Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202211333)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211333

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

20 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s request for a pathway to be replaced in her garden;
2. response to the resident’s request for a like-for-like replacement front door;
3. response to the resident’s concerns regarding the behaviour of a staff member;
4. complaints handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provide of social housing.
The property has a private back garden with a pathway running through it. This pathway is not a means of access to the property from a public area.
The resident has advised that she is elderly and has medical conditions. She has also advised that she is hard of hearing and has difficulties with her sight.
The resident contacted her local MP in March 2022 as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had turned down her request to replace her garden path. She expressed concern that the garden was overgrown and wanted the path to be made safe given her age. The evidence shows that the MP forwarded her concerns to the landlord in May 2022 and the matter was then raised as a formal complaint. The resident later added concerns that the flagstones on the steps in her garden were dangerous and asked that these were also made safe.
In May 2022, the resident raised a separate complaint in relation to a lack of communication and attitude received from a member of staff, as well as damage caused to her front door by a contractor following her reports that she had been locked out. She advised that she considered the staff member had ignored her requests for contact and that when she had spoken to them, they had been rude, unprofessional, and uncaring. She requested that she have no further contact with the staff member.
In addition, she advised that the contractor had damaged the door and frame when gaining access to the property. She noted she had installed the door herself as she was concerned about the security of the door the landlord had previously installed. She noted that the landlord had agreed to replace the door but expressed concern that this would be a cheaper alternative and not a like-for-like match with the current door. She added that she was seeking compensation for the damage caused to the door she had purchased.
In its stage one response regarding the path, the landlord explained that:
1. The pathway was not the standard paving that it would install or maintain, and that it was not responsible for the maintenance of the pathway. It also confirmed that maintenance of the garden would be the resident’s responsibility in line with her tenancy agreement.
2. The landlord noted that the resident had concerns that it had completed works to other properties’ gardens. It explained it was unable to discuss previous decisions, but that its approach with this case was in line with its policies.
The landlord advised it would provide a separate response relating to the resident’s concerns about her door and its staff member’s behaviour.
In July 2022, the landlord provided a formal response which addresses all three complaints. The response noted it was the “final response.” The response included the following:
1. Regarding her door, it upheld her complaint that damage had been caused and noted it had agreed to replace the door by April 2023 as part of its 2023/24 repairs programme.
2. Regarding her complaint about its staff member, it noted the complaint was partially upheld and that it would update the resident following a full review.
3. Regarding the garden path, it agreed to install a handrail for the steps. It further agreed to complete the labour required to replace the garden path (having noted the resident had already acquired the paving stones), but that these works would be rechargeable and the resident would be required to pay £125 on completion.
4. In relation to the front door, it confirmed that the door had been added to its 2023/24 programme of works and would be replaced by April 2023. It confirmed that the type of door it would provide had sufficient durability, security, and would meet necessary legislative requirements. It provided a detailed specification of the door it would provide as a replacement and confirmed that the door was not considered cheap or sub-standard.
Following communication with this service, the landlord provided a further stage two response in relation to the door, which included the following:
1. The landlord noted the resident had concerns that the quality of the replacement door would not match her current door and that she wanted a like for like replacement.
2. The landlord did not uphold her complaint and advised that the replacement would be “sufficient in its durability, security and meets all necessary legislative requirements.” It also provided the resident with the full specifications for the new door.
Following the landlord’s formal responses, it is not disputed that the handrail was installed, however, it had not completed works to the garden path as of December 2022. It advised the resident that this was due to staff absences.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the structure and exterior to the property, including pathways, steps, or other means of access to the property. The landlord would also be responsible for repairing external doors and door frames. The resident would be responsible for the upkeep of any private garden, including cutting grass, and trimming trees and hedges.
The tenancy agreement further states that residents may make improvements and alterations to the property provided that they have first gained written permission. The landlord’s website confirms that residents are responsible for repairs to any alterations or improvements they have made. Where the landlord carries out any repairs which are the responsibility of the tenant, as identified in the tenancy agreement, the tenant would be re-charged for the cost of the work and any associated administrative costs.
The landlord’s service standard for repairs confirms that emergency repairs, including those that pose a security risk such as being locked out, should be attended and made safe within four hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 working days. Planned repairs include those that cannot be completed within routine timescales as they require additional planning and should be completed within 90 days. The landlord would be responsible for contacting the resident and providing an estimated timescale for completion in order to manage their expectations effectively.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaint process. At stage one (the investigation stage), the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide a response within ten working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two (the review stage). At stage two, the landlord should respond within 15 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident. It also states that, at each stage, the landlord’s response must confirm the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the complaint to either stage two or the Ombudsman if the resident remains dissatisfied.

