One Housing Group Limited (202108365)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108365

One Housing Group Limited

30 June 2022

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 has complained about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to her property, in particular repairs to
  1. the intercom / buzzer,
  2. a leak through the skylight window,
  3. a faulty shower,
  4. and the heating system.
2. The landlord’s Covid-19 ‘No Visitor’ policy which prevented access to her support bubble.
3. The conduct of the landlord’s staff.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Repair Policy states that:
1. Emergency Repairs – Attend and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent Repairs – Attend within 3 working days, complete within 5 working days.
3. Routine Repairs – Attend within 5 working days, complete within 20 working days.

The policy further states that “OHG will manage repairs to shared communal areas to the same timescale and standard as internal repairs”.

The landlord’s Visitor Guidance in respect of the Covid-19 pandemic dated September 2020 states:
1. “Where it has been risk assessed and approved (as set out below), internal visits can be arranged. In order to ensure the safety of our residents and staff, managers must consider other options,… identify a designated area, Ensure the area identified has good ventilation, is spacious enough to allow social distancing, ease of access to our customers and limits a visitor’s journey through residential areas”.
2. “All non-registered services have the Head of Service’s approval, confirming internal visits can be arranged”.
The landlord’s Visitor Guidance was updated 16 December 2020, stating:
1. “In non-registered services where customers hold a tenancy agreement (rather than a license agreement) only, visits from a single, constant visitor will be allowed in customer flat but must be appropriately risk assessed….Only a single constant visitor per customer is permitted to visit which must be agreed by the customer in advance, or through discussion with the relevant person with decision making authority”.
2. “Schemes will need to complete an individual visiting plan for all customers that is tailored to their wishes and preferences, whilst taking into account their needs, capabilities and the circumstances of the family/ friends they would like to visit them. Once completed, any arrangements for internals visits should be signed off by the Head of Service”.
The landlord’s Principles for Assessment and Support Planning document states that:
1. It has a three stranded approach:
  1. Needs Review – showing the assessment of needs and aspirations,
  2. Risk Assessment – showing the assessment of risk and vulnerabilities and the plans in place to manage these.
  3. Support Plan – showing the agreed goals and the plans in place to achieve these.
2. As part of the sign up to the service, all customers will complete a Support Agreement. The purpose of this document is to set out the parameters of the support provided including.
3. With regards to the Needs Assessment, the document states “reviews should take place in response to major changes or incidents. … In order to ensure that all support is provided in the context of multi-agency working and partnership, reviews of needs, goals and support should take into account the views of other agencies involved with the customer. Where possible this should involve a coordinated review meeting”.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. At Stage 1 it aims to “respond to complaints within 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint”. If an extension is required “this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”. At Stage 2, the landlord aims “to complete the Stage 2 review within 20 working days from the date of request to escalate unless there are exceptional circumstances”.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that:
1. With regards to payments for loss of heating / hot water / cold water, “During official winter months (1 November to 30 April inclusive) OH will compensate for the loss of heating and hot water” and that it “will offer tenants emergency heating in the form of an electrical 2kw convector heater, where a tenant experiences loss of heating supply during winter months. OH contractors may offer up to two per household, depending on the size of the property and subject to availability”. It should pay £2 compensation per heater per day (for a maximum of 2 heaters) for loss of heating “from the day that the heaters are supplied” (which is based on the cost of running a 2kw heater at full power for a day). The landlord should pay £3 per day for loss of hot water from 3+ days “of when breakdown in reported” up to a “combined maximum of £100”. The policy further states that “In circumstances where the loss of heating or hot water has caused other demonstrable inconveniences OH may offer a discretionary payment”.
2. With regards to payments for inconvenience and gestures of goodwill, “In circumstances where a tenant, complainant or claimant has evidently experienced inconvenience, OH will use discretion to offer a gesture of goodwill payment. This payment can be between £25.00 and £250.00. The instances where this can be applied will vary…”.

