London Borough of Hounslow (202312239)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312239

London Borough of Hounslow

29 February 2024

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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 1988. The landlord is a local authority, which owns and manages the property. The resident is elderly and lives alone.
The resident tells us he had an appointment with the landlord’s contractor on 14 January 2020, who thoroughly inspected the property for electrical safety over 6 hours and installed 3 smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
The resident tells us that, following this, he received multiple letters from a separate contractor for the landlord telling him it needed to inspect the property for electrical safety. The resident says he called this contractor on 13 March 2020, 11 December 2020 and 1 June 2021. On each occasion, he says the contractor told him it would stop sending the letters. However, the letters continued and became more urgent in their language, stating the resident may be in breach of his tenancy for not agreeing to an inspection.
The resident’s son wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 9 November 2021, stating:
1. The landlord’s contractor had already completed the EICR testing in 2020.
2. The resident had called the landlord’s other contractor 3 times between 1 March 2020 and 1 June 2021 to advise the test had already been completed. On each occasion, the resident was told to disregard the letters, but the letters continued and had become more threatening.
3. He felt the landlord and its contractor were “bullying” the resident, who was 70 years old and in poor health.
4. He wanted the landlord to confirm that EICR testing was completed in 2020 and to provide direct contact details of the appropriate landlord staff member who could deal with the matter.
The resident received further letters from the landlord’s contractor about needing to complete EICR testing. He wrote to the landlord again on 10 November 2022, stating:
1. He had received no response to the letter his son wrote on his behalf on 9 November 2021, despite the landlord signing for the letter on 12 November 2021.
2. He wanted the landlord to respond to the queries he had raised in his previous letter.
3. He wanted the landlord and its contractor to stop “harassing” him.
The resident submitted a handwritten complaint form to the landlord’s office on 6 December 2022, complaining about the letters he had been receiving and the lack of response he had received to his “phone calls, recorded delivery letters, contact in person [and] internal phone calls to resolve [the] problem”.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 15 February 2023, in which it said:
1. It had not dealt with the matter under its complaints procedure because “there was no evidence of a service failure” and it “felt that [his] concerns could be handled informally”.
2. It had been unable to locate the EICR from the test in 2020. It had also asked its previous contractor for a copy of this, but the contractor could not locate it.
3. As it did not have a valid certificate, its new contractor would need to complete the test again. It asked for the resident to contact its contractor to arrange this.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 27 February 2023, in which he said:
1. There was evidence of service failure because the landlord had failed to respond to 2 letters he had sent and had sent him threatening letters.
2. The landlord had not addressed his complaint about its failure to respond to his letters in its response.
3. The landlord should have dealt with the matter under its formal complaint procedure and he wanted a response in line with this.
4. He wanted the landlord to send him a written response in the post. The landlord should not respond to his email because he was using a friend’s email as a one-off (he did not have his own email address or computer access).
The landlord sent the resident an email acknowledgement on 2 March 2023. The landlord confirmed it had raised a formal complaint and would send its response by 23 March 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 23 March 2023, in which it said:
1. Its decision to deal with his correspondence informally was in line with its policy.
2. It should have responded to the previous letters the resident had sent on 9 November 2021 and 10 November 2022. It also should have told its contractor to stop sending him letters while it investigated.
3. Based on the photographs the resident had provided of the newly installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, it agreed a test had taken place. It regretted the need for another test but said this was required because of the missing certificate.
4. The resident could request an escalation to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 April 2023 with his stage 2 escalation request, which the landlord received on 13 April 2023. He said:
1. He was unhappy the landlord had called his son’s mobile phone number when reviewing the complaint. He had provided this contact number as a one-off for contact about a previous repair. The landlord had told him at the time it would delete the number from its system after using it for that purpose.
2. He was also unhappy the landlord had sent an email to him, despite his request for postal correspondence only.
3. He felt the landlord was not taking the matter seriously enough and was trying to “cover it up” by sending him multiple letters asking for another test.
4. He wanted the landlord to confirm what steps it had taken to find out who lost the certificate and who “covered it up”.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response by letter on 15 May 2023. It said:
1. It had made the “logical assumption” that the email account belonged to him, although it recognised he had asked for postal correspondence. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
2. It accepted it had called his son’s mobile phone number. It did not know the number belonged to his son when it called, and it had updated its records to notify staff to not contact him by telephone.
3. It stood by its stage 1 position regarding the testing. While it did not dispute that it had already completed a test, it would need to complete another to obtain a valid certificate.
4. It should have responded to all his correspondence, and it agreed its response time was unacceptable. It would learn lessons from his complaint and raise this with the appropriate officers.
5. It did not agree that its employees and contractors had been harassing him, and it could not “divulge the management arrangements” between its employees.
6. The resident had the right to bring the matter to this Service for review.
The resident duly made his complaint to this Service on 30 August 2023. Through this Service, the resident wants the landlord’s conduct to be investigated. He also requests compensation for his time, inconvenience and stress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the EICR

