One Manchester Limited (202101389)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101389

One Manchester Limited

28 February 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of an electrical inspection and follow on works.
2. Landlord’s decision to get an injunction order for access to the property to complete the electrical works.
3. Landlord’s records concerning the resident’s vulnerability and requirements for access to the property.
The investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
On 29 November 2021 the court issued an injunction which ordered the resident to provide the landlord access to the property to complete works. When the injunction order was granted there were outstanding recommended follow on works to be carried out to the property. The follow on work had been identified during the electrical safety inspection that the landlord completed on 20 July 2021.
The resident has complained about the landlord’s decision to obtain an injunction. The resident said that he was not able to attend to the hearing because he received the notification of hearing letter and the particulars of claim documents after the date the hearing took place. The resident has said that as a result of this, he was unable to present a defence to the court.
Paragraph 42e of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
We note the resident’s concern that he could not attend to the hearing. As indicated on the injunction order the resident may apply to the court to reconsider the order, which is in place until November 2026.
Therefore in accordance with paragraph 42e of the Scheme we will not consider the complaint concerning the landlord’s decision to get an access injunction, as the resident had the opportunity to apply to the court to reconsider the order. We would suggest that the resident seek legal advice in the event he wishes to pursue the matter further.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

Throughout the correspondence the resident sent to the landlord he has raised queries concerning the landlord’s data handling policies and procedures. In addition the resident has also submitted several Subject Access Requests (SAR) to the landlord during the course of his complaint.
We are not able to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA). Concerns about the landlord’s handling of personal data is likely to be within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
This investigation will consider the landlord’s service delivery in relation to the electrical safety check and the associated follow on works specifically, whether it acted in line with its obligations and relevant policies.
The resident has also raised concerns about discrimination from the landlord.
We cannot decide whether the landlord has breached the Equalities Act 2010. Only the courts can make such a decision. However in the investigation we will consider whether the landlord has treated the resident fairly in the context of the complaint. This includes whether the landlord has properly considered its duties under the Equality Act.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a flat within a high rise block. Access to the block is via an intercom fixed on a front communal entrance gate.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident disputes this and has provided a copy of a screenshot he received from the landlord’s database in 2018.The record from 2018 indicates that the landlord had a vulnerability recorded for the resident at that time. The detail of the resident’s vulnerability is not known.

