Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202343167)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property, which is a self-contained bedsit, since 2016. He is visually impaired. 

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. An issue with the boiler thermostat leaving him unable to control the heating.
   2. Reports of mice.
   3. Reports that its contractor left a mess following works in his home.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issue with the resident’s thermostat.
5. There was a service failure in its response to mice in the resident’s property.
6. We found no maladministration in its handling of the complaint about mess left by its contactor.
7. We found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. 
8. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

9. There was a significant delay in the landlord replacing the resident’s thermostat and a failure in its consideration of the resident’s specific needs. It did not consider that it had a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for the resident.
10. The landlord’s pest control treatments were delivered in short courses of 4 visits, rather than continuing until the issue was resolved for the resident. This left the resident with mice in his home over a period of 2 months where the treatment had ended.
11. There was a delay in the resident raising the issue with his landlord about the mess left by the contractor in his formal complaint. The landlord did follow up with its contactor and arranged for a clean at his home, which we found to be a positive response.
12. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it did not fully address all the resident’s issues.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. Through his complaint the resident has said that he believed that the landlord’s actions in addressing the issues with his heating system amounted to discrimination. The Ombudsman is unable to decide if a landlord has acted unlawfully under the Equality Act 2010, as we do not have the authority to draw any conclusions on these matters. This would instead be for the courts to decide, and the resident should obtain legal advice about this. Although we cannot make a finding about discrimination, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, and whether it addressed his concerns about discrimination through its complaint’s procedure.
14. The resident said in his complaint that the issue with his heating had been ongoing for a period of 3 years. The landlord had removed an accessible means to control the heating when it carried out works to renew the heating in December 2021. He has said that he was unable to see the numbers on the new thermostat. This made controlling his heating very difficult. We understand that this was a cause of frustration. However, we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable timeframe, usually within 12 months of an issue first occurring. Where there had been a significant delay in a resident raising a complaint, it is possible that contemporaneous evidence may not be available given the time that has elapsed. As such this investigation has focused on the complaint raised by the resident in late 2022/early 2023 and the repair requests made in the months preceding it. We have referenced the background to his heating issues for context.
15. The landlord has provided details of its repair records for the resident’s heating system. These record works undertaken to the system in November and December 2021 and servicing of the warm air heating system in April 2022.
16. The resident reported having no heating on 21 March 2023. Following its attendance the landlord’s contractor recorded that a new thermostat was needed that would be suitable for a blind person. The landlord raised a further report of no heating and hot water on 16 May 2023. Its contractor again recorded the need to replace the thermostat. On 27 December 2023 it raised an order for an alternative thermostat to meet his needs. It recorded on this that a braille thermostat was not suitable.
17. Following the resident’s contact with the landlord and registering his wish to complain, it contacted the RNIB for advice as to a suitable system for him. With the resident’s agreement the landlord installed the new system on 6 February 2024. This was almost 11 months after it found that a new thermostat was needed. The length of time taken to resolve the issue for the resident is evidence of a significant service failure.
18. The landlord through its own correspondence with the resident, acknowledged it had been delivering poor service to a range of residents. It said that it was reviewing its services. While it is reasonable that it acknowledged its wider service failures this did not provide the reassurance needed by the resident that the landlord was able to understand and appropriately respond to meet his specific needs.
19. The landlord has a responsibility by law to make changes to ensure that its services are accessible to disabled people. This is known as reasonable adjustments. A landlord can implement reasonable adjustments by making changes to its procedures to accommodate the needs of disabled persons. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning a landlord cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled residents may need to access their services and put measures in place.
20. While the landlord was aware of the resident’s visual impairment, it did not include this detail in the works orders that it provided to its contractors. It is therefore likely that they were unaware of the resident’s specific requirements until they attended his home. Further, the landlord appears to have applied a rather generic approach by looking to instal a braille thermostat for the resident without first checking that he was able to read braille. It did not consider the resident’s specific needs. This was a failure to put in place reasonable adjustments for the resident.
21. There was a significant delay in it contacting the RNIB for advice on a suitable alternative. It could have taken this step earlier in 2023 to resolve the issue for the resident. That it did not do so, leading to a significant delay in resolving the issue with his heating amounts to maladministration.
22. We have considered the landlord’s offer of compensation. Given that the resident experienced continuing issue with his heating for a period of over 10 months we have made an added award of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience caused.

