One Housing Group Limited (202307155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307155

One Housing Group Limited

29 July 2024

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 concerns regarding:
   1. Staff conduct.
   2. Emergency repairs and the process to report emergencies.
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started in January 2020. The property is a self-contained 1-bedroom flat.
3. The resident has hearing vulnerabilities, which the landlord is aware of and is recorded on its information systems. The landlord also provided the resident an email address to contact it in emergency situations in 2021.
4. On 23 February 2023 the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord by email. He said the landlord was not making reasonable adjustments despite having complained 3 years ago. He used the emergency email address on 22 February 2023 at 12.56pm to report a water leak in the property from his washing machine. He was told by the landlord’s contractors that the email was for out of hours use and to turn the water off at the mains. He also received a text message from the landlord which stated a plumber would attend on 24 March 2023 (1 month later). The resident was unhappy, so he spoke to the landlord using its webchat service, the appointment was then changed. He spoke to the landlord again via webchat and received a text that a plumber would attend on 24 February 2023.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. The landlord noted that a plumbing contractor attended on 23 February 2024 to inspect the leak in the property. They found there was an issue with the hot and cold-water feed. On 24 February 2023 its contractor carried out the repairs. The landlord acknowledged it had not responded to the resident appropriately and apologised. It raised an incorrect emergency repair with an electrician for 24 March 2023, where it should have raised it with 24-hour priority. When the resident contacted the landlord by webchat, it did not raise another emergency repair with the correct contractors until the resident contacted it again the following day. This error meant the contractor did not attend until over 3 hours more than the 24-hour schedule.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also said that the initial email sent by the resident was forwarded to the landlord by its contractor within 5 minutes. It confirmed the inbox does have an automated message and is monitored regularly. The landlord told the resident its operating hours and clarified its contactable email and webchat during operating hours as well as its contractors’ hours. It previously created a system rule where the resident’s emails would be flagged and increased its webchat operating hours. Additionally, it had previously suggested a text to speech service.
7. Within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said a government support service was also offered previously to the resident. This was to establish and put in place specialist support, as well as the landlord offering a disability liaison officer. At stage 1, the landlord offered £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint on the same day. The resident said this was because of the following reasons:
   1. He felt the landlord needed disability training.
   2. The resident was never told the emergency email address provided was for out of hours use.
   3. The text to speech (relay) applications were not suitable for him.
   4. There was a misunderstanding between the parties relating to which email address the resident uses.
   5. The resident said he should never have to find access to a computer to report an emergency (as someone without disabilities can just call).
   6. A British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter is a legal option for the resident only.
   7. The resident would not let government support enter his home as they were untrained.
   8. The resident said an in person meeting was not necessary as the landlord could read.
8. On 16 March 2023 the landlord’s staff member introduced themselves to the resident about handling his complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. The staff member suggested a face-to-face meeting with a BSL interpreter present, or via a virtual meeting. The staff member said they were open to any other approach the resident felt more suited. The resident replied the same day saying there was no need for a meeting as the staff member could read emails (and no interpreter was needed). He said a meeting was just a box ticking exercise. A BSL interpreter was for him to request and not the staff member. There was ongoing discussion between the parties about reasonable adjustments until 5 April 2023.
9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 11 April 2023. It had confirmed with the resident on 28 March 2023 that he was happy with the arrangements in place to report emergencies. It said it was committed to its reasonable adjustments policy. It re-offered relay services if the resident changed his mind. It had spoken with its contractors to agree a bespoke solution. Emails to the emergency address would be automatically forwarded to the landlord within operating hours or the contractor would process the request themselves out of hours. It told the resident a quarterly check would take place to ensure the reasonable adjustments setup were still working, which he had agreed to responding to test emails for.
10. In the landlord’s final response of 11 April 2023, it also outlined the process after reporting an emergency repair to the resident. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by £50 to a total of £100, recognising the stress and anxiety caused. It also apologised for typing the resident’s personal email address incorrectly at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. He said he was not interested in compensation and the system to report emergencies had failed multiple times. He told the landlord he should not be spoken to in the same manner prior to 28 March 2023.
11. On 28 April 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses, he confirmed he wanted us to investigate his complaint. On 6 June 2023 the resident notified us about further details of his complaint and how the complaint should be investigated.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

12. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as potentially there are reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
13. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless it is because of a complaint handling failure.
14. The resident told this Service in June 2023 that he was dissatisfied with how he was spoken to throughout his complaint. From the information provided, the resident had not expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord regarding staff conduct prior to 28 March 2023. This was 13 working days after he received the stage 1 complaint response and escalated his complaint and was expecting a stage 2 complaint response in April 2023. However, in the resident’s correspondence of 28 March 2023, he said it did not form part of his complaint and the landlord should answer his complaint as he previously set out.
15. As such, the resident has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord did not have an opportunity to respond to any complaint regarding staff conduct through its internal process. Therefore, this Service will not comment on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

Scope of investigation

16. Paragraph 42l of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where the resident seeks to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
17. The resident has mentioned that he complained previously in 2020 and there is evidence reasonable adjustments were in place in 2021. The resident referred a complaint to this Service regarding the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments, which was determined on 12 September 2022 (case reference 202114071).
18. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on matters that had already been considered prior to September 2022 in accordance with paragraph 42l of the Scheme. The scope of this investigation will focus from when the resident put the landlord on notice of his concerns from February 2023 until the complaint was referred to this Service.
19. The resident has stated that the landlord treated him unfairly due to his hearing vulnerabilities. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns around discrimination. However, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns about his allegations regarding the landlord not complying with the Equality Act 2010.

Landlord’s obligations and policies

20. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. The landlord is to keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water.
21. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and working order installations provided by it for water heating and sanitation, as well as supply of water. This includes flushing systems and water pipes.
22. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for plumbing for a washing machine and water leaks. The landlord operates two tiers for responsive repairs. It aims to respond to emergency repairs within 3 hours and attend, make safe within 24 hours. If possible, it intends to complete the works within this time, but any follow-up works are to be raised and completed in line with its urgency. Routine repairs are attended to within 7 working days and completed within 28 working days.
23. The reasonable adjustments policy in force by the landlord sets out that it will ensure disabled people are not disadvantaged in accessing its services. Therefore, it will make reasonable adjustments and there is no prescribed list of reasonable adjustments.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer discretionary payments for actual financial loss due to service failure or there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress or detriment due to service failures. The landlord considers a payment from £50 when there has been detriment to a resident which it is fully responsible for.
25. The complaints policy states the landlord has a 2-stage process. At stage 1 it aims to respond to complaints in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge escalations in 3 working days and respond within 20 working days. Where it will not meet these timescales, it would notify the resident about new timescales.

