Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202219718)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219718

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

1 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
   2. Communication about keeping dogs at the property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a first-floor flat (the property).
3. The landlord’s contact logs recorded that it contacted the resident on 2 occasions,29 April and 11 May 2021, about the presence of a dog at her property. It emailed and spoke to her on 22 August 2022 about the 6 vehicles belonging to her household. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 22 October 2022 about the presence of a dog at her property.
4. On 30 October 2022, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord about her Housing Officer’s (HO) contact with her. She was unhappy that her HO had:
   1. Arrived at her door unannounced on several occasions.
   2. Called her while she was at work.
   3. Told her she could not use her vehicles.
   4. Sent her threatening letters saying her tenancy agreement was invalid.
5. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 10 November 2022.It said that, after examining a call recording and contact notes, it considered the HO’s calls and visits to be professional and appropriate for their role in the management of the estate. The landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with unannounced visits and calls to her work telephone, and offered to feedback her contact preferences. It asked for details of the threatening letters she reported and said it found no evidence of the HO telling her that her tenancy agreement was invalid.
6. After emailing the landlord the previous day to raise issues with its stage one response, the resident escalated her complaint on 11 November 2022. She contended that the HO’s visits were unlawful and that they were attempting to prevent her partner’s dog visiting her property, which she said was not against the terms of her tenancy agreement. The resident said that the HO’s behaviour was intrusive and that they had not investigated reports of vehicles noise made against her appropriately.
7. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 22 November 2022 in which it maintained that its HO’s actions were part of their role in the management of the estate. It confirmed that it would provide prior notice of any future visits to her property. The landlord asserted that the property was originally advertised as not allowing dogs.
8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 14 December 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the HO’s conduct and communication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct

9. The tenancy agreement is the legal contract between the landlord and the resident. This agreement confirms that she is obliged to provide the landlord with access into the property, provided that this is at a reasonable time of day and that it gives 24 hours’ notice.
10. The resident, in her stage one complaint, spoke of being “harassed” by the HO. Harassment is a legal definition and it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether or not this occurred. However, it will be considered whether the landlord reasonably investigated the report. When receiving a report about one of its staff, the landlord would be expected to investigate the contact between its staff member and the resident to satisfy itself of whether this was appropriate.
11. While the tenancy agreement states that the resident must provide access to the landlord, when conditions are met, there is nothing prohibiting a landlord from calling on a resident to conduct a doorstep conversation. In such cases, a resident may choose whether or not to provide the landlord’s staff with access to the property. This is not a failure by the landlord to abide by the terms of the tenancy agreement; however, such visits should not be excessively frequent.
12. The resident’s report, in her stage 1 complaint, was of her HO “showing up at [her] door on multiple occasions unannounced”. No time period was specified to indicate that these visits were excessively frequent, nor was it reported that the HO gained access to the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s response then, that the HO carried out such visits as part of their estate and tenancy management duties was a reasonable explanation. It also offered a reasonable resolution to the resident in proposing that it provide her advance notice of any such visits. The landlord will, however, be recommended to improve its record-keeping processes to ensure that it keeps records of all visits to residents to provide an audit trail in the event of disputes about these.
13. There was no prior evidence of the resident requesting not to be contacted at work. There was also no evidence that the HO called the resident while she was at work, however the landlord did not dispute this. It responded by offering to update her contact preferences to prevent calls to her work telephone number. This was a reasonable suggestion by the landlord to resolve this aspect of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
14. The landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s report, that she had been told she was not allowed to use her vehicles, by listening to the call in which the HO discussed this with her. It noted, in its stage 1 response, that this led to the resident being able to rent a garage for their storage, and the HO did not tell her not to use her vehicles. As there was no evidence of her being told this, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to uphold this point of the resident’s complaint.
15. Overall, the landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and provided reasonable explanations for the actions taken by the HO. There was no evidence of a failure in its response to her.

The landlord’s communication about keeping dogs at the property

16. The tenancy agreement states that a resident is not allowed to keep a dog, or allow a visitor to bring a dog to the property if the property is within a block of flats of five storeys high or more. If the property is within a block of four storeys or lower, a dog may be kept with written permission from the landlord. The tenancy agreement also confirms that the resident is responsible for the behaviour of every person and animal visiting the property.
17. The resident’s property is a first floor flat located within a three-storey block. Therefore, she would need to seek permission from the landlord before keeping a dog at the property. The resident said that the dog that was at her property was not her own pet and was brought by her partner when visiting. In line with the tenancy agreement above, the visiting dog would have been her responsibility and therefore, she would have needed to seek permission from the landlord for the dog to be present at the property.
18. There was no evidence that the resident gained the landlord’s permission to have a dog at the property; consequently, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that she could not allow the dog to be present. The information given by the landlord was in accordance with the tenancy agreement and there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its communication with the resident about this matter.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    2. Communication about keeping dogs at the property.

Recommendation

20. It is recommended that the landlord ensures that robust records are kept of all interactions with residents, including face-to-face visits, so that should a dispute arise these can be comprehensively investigated.