Summary of Events

The resident experiences severe pain and mobility after suffering a spinal injury. It is understood that she uses walking aids to move around. The resident’s property is in a “Move on” Support Service scheme that was set up to support people with low support needs who are able to live independently with some guidance and signposting to external services. The landlord’s agreement with the local authority for the resident’s scheme confirms that residents “will require Low-Medium support” and “a maximum input of weekly support or less”. The building was handed over in September 2020 after refurbishment. There should be staff at the scheme at all times.
The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord and she moved into her flat on 9 November 2020. The landlord had previously carried out a support assessment dated 6 November 2020. The property is an adapted flat with a wet room and walk-in shower. There are three communal doors that need to be opened so that the resident can leave and enter her flat. The resident’s service charge does not include “personal services”, the charge being £0.00.
At the time the resident moved into the property, the property had a “No Visitor” policy due to Covid 19. Access into the building is set up so that all residents are not able to buzz their visitors straight into the building through the intercom system although residents can speak to the visitor/caller. Staff also cannot buzz in visitors into the building; all visitors must be manually let into the buildings. Residents are expected to let their own visitors into the building and sign them in.
On moving in, the resident could not use her shower as she could not regulate the temperature. It is understood that the shower was installed incorrectly and that the resident washed using a bucket which was discomforting to her. However, the landlord’s repair records show that it was on 17 December 2020 that it first raised a documented repair order for a faulty shower. The repair records further show that on 17 December 2020, it raised an order in respect of “Faulty buzzer in tenant door entry system. visitors are able to call the flat but when it rings she is unable to buzz them in. the buzz doesn’t work”.
The resident also reported a lack of heating in her flat on moving in due to a fault on the boiler. The landlord’s repair records show that that its gas contractor attended on 9, 10 and 11 November 2020 and stated that the boiler was repaired. However, the heating and hot water still did not come on and stay on. On 27 November 2020 the landlord’s gas contractor attended and left two electrical heaters.
On 12 November 2020 a member of the resident’s family had an altercation with the resident’s key worker after she entered the building to take the resident to hospital as her pain was intense. The landlord recorded that the family member shouted at the resident’s key worker referring to comments the key worker had made to the resident about managing her pain instead of attending hospital.
On 1 December 2020 there was a multi-disciplinary meeting where the resident’s health condition was discussed. The key worker agreed to write a supporting letter to her GP and nurse suggesting that the resident be referred to the MRI clinic for a scan on her lower back and that the hospital where she received treatment be changed. The letter was sent on 4 December 2020.
On 10 December 2020, there was another incident at the scheme where a relative of the resident who provided support to her attended the scheme to help carry shopping and bags and acted aggressively towards the key worker when challenged. During the incident, the key worker made a comment to the relative referring to her race and gender.
The landlord’s records show that it completed a needs assessment dated 15 December 2020 in which it noted that “the resident has been using the A & E department at least twice a week to manage her pain. We have a concern with regards to her health and the use of the emergency service as well as if her property meets her needs. I believe an Occupational Therapy assessment would be a way forward for this individual”. It also noted that the resident was breaching her tenancy agreement by allowing visitors onto the premises when it was not allowing visitors due to Covid.
On 22 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that it change her key worker. The landlord agreed to change the key worker on the same day as requested.
Following a query from a neighbour on 7 December 2020 on whether visitors could be allowed, now that lockdown had ended, staff at the scheme consulted with the landlord’s Head Office as its “No Visitor” policy applied to all schemes. On 22 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that the “No Visitor” policy had been relaxed and she could have a visitor to the building, although it would not tolerate abusive behaviour and she would need to provide written details of the visitor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 December 2020 raising a complaint about outstanding repairs, the support being provided and concerns about the key worker. In the email the resident noted that:
1. The key worker had prevented a relative from supporting her on 9 December 2020 with bags and shopping, and did not offer assistance her herself. The key worker did not provide her with support despite knowing her lack of mobility and pain she suffered from exerting herself. Also, the key worker had made upsetting comments, including a racist comment to another relative on 10 December 2020.
2. Her buzzer had not worked since 9 November 2020 and staff were often not in the office to let paramedics in.
3. The heating in her bedroom and sitting room had not worked since she logged the repair on 10 November 2020, which exacerbated her pain. She had been provided with a small electric heater which did not provide adequate heat, and which affected her asthma and caused migraines.
4. She could not balance the temperature of her shower making it difficult to wash.
5. The landlord did not take into account her health condition and the lack of access given to her support bubble affected her independence. The landlord’s website stated that despite the pandemic, as she was disabled, she should be allowed support from her support bubble during lockdown.