Emergency repairs and the process to report emergencies

26. Where there are admitted failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles and remedies guidance. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes
27. It had taken 2 working days to complete the repairs after the resident reported the leak from the washing machine. The repair was not completed in 24 hours and the landlord has admitted the initial attendance (for an emergency repair) was outside its 24-hour target by 3 and half hours. This was not appropriate and outside the timescale’s set in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the landlord acknowledged this service failure in its final response and apologised.
28. It was not disputed by the resident that the area was not made safe after 23 February 2023. The resident did not dispute the quality of repairs from the attendance on 24 February 2023 either. The Ombudsman would expect to see a risk assessment by the landlord, given the resident’s vulnerabilities. This information was provided to this Service and the landlord has appropriately documented the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs. There is no evidence to suggest that after the repairs of 24 February 2023, the resident continued to experience leaks. The evidence shows the repairs were completed, but the resident felt strongly about his experience regarding reporting emergencies and reasonable adjustments.
29. Once the resident reported the leak to the landlord by email, he was told by its contractor that the email was for out of hours use and to turn his water off at the mains. He was then told by the landlord in an automated text message that a plumbing contractor would attend on 24 March 2023. This was 22 working days after the report of an emergency, which was not appropriate. It was also beyond the attendance timeframes of a routine repair.
30. The landlord explained to the resident in its complaint responses that automated messages are system generated to be a reminder for residents. However, in this case the appointment was incorrectly booked for a date that was too far away and it apologised for this. From the information provided, the landlord was not clear in in its communications about this. It did not proactively tell the resident there was an error, until he resorted to contacting it via webchat and subsequently complaining. However, once he had done so on the 23 February 2023, an appointment was made for the same day, which was reasonable action by the landlord.
31. The landlord also explained that despite its contractors telling the resident that the email address was for out of hours use, that his email was picked up by it 5 minutes after being sent. It is appreciated that the resident said he was not previously told the email address provided by the landlord was for out of hours use only. This has since been made clear by the landlord and the operating hours explained, as well as its own hours for webchat increased. This was reasonable action by the landlord and showed it was taking his concerns seriously. The landlord had also incorrectly typed the resident’s personal email address in its stage 1 complaint response, but the landlord addressed its miscommunications in its final response.
32. The resident wanted a 24–hour, 2–way ‘live’ text communication with the landlord so that he could report emergencies. Ultimately the landlord is not obligated to accommodate all requests. From the evidence provided, it is clear the landlord has exercised its reasonable adjustments policy when assessing matters. The landlord had also made other alternative suggestions such as a relay service and government specialist support, and these are available to the resident if he were to change his mind. The landlord was open to discussions with him about any other adjustments and showed a willingness to consider alternatives, which was appropriate and in line with its reasonable adjustments policy.
33. Additionally, the landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint by implementing a customised solution for the resident. The resident can continue to report emergencies using the email address provided by it. The landlord’s contractors would process the resident’s email and book his repair. If the resident emails within the landlord’s operating hours, then that email would be automatically forwarded to the landlord to action. This approach was agreed to be tested by both parties quarterly. This was appropriate of the landlord and evidence that it used guidance under its reasonable adjustments policy to incorporate these features for the resident. It was also reasonable that it confirmed the following when the resident reports an emergency by email:
    1. the resident will receive a reply acknowledging his email within 30 minutes
    2. a further reply within 1 hour of the resident’s initial email detailing action taken and job reference number and either:
       1. confirmation that the emergency repair has been raised and will be attended within 24 hours
       2. or the date and time of the resident’s appointment
34. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. When the landlord issued its final response, it offered £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This payment was fair and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, where it was fully responsible for the repairs and the level of detriment caused to the resident.
35. When the emergency leak was resolved on 24 February 2023, there was no further detriment to the resident because of a repair issues within the property. There were multiple email exchanges between the parties after this date regarding reasonable adjustments, which would have caused the resident time and trouble. The Ombudsman feels the £100 awarded was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
36. Ultimately, the landlord acknowledged all of its service failures regarding emergency repairs and reporting emergencies. It took action to resolve the issue, showed a willingness to incorporate reasonable adjustments, learned from outcomes, and the compensation offered was fair and reasonable. The offer recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for being outside the emergency repair timescales and effort expended in finding a potential long-term solution to the matter, given the resident’s vulnerabilities. As such, this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding emergency repairs and the process to report emergencies.

Handling of the associated complaint

37. In terms of timeliness, the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in 10 working days. After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord had indicated to him he would receive a stage 2 complaint response on 6 April 2023. The stage 2 complaint response was not sent until 11 April 2023, which was 2 working days after the targeted date, this was inappropriate as it was not within the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy, however the landlord apologised for this in its final response.
38. There was no evidence to suggest that prior to the landlord’s final response, that it had agreed or notified the resident that its stage 2 complaint response would not be sent by 6 April 2023. However, considering there was constant communication after the resident’s escalation request between both parties, and the resident’s repair issue was resolved, the detriment to the resident was mitigated by this delay.
39. The resident had submitted to this Service that his complaint was not fully responded to by the landlord. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord had not considered his complaint at either stage of its internal complaint procedure, therefore there was no service failure in this regard.
40. Overall, while the landlord was outside its response scales by 2 working days in in its final response, there have been no other service failures identified which caused the resident any detriment. Therefore, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the associated complaint.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
42. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding emergency repairs and the process to report emergencies, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the associated complaint.

Recommendation

44. Subject to the above finding of reasonable redress, if the landlord has not paid the £100 compensation to the resident already, the landlord is recommended to re-offer and pay the £100 compensation directly to the resident’s bank account.