One Housing Group Limited (202014350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014350

One Housing Group Limited

31 August 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that contractors were rude; that their attendance for communal drainage works contravened Covid-19 restrictions; and that they allegedly caused damage and mess when accessing his bathroom.
2. Handling of the subsequent repair and compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a ground floor maisonette.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for internal cleaning and decorating.
The landlord’s Covid-19 guidance advises that contractors should not cold call, and should maintain a distance when knocking on doors.
In September 2020, the government’s guidance stated that landlords could carry out works to the outside of dwellings and advised contractors to comply with relevant workplace social distancing guidance. It stated no work should be carried out if it meant landlords or contractors may have to enter a household which was self-isolating because one or more family members had symptoms, unless it was to remedy a direct risk to the safety of the household. In October 2020, the government introduced regulations for tier 2 restrictions which included the resident’s location. These restrictions excluded gatherings which were reasonably necessary for work purposes. In November 2020, the government issued revised guidance to reflect new restrictions during a second lockdown, and this advised social distancing guidelines should be followed for works in homes but did not restrict such works.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a one stage formal complaints procedure. At an informal stage, it aimed to resolve concerns within three working days. At a formal complaint stage, it aimed to issue a first and final response within 15 working days or 30 calendar days. This has since changed to a two stage formal complaints procedure.
The landlord’s compensation procedure advises that it makes payments between £25 and £250 for inconvenience and gestures of goodwill, related to inconvenience caused by repairs or failure to meet service standards. The procedure advises that a fixed payment of £10 is applicable for a failure by a contractor to meet an agreed appointment date or time slot. The procedure sets out expectations in respect to communication with residents, and advises that all staff are responsible for monitoring that residents have been responded to and that they never have to chase.

Summary of events

On 16 October 2020, the landlord raised a repair to remedy a blocked gully on a communal landing, as rain water was not draining out and was forming a puddle. After an operative who initially attended reported a drainage contractor was required, drainage contractors attended on 28 October 2020 to resolve the issue, which involved cutting out pipework in what this Service understands was the resident’s flat.
On 6 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord, who noted that he was unhappy that contractors who had worked on the bathroom pipe had told him to paint it himself. The resident’s account to this Service explains an external waste pipe that connects to a soil stack inside his property became blocked due to spilled paint. He explains that when the repair was carried out, a black substance leaked and covered the bath toilet, and bathroom walls. He also explains the contractor damaged wooden panels which covered a pipe and did not clean the bathroom properly, advising the resident to do this.
On 13 November 2020, the complaint was escalated to the landlord’s stage two team.
1. It was noted that the resident was unhappy an operative knocked on his door for a repair he did not raise; that he advised that he should not have to give access for repairs issues which are in communal areas; and that he advised the landlord should not be attending during the second lockdown restrictions.
2. It was noted that the resident also reported an operative was rude, telling him to paint walls if he had issues with marks left on walls and ceilings.
3. It was noted that the resident requested an apology for booking the visit during the second lockdown as he did not feel it was for essential / emergency works; requested walls in the bathroom to be painted; and requested contractors to be held accountable for the issues raised.
On 1 December 2020, the information provided advises that the landlord raised a repair to investigate/inspect damage to paintwork outside the property around pipework and casing, for which it was noted that the resident would show the operative the area of damage.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident a final response dated 4 December 2020.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint and his requested outcomes for a repair to be completed; to be provided an apology; and for investigation of contractor conduct.
2. It explained that the initial repair was to unblock a gully reported by a neighbour and its contractor made an error by causing paint to spill. It appears to also explain that the contractor made an error in thinking that he was a different resident, but a sentence is incomplete in respect to this explanation.
3. It advised that carrying out works to the communal area and knocking on residents’ doors to request to carry out works was lawful, but should be done in a considered manner. It acknowledged this did not happen in the resident’s case and apologised for the events.
4. It advised that it had recently implemented a new customer relationship management system to allow contractors to be provided clearer information about residents who have reported repairs, and that it had arranged for repairs to be completed on 15 December 2020.
5. It offered £50 as a goodwill gesture for the poor customer service received and apologised for delay and poor record keeping on its part.
On 11 December 2020, the resident replied to advise he was pleased with the response provided, and returned a signed compensation acceptance form.
On 15 December 2020, the landlord’s contractor missed an appointment, which information provided advises was rearranged with the resident for the following day. Following this, the landlord confirmed with the resident that this was also missed and the appointment was rearranged for 21 December 2020. The landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with his experience and offered a further £50 for the missed appointments.
On 20 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to request the appointment arranged for 21 December 2020 to be cancelled, as he had come into contact with someone who had tested positive for Covid-19.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and noted it was agreed the resident would contact it in the New Year. The landlord noted payment of compensation had been referred to staff who were on leave and the status of this was unclear.
As of July 2021, the landlord’s account advises that works were outstanding because the resident was meant to contact it when available.
However the resident advises he called the landlord’s customer services centre on 4 January 2021, to rebook the repairs appointment, and has provided evidence that he received an email acknowledgement from its reactive repairs team to confirm he had made a query.
On 7 January 2021, the resident provides evidence that he emailed the landlord’s generic email for the attention of complaint staff. In this, he advised that he had made contact on 4 January 2021 to rebook the repairs that related to the ongoing complaint, and that he had not been contacted by a timeframe specified. He asked for the relevant team to be contacted so that the appointment could be rebooked.
The resident’s account advises that he has tried and failed to contact the landlord to discuss and rearrange the appointment. He advises he has left numerous messages for managers to contact him, and contacted the landlord’s customer services centre on 13 January and 27 April 2021 in calls which he advises totalled over an hour. He advises he also contacted the landlord’s contractor directly in January 2021 but was refused an appointment due to personal commitments. He advises that the landlord is yet to process the compensation it offered.
The resident expresses dissatisfaction that the landlord has not followed its complaints policy and procedures and not kept in touch with him, not responded to him when he has tried to contact about the issue, and not processed compensation as agreed.