6. She wanted as resolution to her complaint an action plan and risk assessment taking into account her needs, and for this to implemented with the support and planning of her support bubble.
The complaint was only acknowledged after an internal email sent on 7 January 2021 noted that a formal complaint should be registered.
The landlord has provided evidence that by 8 January 2021 it had investigated the resident’s complaint about the key worker, interviewing the member of staff concerned and other witnesses. It has also provided evidence to this Service of various actions taken to address staff conduct and performance as a response to the resident’s complaint although for reasons of confidentiality these actions cannot be disclosed in this report
On 4 January 2021 the landlord’s plumber reported that the resident’s shower needed to be replaced due to it not functioning correctly. The landlord raised an order, “New Thermostatic mixer for shower required”.
On 27 December 2021 the landlord had raised a repair in respect of rainwater leaking into the skylight window which was causing damp in the front room ceiling and damage to paintwork. It also noted that the resident did not have the tools to open the window to dry out the damp. On 8 January 2021 the contractor attended and noted that a roofer would need to go on to the roof so that the flashing around the window could be checked. The contractor also requested that a window pole be obtained so that the window could be opened and closed.
On 11 January 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the roof window contractor attended to repair the leak on 8 January 2021 but was unable to carry out any works as he could not gain access to the exterior of the roof and did not have a ladder or window pole. She also stated that a member of staff had now informed her that the operative was tested positive for Covid–19. In a further email sent on 14 January 2021, the resident advised she would self-isolate until 18 January 2021.
On 8 January 2021 a contractor repaired the resident’s buzzer although it remained the case that she could not buzz visitors into the building.
On 15 January 2021, the landlord carried out an updated risk assessment. It concluded by stating that “the resident was aware how to access services if she needs guidance and support. Support will be given by staff and daily checks until further notice”.
The landlord advised the resident, according to her correspondence, that it would change her central heating system during the week commencing 25 January 2021 and replace her radiators, but the works were not carried out. The resident on 30 January 2021 reiterated her concerns about the fan heaters. The landlord’s contractor provided oil filled heaters on 3 February 2021 pending repairs scheduled for 9 February 2021.
After meeting virtually with the resident to discuss her complaint on 28 January 2021, on 8 February 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response. It advised:
1. With regards to the buzzer not working since 9 November 2020, although it had repaired the intercom panel, it understood that the second security door still needed to be opened manually to give access to the main building. It would investigate introducing a procedure for emergency situations where the scheme was unmanned.
2. With regards to “outstanding heating repairs since 9 November 2020”, it apologised for the delay and noted that the radiators in the lounge and bedroom would be replaced on 9 February 2021. It would compensate for increased electricity bills from using electric heaters.
3. With regards to “the faulty shower since 9 November 2020”, the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair and stated it would review the number of repairs in the building as a whole.
4. With regards to the resident not having access to her support bubble, the landlord advised that she was informed prior to her move that there was a “No Visitor” policy in place due to the pandemic. Moreover, it had initially accepted the resident as having a medium level of support needs. However, it had reviewed the policy to allow access to one identified support bubble member. The landlord also noted that it did not provide personal care, but the resident could raise concerns with the new key worker so that a supportive plan could be formulated. It would provide an action plan and risk assessment as requested.
5. With regards to the original key worker withholding the resident’s support bubble and not fulfilling that role, the landlord advised that the key worker was obliged to uphold its “No Visitor” policy. The key worker sought to arrange a multi-disciplinary meeting to address the resident’s physical and psychological needs.
6. The repairs to the heating system and shower were not picked up or communicated to staff when the property was void.
7. The comments from the key worker could be construed as insensitive and lacking empathy for which it apologised. It had also arranged additional training for staff.
8. It apologised for a comment made towards to resident’s relative, which referred to gender and race, as the comment was inappropriate and unhelpful.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord provided the resident with her risk assessment.
The gas contractor attended to complete the heating repairs on 8 March 2021 but did not do so as it transpired that the radiators in the sitting room and bedroom could not be bled or removed. A further visit on 13 March 2021 established that there were blockages in the pipes and that the concrete floor may need to be dug up to get to the pipes.
