East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202200340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200340

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

18 December 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:
1. Information provided during the sales process.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. The lease began on 25 October 2019. At that time, the development was newly built in a scheme for residents over the age of 55.
After moving into the property, the resident raised several concerns with the landlord. These included issues with the buying process, incorrect service charges, ground maintenance, communal cleaning, issues with the drains, and a window in her property that needed repainting. In June 2020, the resident filed a formal complaint about the ground maintenance, communal cleaning, and the landlord’s responsive repairs. Additionally, she said the landlord had promised a buy-back scheme and the lowest council tax banding, which was incorrect. She said the landlord had misrepresented the building and mis-sold the property to her. The landlord responded by saying that they would investigate the matter.
In January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, acknowledging that there were “significant delays in repair times during and around national lockdown”, which had a knock–on effect. It recognised outstanding repairs to the fire alarms, communal entrance, and communal lighting. It apologised for any confusion during the buying process.
On 23 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer and said that despite multiple complaints she had made, the landlord kept giving “excuse after excuse” for its poor services, and her previous complaints were still outstanding. The resident did not specify what these were. She said she wanted to sell the property but discovered the cost involved, which she said the landlord had “misrepresented” when she bought the property in 2019. She asked that someone with “authority” would come to see her.
The landlord responded on 7 October 2021. It recognised that the resident had made several complaints in the previous 12 months and that she was dissatisfied with the service it provided. It said it would handle the resident’s complaints under stage 2 of its complaint procedure, allowing her concerns to be heard by a panel of an executive director, a director who is the head of the service, and a resident representative. The landlord also told the resident it was open to seeking a resolution through independent mediation, for which it said it would pay. However, should the resident opt for mediation, her complaint would not progress to stage 2.
On 28 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident a link to an online hearing panel scheduled for 11 November 2021. The landlord then visited the resident’s home on 29 October 2021 to prepare for the hearing. During the visit, the landlord defined the resident’s complaint for the first time, which was about the resident’s assertion that the landlord mis-sold the property and about the landlord’s responsive repair service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2021 to summarise its visit to the resident’s home. The landlord partially accepted responsibility regarding the selling process of the property and said it could have clarified the buying process. However, it said the terms and conditions are stipulated in the lease. The landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation. The landlord did not address the concerns about the outstanding repairs. It then said it was pleased to have solved the complaint for the resident. It cancelled the stage 2 hearing, advised that the complaint had now exhausted its internal complaint process, and provided the resident with referral rights for this service.
The resident strongly contested the landlord’s claim that it solved the complaint. She wrote to the landlord’s chief executive: “I will again ask/demand/insist that someone deals with me”. The landlord responded on 11 November 2021 and scheduled the hearing panel for 21 December 2021.
On 18 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with a final response letter, reiterating that its previous letter from 5 November 2021 was its final position. It repeated that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint process, and it provided the residents with referral rights for this service.
The resident contacted this service on 14 March 2022. She said:
1. The landlord sold the property dishonestly by:
  1. Advising it has a buy-back scheme should the resident want to sell.
  2. Advising the council tax was the lowest band A, but it was a band B property.
  3. Concealing charges related to purchasing and selling the property.
2. As soon as the landlord sold all dwellings, it significantly reduced its communal repair, cleaning, and upkeep, which amounted to misrepresentation of the property.
3. The resident had to put in significant time and effort to approach the landlord and file a petition requesting the landlord to address the issues. The stress and inconvenience, combined with the unhelpful attitude of the staff and the challenge of escalating the complaint through the landlord’s internal process, had taken a severe toll on the resident’s emotional and physical well-being.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There was an allegation that the property was mis-sold. This would be a matter for the Court to explore. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the case had on her well-being. This service cannot establish a causal link between the condition of a property and the effect on residents’ health and well-being. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, this service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Information provided during the sales process

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2021. In its letter following a visit to the resident’s home, it summarised the complaint points and provided its responses as follows:
1. It apologised that it had confused the council tax banding. It offered £300 in compensation and said it had changed its policy so that this does not reoccur.
2. The costs of buying and selling shared ownership property are stipulated in the lease and, therefore, are not hidden as the resident claimed.
3. It said there was no evidence that it said it would buy back the property from the resident.
The resident’s experience at her property has been significantly different from what she had expected, and this has evidently been distressing for her. However, property sales operate on the legal premise of “caveat emptor”, which translates as ‘let the buyer beware’. This means that the onus falls upon the buyer to investigate the property before completing the purchase. Buyers are encouraged to raise enquiries during a property transaction before exchanging contracts to limit risk by ensuring the seller discloses all relevant information.
