Greatwell Homes Limited (202004324)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004324

Greatwell Homes Limited

26 May 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s unannounced visits to the property on 29 July 2019;
    2. The unannounced visit to the property on 4 September 2020 and;
    3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has complained about the landlord’s two unannounced to the property on 29 July 2019. 
  3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  4. The landlord made two unannounced visits to the property on 29 July 2019 regarding the resident’s parked vehicle on the basis it was illegally parked. The second of these visits was to hand him a breach of tenancy warning letter due to it deeming the resident’s behaviour to be aggressive during the first visit.
  5. The resident visited the landlord’s offices on 29 July 2019 to complain about the conduct of the officer who had visited his property on 29 July 2019 without prior notice. The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint but the resident was unable to discuss it with the landlord that day and it was agreed its manager would call the resident back on 12 or 13 August 2019 to discuss the complaint. There is no evidence of any further communication between the parties regarding this complaint. 
  6. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e), the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s unannounced visits to the property on 29 July 2019 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  7. This is because although it is evident that the resident raised a complaint about this with the landlord at the time, there is no evidence of the complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure or of the resident pursuing this further with the landlord. Whilst the resident raised this complaint again with the landlord in June 2020, as this was more than 10 months later, it was not within a reasonable period of the matter arising. Therefore, it will not be considered in this investigation. This is also in line with the landlord’s complaints process which states, at section 5.7, that complaints must be lodged within six months of the event which is being complained about occurring.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The resident’s tenancy which commenced on 19 June 2018, has since ended due to the resident moving via the landlord’s management move process.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 June 2020 regarding the conduct of one of its officers. The resident stated that the landlord’s officer had visited his property unannounced in July 2019 and asked him to move his car that he said was parked on a piece of land owned by the council and not the landlord. The resident referred to his previous complaint made to the landlord on 29 July 2019 about this staff member who he said had sworn at him. The resident also said that a month later he found out the landlord had noted antisocial behaviour on his file.
  3. On 25 June 2020, the landlord responded stating it had checked its records and could not see any specific reference to the parking incident mentioned by the resident. The landlord proposed to close his complaint due to the member of staff whom he had complained about, having been off sick since March 2020. It advised due to this, it could not fully address or investigate the complaint made.
  4. On 25 June 2020, the resident replied advising the landlord that he was unhappy with its response and asked for it to call him on 26 June 2020 and to escalate his complaint to the next stage of its process. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the requested escalation of the resident’s complaint was not made. It is also noted that there is no evidence of the landlord calling the resident.
  5. On 21 August 2020, the resident made a complaint about another matter concerning a management move and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two. The landlord replied the same day responding to the new matter and advised it did not warrant a formal complaint. There was further correspondence over the next few days between the parties regarding this matter.
  6. On 28 August 2020, the resident complained that the landlord had not responded to his complaint about its staff coming to the property unannounced and “harassing him”.
  7. On 4 September 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that there had been another unannounced visit to his property that day by the landlord. He said this was the third unannounced visit by the landlord and this was despite him raising this issue with it. The resident reported the unannounced visit to the police. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that this visit was unannounced but it said it was made in good faith to help facilitate the management move requested by the resident.
  8. The landlord’s internal email communications confirm that the 4 September 2020 visit was because of the management move requested by the resident and suggests that an inspection was in line with the management move process. This evidence suggests the officer had been in the resident’s area so tried to carry out the inspection at this time. It recorded that the resident had not agreed to the inspection taking place at that time and an appointment was made for the landlord to visit another time to carry out this inspection.
  9. On 8 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and advised it would issue a full stage two response within ten working days.
  10. The landlord sent a stage two response on 22 September 2020 in which it responded to the complaint about it making unannounced visits to the resident. It advised that the reason for the visit of 4 September 2020 was that it needed to complete a property inspection as part of the management move process. It explained that the officer was in the area and called on the off chance the resident was home. It apologised for any distress caused by the unannounced visit. It stated that as a result of how this unannounced visit made him feel, it will ensure that all future visits to his property would be pre-arranged with him at a suitable time. It advised that his account will be updated accordingly with this instruction. Regarding the member of staff whom he had complained about, it reiterated that she had since left the organisation and as a result, it could not take this matter further.
  11. In his communications to the Ombudsman on 18 December 2020 and 13 January 2021, the resident raised concerns about a further unannounced visit by the landlord to his new property and a request from the landlord for a week’s rent in relation to the property that the resident disputes he owes.  However, as these issues have not yet been escalated through the landlord’s complaint process, they fall outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction and therefore on this basis, they will not be considered in this investigation.