On 8 March 2021 contractors attended to look at the leak from the roof window and inspected from the outside. On 11 March 2021 the roofing contractor reported it had “sealed the gaps around the skylight using a water-proofer and silicone beading to ensure it is watertight”. However, there continued to be a further leak from the window and dampness in the resident’s flat.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord installed a new shower and also unblocked the shower drain as the resident advised the contractor that the shower was draining slowly.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord held a meeting with the resident via video during which she stated she would escalate her complaint. On 19 March 2021 the landlord provided an update stating that the complaint would be escalated to Stage 2. It also advised that a key safe would be installed shortly for her use for the second door in an emergency situation only, which would enable emergency services to access the building during times when staff were not on site.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the key safe had been installed in the entrance area of the scheme. It advised that the emergency services had the key for the first door, and she needed to give them the access code for the second door.
On 2 April 2021 the resident escalated her complaint. She advised:
1. Although the intercom was replaced on 8 January 2021, residents could not let visitors in, and she had not had an update or confirmation of the code of the FOB key to let the emergency services access the building when she required them.
2. The heating in her flat had not been repaired since her tenancy started.
3. She had not received anything in writing about next of kin not being allowed to visit during Covid 19, and that she had informed the landlord about her support bubble arrangement at her first interview on 9 November 2020, attended also by two advocates.
4. She was still anxious about her original key worker being on site without other staff due to her experiences.
5. The heating and shower repairs should have been assessed before she moved into the property.
6. She had not received support with setting up utility bills.
7. She was unhappy with the conduct of the key worker towards her next of kin.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 15 April 2021 it again unblocked the shower waste outlet. Also on 15 April 2021 the landlord installed a new boiler.
After arranging scaffolding, on 22 April 2021 a roofing contractor inspected the roof of the building externally and advised he had identified the source of the leak into the resident’s property. He advised repairs would be completed after he had submitted his report. The landlord subsequently raised a repair order on 28 April 2021 involving renewing the specialised Velux flashing unit and replacing slates. The works were completed on 21 May 2021.
An internal email noted that the “Emergency Access Panel” was fixed on 23 April 2021 and that the resident should be informed as well as the ambulance service.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It stated:
1. Buzzer not working since 9 November 2020:
  1. The old intercom was replaced on 8 January 2021 and the buzzer was now working.
  2. The second security door still needed to be opened manually and it had provided an update on the alternative options on 10 March 2021. A key safe was now in place for the second door.
  3. A new issue had arisen with a fault in the emergency panel on the front door. It expected the emergency panel to be fixed at the start of May and an alternative temporary arrangement would be put in place.
2. Outstanding heating repair since 9 November 2020:
  1. The original issue raised concerned three radiators not working. A new boiler was installed on 15 April 2021. The resident had confirmed that day that the system was properly working.
3. Not having access to her support bubble:
  1. The resident was advised during her assessment interview and at the start of her tenancy of the “No Visitor” policy due to Covid-19. The scheme was following procedures given by the organisation in response to Government guidelines for supported accommodation.
  2. After gaining central approval, the “No Visitor” policy changed for the scheme under tight controls which were currently in place. The control allowed for one designated visitor per resident which was implemented on 22 December 2020.
4. Concerns raised against the key worker:
  1. The issues raised had been addressed by the key worker’s manager. The key worker no longer had unnecessary contact with the resident as she had a new key worker. It had apologised in the Stage 1 response for the impact on the resident.
5. Heating and shower repairs not being assessed before moving into the property:
  1. Refurbishment of the property took place the previous year and it was handed over as checked and ready to be tenanted; however, it appeared that the checks were not sufficiently stringent and did not pick up the heating and shower repair issues. To mitigate this happening in the future, it would put in place a further check of every unit by staff before a tenant was signed up to a property.
  2. The resident had outstanding repairs even though the skylight was repaired on 11 March 2021 and the shower drainage was jetted out and repaired on 15 April 2021. It would further investigate the leak from the skylight and provide an update on the outstanding issues.
  3. The two operatives who attended on 8 January 2021 were aware of the landlord’s Covid Triage which ensured all relevant checks were made prior to entering dwellings and correct PPE worn at all times. It apologised if the resident thought this was not the case.
6. Key Work Commitments:
  1. Key work sessions should take place every two weeks and it was satisfied the key worker had met this commitment, holding sessions on 10, 11, 25 November 2020 and 1 December 2020, as well as other ad hoc unrecorded contract.
7. Key worker conduct towards next of kin:
  1. Although after speaking to witnesses and the key worker it could not verify the statement the resident had claimed, the key worker had accepted she made an unacceptable comment to a visitor. Appropriate action was being taken with the key worker which included further training.
  2. It apologised for the two months delay in providing a copy of the risk assessment.
8. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, in line with the Right to Repair, for not being without a shower for 121 days from 17 December 2020 to 9 March 2021. It offered the resident £447 compensation for lack of heating for 149 days, from 10 November 2020 to 15 April 2021, calculated at £3 per day.