The resident had legal advice when she purchased the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to assume the resident’s solicitor would have explained her rights and responsibilities according to the terms of the lease. Therefore, this was not the landlord’s responsibility, and this service finds no fault on the landlord’s part here.
Regarding the council tax banding, the landlord recognised that the resident had expended time and effort in applying for the valuation office to change the council tax banding to band A. The valuation office eventually accepted that the property should have been band A, which confirmed what the landlord said to the resident. The landlord recognised it could have been clearer regarding the information it provided the resident.
The landlord put it right by offering the resident compensation of £300, an appropriate amount to redress the adverse effect on the resident. The landlord identified learning and changed its policy to signpost enquiries about council tax to the local authority. This demonstrates that the landlord followed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which was appropriate. The landlord clarified that the compensation was only in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
In regard to the resident’s claims about a buy back scheme, this Service relies solely on evidence to make findings and there is no evidence to support this claim.
According to the evidence, the landlord identified some failing on its part, it took measures to put it right for the resident and it identified learning from the outcome. In conclusion, the landlord took reasonable actions to redress the resident’s complaint related to the information provided during the sales process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs

Although the landlord recognised in its November 2021 letter that the complaint was also about the provision of services, it did not address this within its response. It was not disputed that the resident had several unresolved complaints and outstanding repairs. The landlord acknowledged this in its January 2021 letter to the resident. For example:
1. In October 2019, the landlord accepted responsibility for painting a window on the resident’s property. The landlord acknowledged in April 2021 that it “looked awful”. And in May 2021, that it was down to “poor workmanship”. This investigation noted that in December 2020, the resident had to cancel a visit from the operatives due to a chest infection, and later in the same month, she had to cancel another visit due to her COVID-19 vaccination. Taking this into account, it took the landlord 23 months and three repair attempts to paint the resident’s window, which was finally completed in October 2021. This was not appropriate.
2. It is not clear when the resident first reported issues with the communal door for the first time. However, this was acknowledged by the landlord in its January 2021 letter. The surveyor visited the property in June 2021 and confirmed malfunction continued throughout 2021. This means, at the minimum, it took the landlord a year to complete an effective repair. The adverse effect was that the property door remained unlocked, with low or no communal lighting for months, in a development designed for people over 55. This was not appropriate.
3. There were also issues with the drains. In April 2021, the resident said she had been given a reference number for drain repairs 9 weeks earlier and heard no updates. It is unclear when this was resolved. However, even a 9-week delay to repair drains was not appropriate.
The landlord’s repair policy does not specify target times, as it says local arrangements can impact its repair service. The landlord explained that the delays in its services were due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While it is recognised that the COVID-19 pandemic caused delays, it is unreasonable to attribute such a significant delay to the pandemic. Particularly not when it comes to repairs of communal lighting, communal entrances or drains, which can be urgent in nature, and when some of the issues were raised as early as October 2019. This was a failure by the landlord, which amounted to maladministration.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged there were “significant delays” in property repairs and maintenance. Operatives had to be recalled routinely to remediate previous works. The landlord recognised it “looked awful,” which was down to “poor workmanship”, but it accepted these standards for the resident’s home. Apart from the resident’s sustained pursuit of the repairs, she put the time and effort starting a petition she served on the landlord. This had failed to spark a significant movement on the part of the landlord. The situation caused frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. Even the most routine of repairs took weeks of chasing the landlord to send its operatives and then weeks of yet more chasing the landlord to send its operatives to remediate the works carried out unsatisfactory the first time. This was not appropriate.
An order has been made below to put this right for the resident and a further order for the landlord to learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Throughout the time the resident lived at the property, the landlord failed to apply its formal complaint procedure to the resident’s complaints. In May 2020, the landlord drafted a response to the resident’s complaint. Acting on internal advice, it deleted the paragraphs that mentioned the letter was a formal complaint response. The resident’s escalation rights were also deleted. This was also the case with the landlord’s response dated January 2021. Although internal documents show this was registered as a formal complaint, this was not mentioned in the response to the resident, and no escalation rights were provided. This was not appropriate. It delayed the resident from getting a resolution to her complaints.
The landlord formally recognised the resident’s complaint in October 2021 after she contacted the Chief Executive Officer in September 2021. The first stage response said the landlord would address the resident’s complaint under stage 2, enabling the resident to be heard in front of its panel of directors. This meant that some aspects of the resident’s complaint that could have been addressed at an earlier stage were delayed. This prolonged the complaint unnecessarily and magnified the resident’s dissatisfaction. The landlord also failed to set out its position regarding its responsive repairs, and it missed an opportunity to narrow the scope of the complaint before its planned stage 2 hearing.