The resident has provided detailed testimony and supporting evidence about the EICR test that was completed on 14 January 2020. This includes the date and time of the test, a copy of the letter from the landlord’s previous contractor requesting the test, a description of what was completed during the visit, and photographs of the smoke and carbon monoxide detectors the contractor installed. Based on this, we are satisfied that the resident had the test on the date specified.
The landlord has provided copies of email correspondence it had with its previous contractor between 10 January 2023 and 13 January 2023. The landlord requested a copy of the EICR but the contractor confirmed it did not have this. Based on this correspondence, we are satisfied the landlord attempted to retrieve a copy of the certificate when it was investigating the complaint.
Section 5.4 of the landlord’s “electrical safety policy” says it “shall ensure that it takes all reasonable actions to meet its legal and statutory obligations in respect of electrical safety and to ensure that these actions are documented and appropriately evidenced”. The circumstances of this case show the landlord failed to follow this part of its policy.
The landlord has an obligation to prevent electrical hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (introduced by the Housing Act 2004). While the Ombudsman agrees with the resident that a test was completed in January 2020, it is also reasonable that the landlord will need to complete another test in order to gain the appropriate certification for the property to comply with its obligations.
The resident has provided evidence showing that the 2 letters he sent to the landlord on 9 November 2021 and 10 November 2022 were sent recorded delivery and signed for by the landlord. This demonstrates that the landlord was aware of the issue but failed to take any action and continued to send the resident letters about another test.
There is insufficient evidence to determine why there was no certificate available for the test completed in January 2020. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident has been caused significant inconvenience and distress as a consequence of this. There will also be further inconvenience when he has to experience another test sooner than he otherwise would have. For the failure to produce a valid certificate, the failure to investigate this once notified by the resident, and the resulting impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the EICR.

Complaint handling

Section 2.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords should “make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which residents can make a complaint such as in person, over the telephone, in writing, by email and digitally”.
The resident explained in his handwritten complaint on 6 December 2022 that he had received no response from the landlord to his telephone calls, in person queries and recorded delivery letters. While the landlord provided different avenues for the resident to contact it, its failure to respond to the resident through these various avenues meant it was not making its complaints procedure accessible. This was a failure under section 2.1 of the Code.
Section 4 of the landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about: failure to follow process; failure to follow [its] own policy; significant or repeated failure to provide a service; failure to do what [it] said [it] would do; or failure to respond”. It goes on to say that “some dissatisfaction…will be treated as a request for us to do something, for example, a service request. We will deal with these as part of [our] day to day business, rather than through our complaints process”.
In the handwritten form the resident gave to the landlord, he wrote that he had received “harassment” from the landlord’s contractor and that he had received no response from the landlord to his previous attempts to resolve the issue, including a complaint form he sent. He also asked the landlord how he could raise a complaint, and he filled in the section of the form which said “if you are making a complaint, what would you like us to do to resolve your complaint?” For these reasons, it was evident the resident wanted to raise a complaint to the landlord, and it was inappropriate for the landlord to respond to the complaint outside its formal complaints procedure. The landlord failed to follow section 4 of its policy.
The landlord has told us in its case file that it now recognises it should have dealt with the resident’s complaint formally. It has now provided training to the relevant staff to help them identify complaints, which the Ombudsman welcomes.
Section 3.1 of the Code and section 2 of the landlord’s policy confirm the importance of the resident being able to know which person or team is responsible for dealing with their complaint. However, when the landlord wrote to the resident about the complaint on 15 February 2023, the letter was headed with one name and signed at the bottom by a different name. The letter also separately said that the “contact” was “customer relations”. Therefore, the resident was presented with 3 different contacts who may have been responsible for his complaint. This caused confusion to the resident, which he highlighted in his written response to the landlord. The landlord fell short of the requirements under section 3.1 of the Code and section 2 of its own policy in setting out the letter in this way.
Section 5.1 of the landlord’s complaints policy states it will send its stage 1 response to the resident within 15 working days of receiving the complaint. If the landlord is unable to honour this timescale, the policy says it will notify the resident of the delay and commit to a new timescale. Section 5.2 of the policy says it will send its stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request.
While the landlord sent its stage 2 response within the correct timeframe, it took 18 working days to send its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord did not contact the resident to explain there would be a delay in its response. This is a failure under section 5.1 of its complaints policy. This was following the delay the resident had already experienced by the landlord dealing with the complaint informally in the first instance.
The resident had asked the landlord to contact him by post in relation to the complaint. However, despite this, the landlord sent an email and made a call to the resident. The resident has suggested that the landlord’s use of the email address and contact number may amount to a misuse of data. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the public body specialising in data rights, and it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on this. However, we consider that the landlord’s failure to communicate by post only demonstrated a lack of care and attention to the resident’s request.
Section 6.2 of the Code says any remedy the landlord offers must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident. Despite identifying several failings, the landlord only offered the resident a written apology. This was not a reasonable or proportionate resolution from the landlord in the circumstances.
In light of the initial failure of the landlord to deal with the complaint formally, the delays and the failure to offer an appropriate resolution, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR).
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £700. This comprises:
1. £450 for the failures identified in its handling of the EICR, and the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
2. £250 for the complaint handling failures identified.