After the complaints procedure:

On 21 May 2021 the landlord carried out external repairs to the window in the roof.
On 28 May 2021, the resident advised she was unhappy with the Stage 2 response and would respond further.
The landlord met with resident on 11 June 2021 to discuss outstanding issues and agreed to chase up any outstanding repair issues. Internal correspondence sent on 14 June 2021 noted that the resident had said since the new boiler was installed, the radiators were not working again, and that the skylight repairs had now been carried out so internal making good works were scheduled for 28 and 29 June 2021.
On 14 June 2021 a plumber checked the resident’s shower unit and unblocked the shower waste outlet again. On 9 June 2021 the landlord raised an order for the pipework to the heating system and its records indicate that works were completed at the end of the month.
On 28 June 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s Stage 2 response providing a detailed chronology of events and the impact on her. She asked the landlord to recalculate its compensation taking into account increased electricity usage from using heaters, her energy provider had charged her for energy used prior to her moving in, delay to repairs and the effect on her health, further loss of heating and hot water due to the new boiler breaking down on 11, 12, 19, 21 May 2021 and 2, 6, 8 and 23 June 2021, being put at risk of Covid by the contractor on 8 January 2021 and for misspelling her name on the Stage 2 compensation form. Within her response, the resident stated:
1. She still had to mobilise outside three communal entrance doors.
2. When she was assessed for a tenancy on 6 November 2020, she advised the landlord about her complex spinal injuries and medication. She also informed the landlord about the arrangements with her support bubble which needed to be close to her.
3. The key worker continued to have unnecessary contact with her after she was replaced.
4. Key work sessions did not take place on 10 and 11 November 2021. The resident reiterated her concerns about the conduct and attitude of the key worker including comments made to her and her relative.
The landlord’s repair records indicated that the internal making good works to the resident’s flat after the window repair, which included redecoration, were completed on 1 July 2021.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord advised that it would review the compensation award as well as deal with outstanding repairs.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord raised an order to replace missing screws to the floor outlet cover in the wet room.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord ordered a long reach window pole to open the Velux window and delivered it to the resident on 21 July 2021.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord wrote again to the resident updating her of the action that had been taken to resolve outstanding repairs. It stated that it had not agreed to pay the resident’s electricity bill but compensate for the increased usage. It advised that it had revised its offer of compensation:
1. It had considered the offer of £50 for the shower under the Right to Repair and would make a further offer under a gesture of goodwill.
2. With regards to its offer of £447 compensation for loss of heating, its compensation policy actually stated that it would pay £2.00 per day for the loss of heating up to a maximum of £100.00. However, it would honour the offer to recognise the impact.
3. It would offer a further £300 as a gesture of goodwill for the stress and inconvenience experienced.
4. The total compensation was £797 which it would round up to £800.

Assessment and findings

Handling of Repairs to the Property

Intercom / Buzzer

It is not disputed that the resident’s intercom system required a repair from the start of her tenancy and that the landlord carried out works on 8 January 2021. It therefore took appropriate steps to meet its obligation to keep the intercom system in good repair. The resident had an expectation that she could let in visitors to building. However, the policy of the landlord was to not let residents control entry into the building therefore there was no obligation for the landlord when carrying out the repair to configure the system to allow her to do so.
It is understood that the operation of the intercom system was of particular importance to the resident partly because she called the ambulance service on occasions and wished for it to be able to enter the scheme at any time. The landlord made adjustments allowing the emergency services to independently enter all entrance doors to the building when necessary, by installing a key safe, providing FOB key and repairing an emergency access panel when this further repair occurred. In doing so, the landlord demonstrated that it was responsive to the particular needs of the resident.