The landlord then said in its 5 November 2021 letter that it had resolved the complaint for the resident, cancelled the hearing panel and provided the resident with her referral right for this service. However, the escalation point for the complaint at that time was the landlord’s stage 2 panel, which was the purpose of the visit to the resident’s home. The landlord called the letter it sent to the resident “Stage 2 prevention letter”. The landlord evidently prevented the resident from reaching stage 2 repeatedly, which was not appropriate.
The landlord said it understood from the resident that she wanted to sell the property and was not concerned about progressing the complaint. Therefore, the landlord cancelled the stage 2 hearing. According to the evidence, the resident informed the landlord as early as April 2021 that she intended to sell the property. Therefore, why the landlord cancelled the stage 2 hearing in November 2021 is unclear. Evidently, the resident wanted to progress her complaint to stage 2, and she wanted a resolution to her complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive officer again on 15 November 2021 and expressed frustration at the process. She reverted to the Chief Executive Officer every time she needed to escalate her complaint, which was very frustrating for the resident and was yet another hurdle she needed to manoeuvre just to have her complaint heard. This was not appropriate. It further damaged the trust between the resident and the landlord.
On the same day she contacted the Chief Executive Officer, the resident received a new date for the stage 2 hearing, which was for 21 December 2021. However, 3 days before the hearing was due, on 18 December 2021, the landlord sent the resident its final response letter. It said it reviewed the complaint internally and confirmed that its 5 November 2021 letter was its final stance. Yet again, the landlord prevented the resident from progressing her complaint to stage 2. This was not appropriate.
The resident then contacted the landlord’s Chief Executives Officer again, who, in turn, said he understood that an agreement had been reached during the hearing. This service had not seen the evidence presented to the Chief Executive Officer. However, from the evidence available for this service, it was clear that the complaint had not been dealt with and that an agreement had not been reached.
This service asked the landlord to clarify whether it held the stage 2 hearing panel. The landlord said this took place on 30 November 2022. It sent minutes from the hearing panel to this service. According to the evidence, the resident sent her apology for not attending. However, there is no evidence that the resident was invited to this hearing. According to the landlord’s policy, a hearing summary should be sent to the resident five days after the hearing. The landlord said this was its 18 December 2021 letter.
In its letter of 18 December 2021, the landlord did not mention that a hearing had taken place. It said it conducted an internal review. The resident would not be invited to an internal review, and therefore, she would not send her apology for not attending. Furthermore, on 7 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed the hearing took place on 21 December 2021, which contradicts the evidence and the minutes supplied to this service.
According to the evidence, the landlord wrote on 25 November 2021 that following its internal review, it would correspond to the resident confirming its “stance” that stage two was “no longer going ahead due to the issues and complexity of the case”. Therefore, it is clear that the landlord systematically blocked the resident from making and escalating a formal complaint.
Overall, there was a persistent failure by the landlord to recognise the formal complaints made by the resident and repeated failure to follow its complaint procedure. Although it sent a diagram of its complaint process together with its communications to residents, these had no bearing on how it applied the policy in the resident’s case. It failed to investigate the resident’s concerns under stage 1 and prevented the resident from escalating the complaint to Stage 2. This was not a one-off incident. It was a systematic mishandling of the complaint and amounted to severe maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint policy aims to create a partnership between the landlord and its customers to improve services. The landlord failed to apply this policy to the resident’s complaint. It took significant time and effort for the resident to navigate the landlord’s hurdles and bring the complaint to this service. In the process, her relationship with the landlord had broken down. The resident said the experience dealing with the landlord had exhausted her mentally and physically. As time went on, her frustration grew, which caused distress. She said she needed the situation to end. She decided to sell her property and move away at any cost.
A further order has been made below to put this right for the resident.
Finally, as it is unclear whether the landlord identified any learning, a further order has been made below to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about Information provided during the sales process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the above review must be shared with this service within 6 weeks from the date of this report. The review must include the following:
1. Review of its internal complaint process and its application in practice. It must identify the conditions that led to the mishandling of the complaint at every stage of the complaint process.
2. review its repair procedures to ensure an effective mechanism is in place to raise and complete repairs right the first time.
3. Investigation into the contradictions in the landlord’s record-keeping as identified in paragraph 32 above.
Within 6 weeks from the date of the report, a member of the landlord’s senior leadership team must write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified regarding its handling of the associated complaints. It must explain what went wrong, outline what it had learnt from the case and what action it has taken or would take to ensure this conduct will not be repeated. A copy of this letter must be sent to this service.
Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,300, broken down as follows:
1. £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its responsive repairs.
2. £700 in compensation for the distress and frustration caused by its handling of the associated complaint.