resident said she felt humiliated and scared in her home. The landlord’s response to the complaint did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s feelings or recognise the detriment that was caused.
  7. The landlord has confirmed to us that appropriate action was taken following an internal investigation. However, the landlord should have done more to recognise the impact on the resident and considered compensation for the distress she was caused. The apology alone did not fully put things right for the resident. Therefore, we have found a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  8. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy alongside our remedies guidance and have awarded £100 for the distress the landlord’s handling caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of and communication about various repairs.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in handling the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the impact caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
    3. Re-offer the £500 offered at stage 2 of the complaints process for the identified service failings if this has not already been paid.

Recommendations

  1. We understand that the resident does not want repairs completed on the property. However, the landlord is obliged to carry out any repairs required under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985. Should the resident change her mind, the offers made at stage 2 should remain open (it is noted that these repairs do not appear to be repairs that the landlord is obliged to carry out).
  2. Support the resident in exploring options to move from the property.
  3. Review the learning on this case regarding the approach taken towards the resident. As part of the review, the landlord should consider the best practice highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights: A Relationship of Equals in the Provision of its Housing Services.
  4. The landlord should write to us with its intentions regarding the recommendations within 4 weeks.