The resident’s request for a pathway to be replaced in her garden

Following the resident’s reports, the landlord had a responsibility to investigate whether the repair works were its responsibility. It appropriately carried out an inspection of the garden, and following the garden overgrowth being cut back, reinspected to ensure it had viewed the full path.
Its advice that it was not responsible for maintenance of the path was reasonable and in line with the tenancy agreement. This is because the garden path was not a means of access to the property.
As part of her reports, the resident also raised concerns that the path and the steps in the garden were unsafe due to their condition. While the landlord would not be responsible for maintenance works or the replacement of path and steps, it would nevertheless be required to ensure the property was safe, and carry out any appropriate interim works to ensure this was the case. While it commented in its formal responses that the patio area was safe, it did not specifically address the safety of the path or steps in its stage one response, which it should have done given these concerns were raised by the resident.
In addition to following its policies, the Ombudsman also considers it best practice for a landlord to consider any vulnerabilities a resident has. In this case, the resident had advised the landlord that due to her age, she was concerned about her ability to safely use the path and steps, or complete any works herself. It was therefore appropriate that in its stage two response, the landlord agreed to install the handrail for the steps. It was also appropriate that it agreed to carry out the works to the pathway on the resident’s behalf. Given that it was not strictly responsible for these works, it was reasonable that it had agreed to do so as a rechargeable repair, which was in line with its policies.
Once the landlord had assumed the responsibility for the repair, it would be expected to complete it within its repair response timeframe, or to keep the resident informed of any delays. It is not disputed that the landlord installed the handrail shortly after agreeing to so (although there was a short delay while the handrail was ordered and delivered, which was reasonable in the circumstances). Regarding the pathway, however, having agreed to carry out the works in its stage two response dated 12 July 2022, it is not evident any further contact or arrangements were made until September 2022, despite multiple requests for updates from the resident. The landlord explained this was due to staff absences, however, at no point did it inform the resident there would be delays. It therefore failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe for the work.
While the landlord informed this service it intended to progress the works in December 2022, this would be some five moths after its initial advice that it would complete the works, which greatly exceeded the timeframes noted in its repair policies. The landlord has advised this service that there had been a delay in completing the agreed works to the garden path, as it had a limited availability of contractors. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had informed the resident of the reason for the delay. This was a missed opportunity for it to manage her expectations regarding when the work would likely be completed.
As a result of the landlord’s communication failings, the resident experienced significant time and trouble chasing the landlord to complete the required repairs. The resident also advised the landlord that the delays had impacted her financially, as she had to pay to upkeep the grass while she was waiting for the repairs to be completed, which the landlord did not acknowledge. These identified failings and the subsequent impact on the resident amount to service failure by the landlord. Given the length of the delay and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, an amount of £125 compensation is appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord is also ordered to provide a confirmed timeframe for the works to commence, if they are yet to be completed.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident raised concerns that the landlord had treated her unfairly given it had completed works in the gardens of neighboring properties. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to disclose information about decisions in relation to other properties given its data protection requirements, and it was reasonable in this case that it confirmed its decision was based on its present policies.

The resident’s request for a like-for-like replacement front door

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the front door of the property. This responsibility would extend to providing a door that it secure and fit for purpose. The landlord would not be expected to install a door that exceeds this standard, as this would be considered an improvement for which it is not responsible.
In this case, the resident replaced the original door with a higher security door due to her concerns over the level of security offered by the original. It is not evident she either sought permission, or was granted permission to do so. It is also not evident that the landlord committed to responsibility over the door installed by the resident.
It is not disputed that following the resident’s reports that she was locked out in May 2022, the resident’s front door and frame were damaged by the landlord’s operative when attempting to gain access. The door was then left secure and there was no immediate security risk to the resident.
When a landlord causes damage to a resident’s property, the Ombudsman considers it best practice for the landlord to set out its position on responsibility for the damage. This may include either repairing or replacing the damaged item like for like, or otherwise offering to compensate the resident or refer them to its insurer.
In this case, it is evident that the landlord originally discussed a repair with the resident, and then offered to replace the door when it was determined that a repair would not be sufficient. It is not evident that the specifications of the new door, or whether it would be like for like with the resident’s existing door, was discussed when this offer was made.
It opted to complete the replacement as part of its planned programme of works by April 2023. Given that the resident’s door was left secure and functional, this approach was reasonable in the circumstances and the landlord appropriately communicated this approach to the resident in order to manage her expectations.
The resident later raised a complaint that the door offered by landlord would not be a like for like replacement with her existing door. As noted above, the landlord’s obligation in relation to the door would be to provide a functional door that was fir for purpose. The landlord appropriately provided the resident with the specifications of the door it proposed to install to demonstrate it was fit for purpose.
While this approach was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the door, it does not necessarily address the landlord’s position on the damage to the resident’s door. Given that the resident had specified that she wanted compensation for the damage to her door, the landlord should have outlined its position on this concern. Given that it did not intend to offer a like for like replacement, as noted above it should have instead outlined its position on compensation or signposted her to its insurer. It is not evident it did this.
In summary, given that the landlord had not taken on responsibility for the door installed by the resident, it would not be expected to provide a like for like replacement, and its responsibility would be limited to providing a replacement door that was secure and fit for purpose, which is what it proposed to do. Given, however, that it was responsible for the damage caused to the resident’s door, it should have outlined its position on any compensation, or otherwise have signposted her to its insured, which it did not do. Given that this was a substantive element of the resident’s complaint, its failure to address this amounted to service failure in the circumstances. The landlord’s failure to clearly articulate its position led to further disruption and distress for the resident, and an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect this impact. An order has also been made for the landlord to provide its position on compensation for the damaged door, or otherwise provide information regarding its insurer.
The Ombudsman notes there was also confusion caused by the landlord’s complaints handling in relation to the door complaint, which is discussed further below.

