Midland Heart Limited (202312335)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312335

Midland Heart Limited

29 January 2025

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The tenancy began on 21 August 2000. The property is a two bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It notes that it is aware the resident was in hospital shortly before the complaint but has not been provided with any further information by the resident.
  2. On 12 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that a contractor who was attending a neighbouring property had “inconsiderably” parked outside of her house and walked across her path and front garden to reach the neighbouring property. The resident stated she had confronted the engineer and advised she was going to report his conduct to the landlord, to which he stated he did not care. The contractor then sat in his van for 20 minutes which made the resident feel threatened. The resident asked for the landlord to speak with the contractor and the contractor’s manager to prevent a recurrence.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 January 2023 to ask why she had not received a response to her complaint. The landlord responded by stating it had now acknowledged the resident’s contact as a complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2023. It apologised for its delay in logging the resident’s complaint and cited an administrative error. It noted it would feedback to the relevant teams so that it can learn from the error and prevent a reoccurrence.
  5. The landlord stated it had spoken to the contractor who admitted walking across the resident’s grass and did so because the path was very icy and he felt the grass was the safest route. The contractor had also advised he sat in his van to complete his paperwork before moving to the next appointment. The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience and offered the resident £50 for its delay in escalating the complaint.
  6. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 8 February 2023, the resident stated she felt disrespected by the contractor and did not feel the landlord’s response was sufficient. The resident reiterated that she was dissatisfied that the contractor had parked outside of her property.  The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 10 February 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 March 2023. It again apologised that the resident’s complaint had not been logged correctly when she first contacted the landlord. It stated it felt it was reasonable for the contractor to walk on the grass if it was felt this was the safest route, but apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. It reiterated that its contractors need to complete administrative paperwork in their vehicles after appointments which is why the contractor remained outside the resident’s property and it considered this action to be reasonable.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because she felt that the landlord was defending the conduct of the contractor. The resident states she did not think it was icy enough for the contractor to justify walking on her grass. She noted she thought that the contractor was “disrespectful” and had trespassed on her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct

  1. The resident has alleged poor conduct by the contractor who was attending a neighbouring property. The landlord states it has investigated the matter and has not found any evidence that the contractor acted inappropriately. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and to reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In these circumstances, this Service would expect to see evidence that the landlord raised the resident’s concerns with its contractors and interviewed them to assert what happened. The landlord has provided a statement by the contractor which was taken during its original investigation. The contractor accepted he crossed the resident’s garden but did so because the path was icy and felt it was safer. He stated he apologised to the resident when she asked him to not walk on the grass and was not rude.
  3. The landlord has accepted the contractor’s justification and outlined this to the resident. It also apologised for the resident’s experience. The landlord also took steps to obtain the resident’s ring doorbell footage. The landlord acted appropriately by speaking with the contractor and investigating the resident’s claims.
  4. While the resident has noted she did not feel it was icy enough for the contractor to be justified in stepping on her garden, it is not for this Service to determine whether or not the weather conditions justified the contractor’s actions. The landlord has taken the appropriate steps to investigate the matter and share its findings and position with the resident.
  5. The tone of the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was understanding and sympathetic. It acknowledged the resident’s feelings and provided a sincere apology for the distress the resident felt. While the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, it was clear in its explanation of its findings and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It also provided details on how it would prevent a recurrence of the same issue. This was an appropriate response.
  6. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling policy that was in place at the time of the complaint stages that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
  3. The resident first contacted the landlord on 12 December 2022 to express dissatisfaction with the contractor’s conduct. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23 January 2023 to express frustration she had not received a complaint response. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 February 2022 which is outside of its time frame for a stage 1 response.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised that it had not provided the response on time. It explained there had been an administrative error and that it had provided feedback to the relevant teams so that it could learn from the error and prevent it happening again. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in providing its response.
  5. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 8 February 2023 and the landlord responded on 1 March 2023 which is 15 working days and within the landlord’s time frames in its complaints policy.
  6. This Service welcomes the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure to acknowledge and the resident’s stage 1 complaint appropriately and its attempts to put things right. The landlord has been candid about the reason for this failure and has provided learning and reflection. It has offered £50 compensation to the resident. This Service considers this response to be a reasonable redress to the failure identified, the landlord’s compensation offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
  7. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £50 for the delays in its complaint handling is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct,
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered of £50 for the delays in its complaint handling within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.