23. From the records provided by the landlord, the resident first reported mice in his property in March 2022. There were further reports in August and December 2022 and in April 2023. The landlord raised follow on works to fill access holes in August 2023 and again in October 2023.
24. The landlord acted appropriately in raising orders to its pest control contractor and raising follow on works to block the access points found in the resident’s home.
25. The landlord’s records show that it booked pest control treatments in a block of 4 visits. In its contact with the resident on 4 January 2024 it said that “when pest control is instructed, they carry out a set number of treatments which should eradicate the pests, when this doesn’t happen, we have to instruct for a further round of works”. On the record of the treatment competed on 2 October 2023 the contractor recorded that the resident was still hearing mice in his home. This was the last visit of 4. It removed all traps and bait from the property. The landlord responded to its contractor’s recommendation to carry out works to fill access points. It did not however raise a further series of treatments, despite the note that mice remained present. This was a failure to ensure that the issue was resolved for the resident.
26. Following his contact in early January 2024 the landlord raised a further series of treatments to his home. These record that the issue was resolved on the final visit completed on 29 January 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have a process in place that allowed for further works to be undertaken beyond the fourth visit where an issue with pests was ongoing. That it did not do so in this case was a service failure as the resident was left with a pest infestation. As he is visually impaired this was particularly difficult for him as he was unable to see where the mice were in his home. This was understandably a source of stress to him. We have recommended that the landlord consider its management of pest issues in its homes. 

27. Through his complaint the resident reported that a contractor carrying out works to install fans in his kitchen and bathroom had failed to clean up properly on completing the work. He told the landlord that he had found silicone left in his bathroom sink and, in his teacups, and crockery in the kitchen. He said he had been asked for feedback and as the contractor had asked to use his hoover, he had assumed that he had cleaned up. Due to his visual impairment, he had been unable to check.
28. It is unclear from the correspondence and the landlord’s records when it carried out these works. The landlord contacted its contractor on 3 January 2024 for feedback. The resident further advised at this time that he had already arranged for this to be cleaned.
29. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 1 reply to the resident but followed up at stage 2. It recorded that given the time that had elapsed it was unable to comment on this. It took steps to arrange for a one off clean of the resident’s home as an outcome to his complaint. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and we consider that the landlord acted appropriately.
30. We have recommended that the landlord ensure that it makes its contractors aware where a resident has sight loss so that it can ensure that extra care is taken during and following a repair to ensure the resident’s safety.

31. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by us, our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
32. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a 2 stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and issue a response within a further 10 working days. If it needs more time at either stage, it will let the resident know and agree a revised date. This should not exceed a further 10 working days. This landlord has since revised its policy in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). This extends the time to respond at stage 2 to within 20 working days.
33. The resident first contacted the landlord on 2 January 2023 to raise his complaint. There was regular communication between him and the landlord between 2 and 8 January 2024 as it took steps to resolve the issues he had raised. It acted proactively in doing so, following up with its contractor about the mess left, raising a further order for pest control and seeking advice from the RNIB about the thermostat. It did not however formally record the resident’s contact as a complaint or provided a formal response at this time.
34. As the resident continued to express his dissatisfaction the landlord recorded his complaint on 7 January 2024. It acknowledged this on 10 January 2024. It sent a further acknowledgement on 24 January 2024 as it had reallocated his complaint for investigation. The landlord provided a record of a telephone conversation with the resident on 31 January 2024, before providing its formal response on 12 February 2024. This was 29 working days after the resident first raised his complaint. There was a failure by the landlord to follow its own procedure.
35. The stage 1 response also did not cover all the issues raised by the resident. While his earliest emails reported the issues with mice and the mess left by the contractor, his email of 7 January 2024 focused on the issue with his heating. The landlord should have ensure that at this stage it dealt with all the issues covered within his correspondence. This was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with information about the actions it had taken and to reassure him that it was addressing his concerns. That it did not do so was a failure.
36. It provided its stage 2 reply within its published target of 10 working days. This however did not fully address the resident’s concerns about discrimination. It noted that it had taken on board his request for large print documents but did not fully acknowledge the impact of the delay in fixing his thermostat. It noted that it had not considered all the options available but did not reflect on its duties to the resident, as a disabled person under the equalities act or consider he replacement of the thermostat as a reasonable adjustment.
37. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged through its complaint response the significant delay in replacing the thermostat and its failure to consider the resident’s specific needs. That it did not so was a failure in its complaint handling. We have considered the compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 and have made an additional award to reflect the failures identified through this report.

Learning

38. The landlord should consider how it reflects it’s a resident’s vulnerability to its contractors to ensure that they are informed about any specific requirements when visiting a resident’s home. Further the landlord noted in its stage 2 that it was looking at how it follows up on pending orders. This was appropriate and we hope that it has now put this new process in place.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. The landlord should ensure that it keeps clear records of all complaints received. It must ensure that it captures the full scope of the complaint and confirms this with the resident.

Communication

40. There was an identified failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident as it acknowledged failure within its call handling. The landlord positively reflected that it had taken steps to address these and put n place monitoring of its calls to reduce levels of abandonment.