Assessment and findings

The response to the resident’s reports that contractors were rude; that their attendance for communal drainage works contravened Covid-19 restrictions; and that they allegedly caused damage and mess when accessing his bathroom.

Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for his poor customer service experience. It advised that carrying out of the works and knocking on his door was not unlawful, although it indicated this was in error and acknowledged this could have been more considered. It explained it had implemented a new system for contractors to have clearer information, confirmed it had arranged for repairs, and offered an apology and £50. This demonstrates that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns and set out a position, actions and remedy which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were reasonable.
The landlord’s position that the circumstances were not unlawful appears reasonable, because reviewing the guidance and legislation at the time, this does not appear to restrict works. The landlord also provided assurance that recent system changes had been made that, in future, would avoid the scenario the resident complained about.
The landlord accepted that the contractor caused paint to spill, provided no argument against the resident’s request for walls in the bathroom to be painted (such as referral to tenant responsibility for decorations in the tenancy agreement), and confirmed it had arranged repairs to be completed. As the resident advises mess in his bathroom resulted from a blockage caused by paint acknowledged to have been spilt by the contractor, it is reasonable for the landlord to rectify this.
To avoid any potential confusion, the landlord may have been clearer in its response about the works it committed to, as the repair it raised is for damage to paintwork outside the property. There is no reason to believe however that a repair to put right any internal damage caused by the contractor will not be carried out, once an appointment has been successfully arranged.
The landlord’s apology and offer of £50 compensation, which is in line with its procedure to pay between £25 and £250 for inconvenience caused by repairs or failure to meet service standards, demonstrates it acknowledged impact of events on the resident and awarded reasonable compensation in accordance with its compensation policy.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response, actions and offer of redress appears proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see. This is because it acknowledged service issues; identified changes in place to avoid recurrence; confirmed it had arranged repairs to remedy issues reported; and offered reasonable compensation.

The handling of the subsequent repair and compensation.

It is not disputed that the resident experienced two missed appointments from contractors on 15 and 16 December 2020, so it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for these. Its offer of £50, which exceeds the £20 its procedure advises is applicable, demonstrates that the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused and compensated for the missed appointments beyond its policy.
Following this, while the landlord disputes whether it has been contacted since December 2020 to arrange repairs related to the complaint, the resident provides evidence that he contacted the landlord on 4 January 2021 and sent an email for the attention of its complaints team on 7 January 2021. He also details calls on 13 January and 27 April 2021 he says he made about the issue.
The landlord and resident’s accounts confirm that the resident accepted the £100 total offered. The information provided advises that on 22 December 2020 the landlord was processing the compensation, however the status of the compensation was unclear due to staff absence. This appears to have been a missed opportunity to monitor the compensation in accordance with expectations set out in the compensation procedure, as the resident reports the compensation was never received.
There was therefore a failure by the landlord to respond to two contacts from the resident to rebook the repair, and a failure to deliver on promises to compensate for acknowledged failings. The consequent eight month delay in compensation payment, and seven month delay in rebooking the repair, is not appropriate. As explained in the Service’s new Complaint Handling Code, when offering a remedy, landlords should follow these through to completion, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle to ‘Put It Right’ and effectively handle a complaint to prevent unnecessary escalation.

Determination (decision)

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 reports that contractors were rude; that their attendance for communal drainage works contravened Covid-19 restrictions; and that they allegedly caused damage and mess when accessing his bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the subsequent repair and compensation.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged service issues; identified changes in place to avoid recurrence; confirmed it had arranged repairs to remedy issues reported; and offered reasonable compensation.

The handling of the subsequent repair and compensation.

The landlord failed to respond to two contacts from the resident to rebook the repair, and failed to deliver on promises to compensate for acknowledged failings. The subsequent eight month delay in compensation payment, and seven month delay in rebooking the repair, is not appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100, which comprises £75 for the delay in repair and £25 for the failure to pay compensation.
The landlord to ensure the £100 previously offered is paid.
The landlord to make contact with the resident to make a mutually convenient appointment to repair any damage caused by its contractor.
The landlord should confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to liaise with the resident to review the telephone and email contacts he has made, and to ensure appropriate measures are put in place to avoid future recurrence for queries that were not responded to appropriately.
The landlord to ensure it has an effective compensation payment monitoring process in place which ensures it pays compensation in a timely manner.