Leak through the skylight window

With regards to the resident’s report of a leak through a skylight window, she first reported this issue on 27 December 2020. Although the landlord initially attended within the 20-day timeframe for routine repairs, it was not until 11 March 2021 that it completed works, outside the timeframe. It transpired that the works were not successful in stopping the leak. This in itself was not unreasonable as it may take a landlord more than one attempt at repair to resolve an issue, particularly a leak where the source may be hidden or otherwise difficult to diagnose. It was also appropriate that the landlord investigated the leak further. However, it ultimately took another two months to complete the repair, on 21 May 2021, again outside the 20-day timeframe. Therefore, overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to and repairing the leak.
It was also noted that from the initial report that the resident could not open the window as she did not the requisite pole. As the window was openable, she had a reasonable expectation that she would be able to open the window; moreover, being able to open the window and aerate the property may have ameliorated the dampness that she reported. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not order a pole until July 2021, over 7 months after the initial report and 6 months after a contractor requested a pole. This indicates that there was a lack of oversight and understanding of this complaint.

Faulty Shower

With regards to the shower, it is not disputed that resident could not use the shower from the start of her tenancy. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to repair or replace the shower within the timeframe for routine repairs, with the landlord initially attending on 4 January 2021 and works ultimately being completed on 9 March 2021.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord initially offered £50 compensation for the delayed repair which while being in line with the Right to Repair was not fully reflective of the circumstances of the case given the length of the delay and the particular difficulties experienced by the resident in washing.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord reviewed the offer. Its further offer of £300 compensation, made in its response of 23 July 2021 took into account the inconvenience experienced by the resident and aligned with the guidance in the Compensation Policy. As such the landlord’s offer was reasonable and proportionate. The landlord also responded to the resident’s reports of slow drainage from the shower, attending on several occasions. Taken altogether, while the landlord delayed in carrying out the shower repair, through offering compensation, apologising and carrying other works to ensure the shower was operable, it took reasonable action to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
It is important to note that this finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the shower repair delays, the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Heating System

The resident’s heating system was not correctly functioning from the start of her tenancy. The landlord initially attended on 9, 10 and 11 November, in line with how it should respond to emergency repairs under the repairs policy. The repairs were not effective therefore the landlord followed its Compensation Policy by providing temporary heaters. However, it was unreasonable that it did not provide temporary heaters until a further two weeks, on 27 November 2020 given the time of year and the resident’s health issues.
The landlord ascertained that the heating system should be changed. There were delays in these works as the heating system was not repaired or changed at appointments made for 9 February 2021, 8 March 2021 and 13 March 2021. Indeed, it is evident that further issues concerning the radiators and related pipework, and the boiler which needed to be changed, were identified. Ultimately, works were not completed until 15 April 2021. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered compensation based on this date.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy suggests that the landlord can make separate payment for hot water and heating for £3 per day and £2 per day respectively, up to a combined total of £100. The landlord exercised the discretion allowed in the policy by overriding this limit and awarding compensation based on the full period up to 21 April 2021. The landlord’s award of £3 per day for loss of heating was not entirely consistent with the policy insofar as £3 is awarded for loss of hot water whilst £2 per heater is awarded for loss of heating, therefore the landlord therefore could have offered compensation of £4 per day for the two heaters provided. However, as it overrode the maximum limit of £100 by a considerable amount and replaced the electric heaters with oil filled radiators which are generally cheaper to run, the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair in all the circumstances. Therefore, while the landlord delayed in carrying out the repairs to the heating system, through offering compensation and providing temporary heaters it took reasonable action to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Again, this finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the water issue, the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord, which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.
In correspondence after the complaints procedure the resident raised concerns about incidents of loss of heating and hot water occurring in May and June 2021. These particular outages were raised after the Stage 2 response so not investigated by the landlord within the complaints procedure, therefore this Service has not investigated the landlord’s handling of these reports. The resident may raise a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of these reports.
This Service expects landlord to follow our Dispute Resolution Principles which are Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes when handling complaints. It is noted that the landlord in responding to the resident’s complaint advised it would make further checks of void flats to be allocated so as to pick up possible repairs such as those reported by the resident to her hot water and heating system. Whilst this change in process does not benefit the resident at this stage, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has learnt from the outcome of this complaint.