The resident’s concerns regarding the behaviour of a staff member

As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the behaviour of the staff member handling her repairs and their lack of communication. She advised that she had been promised call-backs on multiple occasions which were not returned and that the staff member had shown an unprofessional and rude attitude towards her. She added that the behaviour of the staff member had impacted her health conditions and she was concerned that the member of staff was still employed by the landlord due to their behaviour.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, this service will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. The Ombudsman will, however, consider how the landlord investigated a complaint about a staff member, and whether its investigation and responses to a resident were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident initially raised concerns about the behaviour of a member of staff handling her requests for repairs on 27 June 2022. In its complaint response on 12 July 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident had advised she was happy to close the complaint on the basis that it updated her following a full review. This approach was reasonable given that it would take time to fully question the staff member and review their communications, beyond the timeframe in which the landlord needed to provide its complaint response.
Following this, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord confirmed the outcome of its investigation and the records show that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concern. The landlord also did not address this concern in its further stage two response, in which it only referred to the door complaint. It remains unclear as to whether the resident’s concerns have been addressed which is likely to have caused inconvenience as the issue remains outstanding.
It should be noted that the landlord may not have been able to share specific information related to its investigation or any disciplinary measures taken, as this would involve the member of staff’s employment, which would be confidential. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have confirmed the outcome of its investigation, advised on whether it had identified any service failure by its staff and offered an apology where appropriate if it had found that the staff member had not acted appropriately.
In addition, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence, such as internal communication, confirming that it had investigated the resident’s concerns. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it had considered or investigated the resident’s concerns.
In view of the identified failings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to demonstrate it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns, and to reflect the resident’s time and trouble spent pursuing her concerns following the complaint response on 12 July 2022. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance, which states awards from £50 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failing caused inconvenience to the resident and may have led to a loss of confidence in the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

In this case, the resident initially raised concerns with her MP in March 2022, however, the MP’s subsequent communications with landlord which led to a formal complaint did not occur until May 2022. It is not evident that the resident had requested her concerns be considered as a formal complaint prior to this. As such, the delay between the resident’s initial reports and the subsequent formal complaint was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord subsequently provided a stage one response in June 2022, which was within the timeframes noted in the landlord’s complaints policy.
Following this, on 27 and 28 June 2022, the resident raised additional concerns related to her front door which had been damaged and the conduct of a staff member as well as their communication. She added that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace her garden path. The landlord initially acted appropriately by confirming that the additional complaints would be handled at stage one of its process and that her concerns related to her garden path would be escalated to stage two. This was appropriate as the resident’s concerns relating to her front door and staff conduct had not formed part of her initial complaint to the landlord, nor had it previously been investigated at stage one.
The landlord issued a further complaint response on 12 July 2022. While this was within its published timescales, the response addressed all the complaints at once. It referred to the response as its “final” response on the complaints. It did not differentiate between the complaints to indicate a further investigation of the newer complaints was possible or provide information on how she could do this. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and likely to have caused confusion for the resident.
Following contact from the resident, this service asked the landlord to confirm its position regarding her complaints on 28 August 2022. The landlord subsequently explained that it was able to escalate the resident’s complaint regarding her front door to stage two of its complaints process. The records indicate that the resident formally asked for the complaint to be escalated on 7 September 2022 and that the landlord provided its final response on 3 October 2022.
While the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by the landlord’s failure to provide escalation rights for this complaint initially as she was later able to do so, it is noted that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint through this service as she was not initially provided with the correct information. This was likely to have caused some inconvenience to the resident, and meant that the Ombudsman was not able to investigate her complaint at an earlier date.
In recognition of the additional time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing her complaint as a result of the landlord’s failure to provide clear information regarding the separate complaints, the landlord is to pay the resident £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s request for a pathway to be replaced in her garden;
2. response to the resident’s request for a like-for-like replacement front door;
3. response to the resident’s concerns regarding the behaviour of a staff member;
4. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £300, comprising:
1. £125 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in completing the garden paving works as agreed and its poor communication;
2. £50 for its failure to adequately address the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused to her door.
3. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide an adequate response regarding her concerns related to the conduct of a member of staff.
4. £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is also to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. provide a confirmed timeframe for the pathway works to commence, if they are yet to be completed;
2. provide its position regarding compensation for damage to the resident’s door, or otherwise provide information for its insurers so she can pursue a claim;
3. provide the outcome of its further investigation into the behaviour of its staff member.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with clear information where multiple complaints are in progress.