Midland Heart Limited (202017042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017042

Midland Heart Limited

15 December 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

The resident complains about:
1. the landlords handling of data protection, the quality of the call transcripts and the advice provided about call recordings in relation to his Subject Access Request (SAR).
2. how the landlord handled his reports of the faulty water pump and the subsequent pump replacement.
3. how landlord staff have handled the overall case.
4. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident’s complaint about the landlords handling of his data, the quality of the call transcripts and the advice the landlord provided about sharing call recordings in relation to his Subject Access Request (SAR).
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this case, issues concerning the residents SAR are best suited to be dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, in a one bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states ‘We will acknowledge a complaint as soon as possible. If the concern is such that it must be logged as a formal complaint requiring investigation, then the following will apply: Where an investigation is required our target to respond will be 10 working days. Where a formal review is required our target to respond will be 20 working days. Where the timescales above are not possible due to the specifics of the complaint, we will agree an appropriate extension for response with the customer. We will keep the customer informed and will clearly communicate how we will resolve the complaint.’

Summary of events

The resident called the landlord on 31 August 2020 to report no hot water and a potential leak. He explained that there was water was coming out of his tap at low pressure. He was advised during the call that someone would be with him within 24 hours.
As the out of hours team did not deem the case as an emergency, it passed on the details to the day team to set up the job. The resident was not advised of this during the call.
On the morning of 1 September 2020, the resident called the landlord back as he had been up all-night waiting for someone to attend his property and no one came. The landlord did not have a job already set up as per the resident’s call the night before. A new job was created for an electrician to attend the property. The electrician came out to the property on the same day and advised that there was no issue with the electrics and that this was a job for a plumber.
A job was created on 2 September 2020 for a plumber. The plumber attended the property that day however advised the resident that he did not have the expertise to deal with tanks and pumps. The plumber advised that he was covering for the main plumber who was out on another job. The plumber attempted to fix the issue but shortly after he left, the water flow stopped again.
On 5 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the pump had completely stopped working.
A job was created on 7 September and the landlord’s main plumber attended the property. Whilst there was no leak, the plumber confirmed there was a fault with the pump and arranged to order a replacement.
On 15 September 2020 the replacement of the pump was attempted by an electrician and plumber. The installation was carried out and during the repair water spilled out from the open hole above the pump. This was as a result of the pump being different to the one the resident had previously. The new pump required a further order for a valve which was a separate part for the pump and would take several days to arrive.
On 17 September 2020 the plumber contacted the resident to explain that there was an issue with the correct part being ordered. The plumber advised that he would contact the resident once delivered to arrange installation. Later that day the resident was contacted by the contractor’s office to arrange the installation of the replacement pump on 8 October 2020. The resident was advised that it could do the installation at an earlier date if an appointment became available. The resident declined this and opted to maintain the original date arranged.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord’s plumber contacted the resident to attend to the property to replace the pump valve and ensure the repair was completed. When the plumber came to replace the pump valve, the resident noted that he was not wearing the appropriate PPE.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging his letter of 2 November 2020. It confirmed that the case was escalated to the formal investigation stage on 4 November 2020 and aimed to provide a response by 18 November 2020 (10 working days).
On 17 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was unable to provide him with a response by the planned date of 18 November 2020. The landlord explained that it would need to extend the response date by 10 working days however if it could get the response out earlier, it would endeavor to do so.
On 20 November 2020, the pump installation job was confirmed as completed.
On 2 December 2020, the landlord issued its first response. It acknowledged its failings regarding the water pump issue and its subsequent replacement. The landlord also apologised on behalf of all departments for the inconvenience it had caused. The resident was offered £196.25 to cover the incorrect appointments (£20.00), the repair delay of 10 days (£10.00), the 38 Days without hot water (131.25) and the administration error (£35).
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 2 December 2020 as he felt the response did not address all his concerns. He was also unhappy with the investigation and explanations provided within the letter.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 8 December 2020 and advised that it aimed to provide a response in 20 working days, 4 January 2021.
On 4 January 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that further to its email of 8 December 2020, due to the complexities of the case it was unable to provide a response by 4 January 2020. The landlord explained it would require a further 10 days to issue its second stage response. The resident responded the same day to raise concerns that the landlord was unable to adhere to its timescale in providing a response.
Following a telephone call with the landlord about his complaint on 12 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express his concerns about the way the landlord’s representative spoke to him during the call that day. The resident was unhappy that he was being talked over and he ended the call. He requested that he was contacted by a manager to discuss his concerns.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord arranged a call to discuss the case with the resident for 19 January 2021 between 2pm and 4pm. It also arranged for the call to be recorded as per the resident’s request.
The landlord provided the resident with its second stage response on 14 January 2021. It acknowledged its failings with regards to the service he had received as well as the issues around the replacement of the water pump which resulted in delays. The landlord acknowledged the concerns about the contractors not wearing a mask during their visit and explained, he was well within his rights to request that the contractor wear a mask or request they leave by refusing access to his home. The landlord advised its instruction to all operatives to wear appropriate PPE was made mandatory in November 2020. The landlord offered the resident £471.50. This covered:
1. Incorrect information provided by the out of hours service on 31 August 2020 – £30.00
2. Allocation of incorrect trade – £20.00
3. Not investigating leak as per report – £50.00
4. Leak caused by operatives when replacing pump – £50.00
5. Incorrect ordering of parts – £20.00
6. Telephone calls – £30.00
7. Water tank drain down during replacement of pump (water bill contribution) – £15.00
8. Additional visits – £50.00
9. Extension of complaint without your consent – £60
10. Incomplete investigation at Formal Investigation – £15.00
11. Delay in completing repair (38 days – 3 waiting days at £3.75) – £131.50
On 27 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident following their discussion on 19 January 2021. The landlord apologised for the service he had received during the call of 12 January and advised the matter had been discussed with its representative who made the call. The landlord said that there were network issues during the resident’s call and although the landlord was unable to listen to the call in question, it had spoken with its technology team to ensure calls regarding complaints could be recorded. The landlord advised its advisor passed on apologies for the quality of the call.
On 28 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord back as he was unhappy with its previous email received on 27 January 2021, not believing there were any technical problems with the call on his end. He remained unhappy with how the landlord handled his complaint and the explanations and wording that was used in its responses to him.

