Derwent Housing Association Limited (202202840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202840

Derwent Housing Association Limited

15 May 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 decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, experienced three floods within his property between June and July 2020. Following these floods, the resident experienced issues regarding the decant that was provided, as well as the service provided by the landlord during its handling of the flood itself. He submitted a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 April 2021 in which these issues were raised.
3. On 14 May 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response. It addressed the issues that had been raised and offered £260 compensation in recognition of service failures that had been identified during its investigation. Additionally, the landlord advised that should the resident be dissatisfied with its response, he should escalate the complaint within two months.
4. However, it is clear from the correspondence provided that the resident did not request escalation of his complaint until a phone call with the landlord a year later on 14 May 2022. He advised that he was not satisfied with how the complaint had been handled. The landlord explained that due to the time that elapsed since the stage one complaint, it was no longer able to be escalated.
5. The landlord informed this Service that not only was there too much time between the stage one response and the stage two escalation request, but that the complaints officer who had handled the complaint no longer worked for the organisation. Additionally, due to a merger, the relevant records were not available to allow a full and thorough investigation to be completed.
6. On 21 December 2022, this Service contacted the resident in order to explain that the way in which his complaint had been brought to the Ombudsman was outside of its jurisdiction. It was explained that because of the delay in requesting escalation of the complaint, the issues regarding the flood could not be investigated. However, it was further explained that the matter of the landlord refusing to escalate the complaint could be investigated should the resident agree to proceeding with this complaint definition. The resident agreed to this as he wished to get closure.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 17 of the landlord’s complaints policy states that “where [the resident] has received a stage one response, and wishes to escalate to stage two, unless there are special circumstances, [the resident] must request this… within two months of receiving their stage one response”.
8. Section 18 of the landlord’s complaints policy continues to state that “[the landlord] will apply these time limits with discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the issue, the availability of the relevant records and staff involved, how long ago the events occurred, and the likelihood that an investigation will lead to a practical benefit for the [resident] or useful learning for [the landlord]”.

Scope of Investigation

9. The original complaint that was brought to this Service was regarding the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property, the standard of accommodation provided when decanted, and the landlord’s delay in paying compensation. File correspondence confirmed that the landlord issued its stage one response on 14 May 2021. However, the resident did not request an escalation of the complaint until 12 months later, on 14 May 2022. Subsequently, the landlord advised that it was unable to escalate the complaint, due to the timescale that had passed
10. Given the passage of time, this Service cannot investigate the complaint as it had been submitted. Therefore, the scope of this investigation is regarding the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process, and whether or not this was in accordance with its own policies.

The landlord’s decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process

11. When the resident brought his formal complaint to the landlord, the landlord had an obligation to address and investigate that complaint in line with its published policies and procedures. However, it was also the responsibility of the resident to ensure that the complaint was escalated within the required timeframes.
12. The landlord provided its stage one response on 14 May 2021. It addressed all of the issues that had been raised by the resident and offered compensation. At the end of the response, the landlord made clear the timescales in which the resident would be required to escalate his complaint should he wish to.
13. The response clearly advised that the escalation should be made within two months of the receipt of the stage one response. Not only was this made clear in the written response, but it was also published clearly in the landlord’s complaints policy. Section 17 of the landlord’s complaints policy states that “where [he resident] has received a stage one response, and wishes to escalate to stage two, unless there are special circumstances, [the resident] must request this… within two months of receiving their stage one response”.
14. At this point, it would have been the resident’s responsibility to raise any dissatisfaction with the response within the agreed timeframe. However, there is no evidence that this was done. Additionally, the resident did not dispute that he had waited one year to escalate the complaint.
15. The landlord did inform this Service that once the resident requested escalation of the complaint on 14 May 2022, it had attempted to exercise reasonable discretion in order to investigate and escalate the complaint for the resident.
16. This was in line with section 18 of the landlord’s complaints policy in which it I advised that “[the landlord] will apply these time limits with discretion, taking into account the seriousness of the issue, the availability of the relevant records and staff involved, how long ago the events occurred, and the likelihood that an investigation will lead to a practical benefit for the [resident] or useful learning for [the landlord]”.
17. Whilst the landlord did try to exercise its discretionary powers, it clarified that the relevant evidence was not available to facilitate an investigation due to a merger that had taken place. Additionally, operatives who were handling the case originally had left the employment of the landlord.
18. With this in mind, and the fact that the time elapsed between the stage one response and the stage two escalation request was so significant, it is the opinion of this Service that it was reasonable for the landlord to deny escalation of the complaint to stage two of its internal complaints procedure. In doing so, it had acted fairly and in line with its own policies and procedures. As such, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regard to the its decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process.