Policies and procedures

  1. Clause 2(a) of the tenancy agreement states the resident has the right to occupy his home: “without interruption or interference from us for the duration of this tenancy (except for the obligations contained in this tenancy agreement to give access to our employees or contractors).”
  2. Clause 6 of the tenancy agreement permits the landlord access: “at reasonable times subject to reasonable notice for the purposes of tenancy management and/or to inspect the condition of your home and/or installations, and/or to carry out annual servicing of appliances owned by us, for example gas appliances or to carry out repairs or other works to your home or adjoining property.” Further it states: “We will give you at least 24 hours’ notice unless it is an emergency in which case we may require immediate access to prevent damage to property or injury to persons.” Clause 6(a) states the landlord will need access where, for example, it has a legal obligation to undertake an annual gas safety check for a property that has a gas supply.
  3. Under stage one of the landlord’s complaint procedure, it is required to provide a detailed response advising whether it upholds, partially upholds or does not uphold the complaint, Further, the landlord must set out an action plan if the complaint is upheld in any part. The resident can appeal the stage one response within 20 working days if they are dissatisfied and a senior manager will then review the complaint and provide a written response within ten working days.

Assessment and findings

The unannounced visit to the property on 4 September 2020

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is allowed access to the property in certain circumstances, including to inspect the home and installations, to carry out annual services of gas appliances and to carry out repairs. However, the tenancy agreement states this is subject to at least 24 hours notice from the landlord, unless it is an emergency that requires immediate access to prevent damage or injury.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that it made an unannounced visit to the property on 4 September 2020 and explained this was to inspect the property as part of its management move process. Whilst the landlord has told the Ombudsman that this inspection was made in good faith as part of its management move process,  it is evident that this circumstance does not constitute an emergency under the tenancy agreement. Therefore, as the landlord has not demonstrated entitlement  to inspect the property without notice, the landlord was required to give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice of the proposed visit.
  3. Due to the landlord’s failure to give the resident notice of the visit and as the resident had specifically raised a complaint about this issue with it, which was a live complaint at the time of the visit, on balance, this constitutes evidence of service failure by the landlord, albeit a minor one.
  4. In its final response, the landlord explained the reason for its visit on 4 September 2020 and apologised to the resident for the distress caused to him by the visit which it said was unintentional. The landlord advised it will ensure that all future visits to his property will be pre-arranged with him and assured that his account would be updated accordingly with this instruction. On balance, the landlord’s apology and the assurances given in its complaint process that this will not happen again and that his account will be updated to reflect this, reasonably resolves the complaint raised about its visit to his property on 4 September 2020 made to the property without prior notice. It also demonstrates lessons learned by the landlord which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure under which it was required to provide a detailed response at stage one advising whether it upholds, partially upholds or does not uphold the complaint, setting out an action plan if the complaint is upheld in any part. Section 5.7 of its complaint procedure required that complaints must be lodged within six months of the event, which is being complained about, occurring.
  2. In its first stage response, the landlord explained that the member of staff whose conduct the resident had complained about had been off sick since March 2020 and said it could not fully investigate this complaint on this basis. This was reasonable however it also said that it had checked its records and could not see any specific reference to the parking incident mentioned by the resident and advised it would therefore close his complaint. Whilst, due to the length of time since the July 2019 unannounced visits, the landlord was not required to investigate these as per its complaint process, the landlord did not explain this in its stage one response when proposing to close his complaint. Furthermore, it failed to respond to the resident’s query raised in his formal complaint about antisocial behaviour being marked on his file. Also, the landlord then did not escalate his complaint to stage two when requested by the resident on 25 June 2020, only doing so when he subsequently chased the landlord about this on 28 August 2020 and after reporting another unannounced visit.
  3. Therefore, the landlord’s delay in escalating the complaint and failure to fully address all the concerns raised constitutes evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints procedure when handling the resident’s complaint and demonstrates service failure by the landlord. This was not recognised by the landlord in its complaint responses.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about an unannounced visit to his property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

  1. The landlord made an unannounced visit to the property on 4 September 2020 that was unjustified in the circumstances. However, the landlord apologised and provided assurances in its final response that all future visits to the resident’s property will be pre-arranged with him and that his account would be updated to reflect this instruction. This redress reasonably resolved this aspect of the complaint.
  2. The landlord did not follow its complaint procedure when handling the resident’s complaints due to unclear explanations, not addressing all of the resident’s concerns raised and a delay in escalating his complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £50 in compensation for complaint handling.
    2. Comply with the order for compensation within four weeks.