Magenta Living (202003279)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003279

Magenta Living

23 June 2021 (Amended on Review)


Our approach

  1. 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.
  2. 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 to allow contractors to carry out works at an empty property in the block and letting of a property during the Covid-19 pandemic.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, commencing on an assured shorthold (starter) tenancy at the property, on 15 February 2016.
  2. The landlord has adopted a COVID-19 risk assessment, which covers different modes of working including carrying out daily operations, working with others and carrying out works in blocks and the process of conducting void works, as well as an information booklet for staff.
  3. The landlord has a three-stage formal complaints process, following an informal ‘fix in five’ stage, where the landlord attempts to resolve a complaint within five working days. A formal complaint at stage one in the complaints process will be responded to within 15 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome at stage one, they may request escalation of the complaint to stage two, although there must be a valid reason to escalate the complaint. 
  4. Stage two of the landlord’s complaints process is the ‘appeal’ stage, which the landlord aims to respond to within ten working days.  Where a complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they may request escalation of the complaint to the third ‘complaint hearing’ stage, where the complainant will be invited to present their complaint to an independent panel, examine the evidence and provide recommendations for a solution.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out circumstances in which the landlord may consider compensation which includes where there has been a recognised service failure.  Where this is the case, the landlord may offer up to £20 as a gesture of good will and to facilitate early resolution of the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident, explaining to him that all required COVID-19 precautions were being taken in carrying out works, which were deemed essential, to the property in question and to let him know that additional cleaning on the communal areas had been implemented.
  2. On 27 May 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about it undertaking works in an empty property in the building during the COVID-19 pandemic, which meant that workman were using the communal areas of the building including touching door handles, as well as having completed the works, had housed a resident in the property. The resident felt that the landlord’s actions demonstrated a disregard for his safety and wellbeing and that the landlord was putting its financial interests first.
  3. The following day, the landlord responded to the complaint via the resident’s councillor, who had also contacted it on his behalf.  The response explained the conversation with the resident on 13 May 2020 and the reassurance it sought to provide.  It further explained that it had been working with the local authority to ensure that people were not living on the streets and vulnerable to the virus and that all housing applicants had undertaken a financial and sustainability assessment before being offered a property, to ensure affordability and sustainability of the tenancy offered. It added that it had not carried out general lets whilst in lockdown.
  4. On the same date, the landlord separately acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint, apologising that he had need to complain and advised who would be responding to the complaint and said it would provide a response within 15 working days.
  5. On 1 June 2020, the resident’s MP also contacted the landlord about his complaint.  On 10 June 2020 the landlord responded, explaining that it had previously provided a response on the issue to a Councillor who had also contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and it provided this same response to the MP.
  6. On 3 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in respect of his complaint.  The landlord noted that it had discussed the carrying out of works during the COVID-19 pandemic with the resident on 13 May 2020.  It explained that all necessary health and safety precautions were undertaken and additional cleaning provided to communal areas. It said it had not been carrying out its normal lettings service but it had been working with the local authority to provide some lets where there is a pressing need.
  7. The landlord explained that should the resident be dissatisfied with its response, ordinarily, the process would be to request escalation of the complaint to a tenant’s panel, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic it was unable to hold panel hearings at present.  It advised that the next step would therefore be to bring the matter to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Government restrictions imposed on 23 March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic meant that only emergency housing repairs were to be carried out and up until 12 May 2020, moving home was only permissible in limited circumstances where it was “reasonably necessary”, thereafter it became possible to move home more widely. 
  2. The landlord has explained that the works carried out were emergency works and that it was working with the local authority to house individuals, safeguarding more vulnerable people from the virus. In carrying out these activities, the landlord undertook a health a COVID-19 risk assessment to identify and mitigate risk and ensure safety as far as possible; part of its safety and risk mitigation actions were to increase communal cleaning, due to the additional usage from the carrying out of works.
  3. Whilst the resident is dissatisfied that the landlord undertook works and let out the empty property in the building during the pandemic and was understandably anxious, the landlord was entitled, having made informed decisions, to undertake these activities and it was appropriate that in doing so, it responsibly considered and mitigated for risk. It was reasonable that the landlord discussed the activities with the resident on 13 May 2019, before they commenced.  It was reasonable because it was not obliged to do this and in doing so, acknowledged that there may be some concern and sought to reassure him as far as possible.
  4. In responding to the complaint, the landlord did so in good time, within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.  The landlord also responded in a timely manner to both the resident’s Councillor and MP who had both written to the landlord on his behalf.  The responses themselves were polite, professional and respectful in tone and manner and sought to explain the situation and what it had done and why; fundamental aspects of good complaint handling and underpinned by the Ombudsman’s published ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’. The landlord sought to manage expectations by indicating a timeframe in which the resident could expect to receive a response and advising who would be responding to his complaint.
  5. In terms of escalating the complaint, it was appropriate that the landlord did not offer a panel hearing as a way forward, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing guidelines.  A panel hearing was not the next stage of the complaints process; however, this was the landlord’s ‘appeal stage’, which, like stage one is paper based.  The landlord did not offer this, instead advising that the next stage was the Ombudsman. In concluding its decision on the complaint, the landlord stated as follows: ‘If you do not agree with the contents of this letter our usual procedure would be for you to request a review from a tenant’s panel. We are unable to hold panel hearings at present however, so the next step in an escalation would be for you to make contact with the Housing Ombudsman.’  
  6. The landlord has a three-stage process which adequately provides its residents with the opportunity of the thorough consideration of their complaints. It had provided two previous responses to the resident’s MP and a local councillor on the issue, prior to its formal decision. In the statement above, it clarified that a panel hearing was not possible at the time due to the situation in the country. Although it is not specified, the circumstances of the case and the preceding paragraphs confirm that the lockdown restrictions were the basis for its position.
  7. This Service discourages landlords from implementing a one-stage complaints process as the escalation of a complaint should be undertaken where the resident raises issues which have not been clearly dealt with in the first decision. Furthermore, consideration of a complaint is also useful for dealing with complex matters, or further aspects of a case which have arisen from the initial core issue. Where a landlord has assessed the issue and is certain that it has no further responses to make on an issue, it is reasonable for it to clarify its reasons for not escalating the complaint, advise the resident about how to escalate it externally and close the case. This forestalls escalation which merely serves to prolong the process without merit and ensures that time and other resources are not unnecessarily expended.
  8. The lockdown situation was unprecedented and many organisations, including landlords, struggled with providing services within their usual processes. I find that the landlord was proactive in seeking solutions to its complaints process and demonstrated willingness to reconsider the matter through its alternative process when this had been established. It was also reasonable that it suggested that further consideration of the complaint could be undertaken if the resident had further evidence in the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about works and a letting going ahead in a property in the building, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the works and letting which went ahead during the COVID-19 pandemic insofar as the landlord was entitled to make decisions in accordance with the Government guidance and having undertaken a risk assessment, undertook all necessary precautions to best ensure safety.  It communicated the actions it would take to the resident, before they went ahead, anticipating and attempting to alleviate any anxiety.
  2. The landlord provided a satisfactory response in the circumstances and ensured that the resident could seek external consideration of the matter within a reasonable timeframe.