“No Visitor” policy

With regards to the resident’s complaint that the property had a “No Visitor” policy, the landlord’s Visitor Guidance dated 29 September 2020 confirms that the internal visits could only be arranged with the Head of Service’s approval. There is no evidence that the resident’s scheme had approval for visitors, as required by the Visitor Guidance, at the time her tenancy started. The landlord’s statements confirmed that the “No Visitor” policy was in operation across all its schemes at the time.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the resident’s initial assessment that indicated her support bubble should be allowed to enter the building. Therefore whilst the resident was unhappy that the landlord challenged her visitors when entering the building, this was in accordance with the landlord’s policy at the time, therefore there was no service failure. The landlord later sought approval from its head office to relax the “No Visitor” policy so as to allow residents to have a nominated visitor. This confirms that it was responsive to changes in the wider circumstances and in obtaining approval from head office, it addressed the substantive issue of concern to the resident.
The landlord in its responses stated that it explicitly informed the resident of the “No Visitor” policy prior to her tenancy. However, the resident has stated that she received nothing in writing. It is therefore recommended where there is a policy, temporary or otherwise, that affects the living arrangements of residents, for avoidance of doubt the landlord confirms the policy in writing to residents.

Staff Conduct

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct largely concerned her original key worker whom she considered was not appreciative of her physical needs and prevented her from receiving support. The landlord interviewed witnesses to incidents thereby taking steps to reach a fair and informed decision on the matter. The landlord accepted that the key worker made comments to the resident that were insensitive and lacked empathy for which it apologised. This was an appropriate response insofar as the landlord acknowledged and accepted the service failure and expressed regret.
The landlord also apologised for comments made to the resident’s relative referencing gender and race which again was appropriate for the same reasons. Aside from apologising for the impact on the resident, the landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it has taken steps to prevent further incidents occurring by addressing staff conduct and performance, although for reasons of confidentiality details cannot be provided. The landlord also acted pragmatically in changing the key worker at the resident’s request so as to improve the landlord – tenant relationship. Taken altogether the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint about her original key worker.
The resident was unhappy that, more generally, staff did not provide adequate support. It is evident that the landlord took steps to re-assess the resident’s needs by attending a multi-disciplinary meeting on 1 December 2020 and writing a letter on her behalf. Furthermore, it carried out new needs and risk assessment in line with the policy outlining that assessments should be reviewed. As such it is evident that the landlord sought to provide the resident with a level of support.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to the buzzer / intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of a repair to a leak through the skylight window.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about a faulty shower.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about a loss of heating.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its “No Visitor” policy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord repaired the intercom system in line with its repair obligation. Furthermore, it made adjustments allowing the emergency services to independently enter all entrance doors to the building when necessary demonstrating that it was responsive to the particular needs of the resident.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in responding to and repairing the leak through the skylight window. The landlord also unreasonable delayed in ordering and providing a window pole to the resident.
While the landlord delayed in carrying out the shower repair, through offering compensation, apologising and carrying other works to ensure the shower was operable, it took reasonable action to resolve this complaint.
While the landlord delayed in carrying out the repairs to the heating system, through offering compensation and providing temporary heaters, it took reasonable action to resolve this complaint.
There is no evidence that the resident’s scheme had approval for visitors as required by the Visitor Guidance at the time her tenancy started. Furthermore. there is nothing in the resident’s initial assessment that indicated her support bubble should be allowed to enter the building. The landlord later gained approval from head office, thereby addressing the substantive issue of concern to the resident
The landlord apologised for comments made by the key worker to the resident and for comments made to the resident’s relative referencing gender and race. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it has taken steps to prevent further incidents occurring by addressing staff conduct and performance. The landlord also acted pragmatically in changing the key worker at the resident’s request so as to improve the landlord – tenant relationship. It is also evident that the landlord sought to provide the resident with a level of support having carried out needs and risk assessments.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

The landlord pays the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused from the delay in carrying out repairs to the skylight window to stop the leak and the delay in providing a window pole.

Recommendations

Since this determination is contingent upon the landlord’s offer of compensation of £800, it should pay the resident this amount if it has not already done so.
Where there is a policy, temporary or otherwise, that affects the living arrangements of residents, for avoidance of doubt the landlord confirms the policy in writing to residents.