Assessment and findings

I note that the resident has raised concerns about more than one member of staff from different stages of his water pump issue to the complaint handling and the SAR.
As explained, the issues around the SAR are out of the Service’s jurisdiction therefore I am unable to assess the resident’s concerns around this aspect.
The landlords policy states emergency repairs will be dealt with within 24 hours however there is no further guidance on timescales for non-urgent repairs.
I note the resident raised concerns about the online form which he completed in order to submit the SAR due to some of the mandatory fields. The landlord explained that without this information the process could be delayed and that it had not received this feedback previously from its customers, but it would take this onboard. This response was reasonable as the landlord needs to ensure that it has all the details to provide the resident with his information without any further delays.
In relation to the water pressure issue, the resident was not advised that the matter would be passed to the day team and this resulted in the resident staying up unnecessarily to wait for a contractor. Whilst the resident was upset that an electrician initially attended rather than a plumber, the landlord has explained that as the pump was electric, the call handler who booked the job misdiagnosed the problem. The Ombudsman appreciates that because of this, there was a delay in getting the right contractor to assess the problem.
When a plumber did attend the property on 2 September 2020, he advised he was not trained to deal with pumps, and he also did not check for potential leaks. This is a service failure against the landlord as it was aware that the pump was of concern based on the information that was already provided by the resident. It’s the landlord’s responsibility to ensure its contractors are adequately qualified to carry out jobs they attend. This was not the case here and whilst the plumber attempted a fix, following his departure, the resident continued to have problems with the water pressure.
Following a further visit parts were ordered, however it then transpired that the part was different to that of the original and as such a further part was needed, which caused further delay in rectifying the matter. Given all these issues it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord with regards to the handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty water pump and how it handled the replacement of the water pump. Particularly in relation to the advice the resident was given, incorrect operatives being sent out and failure for the landlord to ensure the correct pump was ordered. However, having said this, the landlord has taken ownership of these issues and these specific aspects were addressed within its response with reasonable redress offered.
Whilst I note that the break down in the second response differs from the first response, particularly about the administration error, the landlord addressed this by covering each specific failing in the redress breakdown. After looking through the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with this Services complaint handling code, the offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
I note that there was a discrepancy of £0.25 between the first response and the second response, with the additional £0.25 being added to the calculation for the delay in completing the repair in the second response. Whilst this was a slight miscalculation, the offer was more than what was due therefore it is not considered to be a service failure.
It is clear the resident has spoken to different representatives of the landlord and at times has been provided with incorrect or inaccurate information which resulted in delays with the pump being replaced. The landlord initially apologised on behalf of all its departments, reiterated the apology and further apologies for the overall experience the resident had with its repairs service and also that experienced during a call with its representative. This was reasonable.
The resident has concerns about terminology within the case, particularly that he felt that the responses from the landlord did not accurately address what he was saying. Although the terminology differed to the exact words that the resident used, this did not necessarily meant that the landlord’s responses were incorrect. The resident did send extensive letters and the landlord responded in summary of what the complaint was about and attempted to address these matters.

Complaint handling

Whilst the landlord’s complaint handling policy does not state an exact timeframe for acknowledging complaints, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that an acknowledgment should be provided in five working days and the landlord did so.
Although the landlord was unable to provide a response within 10 working days, it did provide an update to the resident about the delay and provided a timeframe as to when it would be able to respond. In line with its policy, it did keep the resident informed about his complaint investigation. I do note that the landlord did not specifically agree the extension date with the resident as per its complaint handling policy however I can see that it has considered this within its second stage response and offered the resident £60 compensation for this.
When the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 2 December 2020, this was acknowledged by the landlord on 8 December 2020 in line with acknowledgment timescales and its final response was in line with the 20 working days timescales detailed within its complaint handling policy and its acknowledgment letter.
I agree that the landlords first response was not as detailed as the resident was expecting, however, the second response took into considerations the aspects where failings were recognised and consequently considered these when offering the resident compensation. It also considered the contents of the first response and as a result of the incomplete investigation at stage one, the landlord offered £15.
The landlord’s acknowledgement of its failings and an offer of £75 compensation was reasonable and addressed the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlords handling of data protection, the quality of the call transcripts and the advice provided about call recordings in relation to his Subject Access Request (SAR) is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about how landlord staff had handled the overall case.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the complaint about how the resident’s reports of the faulty water pump were handled and the subsequent pump replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to how the resident’s complaint was handled.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £471.50 offered at stage 2 if it has not done so already.
It is recommended that the landlord update its repairs and maintenance policy to include timescales for non-urgent repairs.
It is recommended that the landlord update its complaint policy do provide the acknowledgment timescales.