Summary of events

On 4 February 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter advising that the electrical safety check was due at the property and that its contractor would attend to do the check on 24 February 2021. The contractor attended the appointment but did not get access. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident again and confirmed that it had rebooked the appointment for 4 March 2021.
On 2 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to postpone the appointment until COVID–19 indoor transmission risks and restrictions were lifted. The landlord did not respond before its contractor attended to the property on 2 further occasions on 4 and 11 March 2021.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s request that it postpone the appointment. It said that it could only postpone if the resident provided a shielding letter from the government. It explained that it was required to complete the safety check by law and that legal action would be considered if it could not complete this. It assured the resident that its contractor would work in line with the COVID–19 guidelines in place during the appointment.
On 15 March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about its response to his request to postpone the electrical safety check. He explained that he felt that he was being discriminated against and said that the landlord’s request for the shielding letter to postpone the appointment was unlawful.
On 16 March 2021 the resident received a letter from the landlord. The letter said that he had to respond within 7 days or the landlord would take legal action. The resident complained to the landlord about the letter because it was undated and so the deadline it provided for him to respond was not clear.
On 13 April 2021 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident and said that he had to provide the landlord access to complete the check within 3 days of the letter.
From 14 April 2021 the resident was in contact with the landlord reiterating his request to postpone the appointment. In May 2021 the resident and the landlord agreed an appointment date for 21 June 2021. Thie appointment was later rescheduled to 20 July 2021, as the resident had some concerns following further COVID–19 guidance issued by the Government in June 2021.
The electrical safety inspection went ahead on 20 July 2021. The report recommended follow on work to upgrade the consumer unit and replace faulty light fittings. The notes on the report state that the contractor arranged to return and complete the follow on works on 4 August 2021.
On 27 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s Data Protection Team and requested a copy of the report from the electrical safety check (known as EICR). The resident asked the landlord whether it considered the safety check was completed. The resident also said he raised a disability access related issue with the contractor who attended the inspection and asked the landlord if the contractor had logged this. He did not specify what the disability access related issue was.
On 29 July 2021 the resident’s point of contact sent an acknowledgement to the resident by email. The acknowledgment was addressed to the resident but his email address was not included and the email was sent to the landlord’s Data Protection Team instead.
On 3 August 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not confirmed via letter the status of the electrical safety check for 2021/2026. The landlord responded the same day. It provided the resident with a copy of its acknowledgement email dated 29 July 2021 and also provided:
1. The EICR.
2. Copies of the correspondence relating to its attempts to carry out the safety check, including the images of the notes taken by contractors when it recorded visits as ‘no access’.
About the resident’s question concerning whether the contractor had logged a disability access related issue, the landlord said that it was unsure of what the resident wanted in relation to the question. It asked the resident for clarification on this.
Later that day (3 August 2021) the resident wrote to the landlord and requested a stage 1 complaint raising the following points:
1. The email the landlord sent on 29 July 2021 was not sent to him but to the landlord’s internal Data Protection Team.
2. The landlord had not sent letters after the electrical safety check was completed notifying him of any of future appointments in 2021 or 2026 for work related to the safety check.
3. He said that he previously provided the landlord with data concerning his disability access and found it unreasonable that the landlord asked him to provide clarification on this. He asked the landlord what had happened to previous data he submitted to it about his disability access.
4. That the landlord should explain what regulations allowed its operatives to ‘record the intimidatory surveillance images’ that were taken when recording a no access visit.
5. The resident requested that the landlord provide a letter confirming that no information would be sent to its solicitors because the safety check was completed.
On 4 August 2021 the contractor attended the property to complete the recommended follow on work from the report. It recorded the visit as a no access.
On 18 August 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. As well as the above noted points, the landlord also responded to additional issues it understood the resident had raised. Regarding the complaints the resident raised on 3 August 2021, it said:
1. In relation to the resident’s point about future works for 2021 and 2026, it explained that notification for electrical safety checks began 120 days before the test due date. It said it considered the notice period suitable and considered the complaint closed.
2. The email acknowledgment dated 29 July 2021 was sent to the Data Protection Team in error. The landlord apologised and assured that the mistake was not intentional.
3. In relation to the matter of the resident’s disability access data, the landlord confirmed that it had no vulnerabilities for the resident on its system. It repeated its request that the resident provide clarification on this.
4. It was the standard process for operatives to take images when a visit resulted in no access. It said this was to verify the contractors attendance.
5. That it would not provide additional details to its solicitor if the recommended follow on electrical works were completed within 28 days of the test.
The landlord also responded to the complaint raised in March 2021 about the undated final notice letter. It acknowledged that it was not acceptable that it had sent an undated letter. It confirmed that it had asked its electrical team to include dates into its letter templates in future.
The landlord also responded to concerns the resident raised about the EICR report, such as the quality of the images in the report. The landlord acknowledged that the timestamps on the images in the report did not reflect the times the images were taken and that this was misleading. It clarified that the timestamps reflected the time the images were uploaded to the contractor’s system. It said its contractor was looking into incorporating a disclaimer within its reports to advice of this. The landlord apologised that some of its service had not been satisfactory.
On 19 and 20 August 2021 the resident raised queries to the landlord about the complaint escalation rights in its complaints process. The landlord confirmed that it could not escalate the complaint without a request from the resident and that an escalation request could be made within 1 month from its response. The resident then raised questions about the landlord’s stage 1 response including:
1. Why the landlord did not provide an appointment letter for the follow on works it indicated were required in its stage 1 response.
2. What the specific follow on works were.
On 7 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said that its contractor had attended again on 4 August 2021 and had not been able to gain access. It noted that the appointment was arranged with the resident on site when the safety inspection was completed. The landlord provided several upcoming dates when its contractor could attend to complete the work and asked the resident to choose a suitable date. The resident responded to the landlord and said that he had not been given written notification of the appointment on 4 August 2021.
On 8 September 2021 the landlord responded to queries the resident raised with it between 19 and 23 August 2021. It confirmed that follow on works were required after the inspection in July 2021 and advised that it had already provided the report to the resident that had this information. It advised that there was no requirement for it to verify appointments in letters. It advised that the initial request for follow on works was made by the operative during the inspection. The landlord clarified that a point it had made in the stage 1 response regarding the notice period for works, related to the request the resident had raised for details of future electrical safety check work in 2026, and not the follow on works from the most recent test.
The landlord’s email concluded that it considered matters raised about the EICR report closed and said it would not respond to further queries about it. The landlord said that it would also not escalate the stage 1 complaint for the reasons it had set out in its email.
The resident responded to the landlord that it had contradicted earlier information it had provided about the complaint escalation process. The resident said this was specifically because he had not submitted an escalation request, but the landlord had already decided not to escalate the complaint.
On 17 September 2021 the resident submitted an escalation request to stage 2. He said that:
1. The landlord prematurely decided not to escalate the complaint.
2. The stage 1 response did not address his concern about not having received notification of the appointment for the follow on work after the inspection.
3. Regardless of whether there was intent in the landlord not sending the email to him dated 29 July 2021, the consequence of this was discriminatory,
4. During the visit on 4 August 2021 the landlord’s operative did not follow the correct procedure, as no note was delivered through his door advising of the attempted visit.
5. The landlord failed to acknowledge his dissatisfaction with the images on the electrical safety check report. He said that text on objects depicted in the photographs within the report were illegible. The resident also made comments on the accuracy of statements within the report.
The landlord responded on the same day and upheld its decision not to escalate the complaint. It explained that it had considered the resident’s previous emails to it to be requests to escalate to stage 2, as they were an expression of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. It said that when it reviewed the emails, it found that there was no grounds for a stage 2 complaint and made the decision not to escalate.
On 18 September 2021 the resident reiterated the escalation request and raised further points of dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. On 24 September 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. Before issuing the response the landlord offered to meet with the resident on 8 October 2021 and, at the resident’s request, it arranged for a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter to attend the meeting.
From 3 October 2021 until 16 December 2021 the landlord and the resident were in correspondence about the meeting and the complaint. The resident did not attend the meeting the landlord arranged on 8 October 2021 and raised several questions and concerns about the format of the meeting, the credentials of the interpreter and the landlord’s change of decision to consider the stage 2 complaint. After several weeks of correspondence between the parties the landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 23 December 2021.
The final response upheld the findings from the stage 1 response concerning the undated final notice letter and the issue found with the timestamps on the images within the EICR report. The landlord said in relation to the appointment on 4 August 2021, that a photograph was taken of a no access card in front of the intercom on the communal gate. It acknowledged that the note was not posted through the resident’s front door, but explained the operative might not have gained access to the building to put the card through the door. In response to the resident’s additional comments about the content of the EICR report, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. The landlord also confirmed the reason for it changing its decision regarding the consideration of the complaint at stage 2 was because of a decision it had received from the Ombudsman on another complaint.
Following the injunction order granted in November 2021 the landlord attended and completed the recommended follow on works on 14 January 2022.
The resident referred his complaint to us on 22 December 2022 and confirmed that he remained unhappy with the outcome because:
1. The landlord’s response did not address his complaint that the appointment on 4 August 2021, was not arranged with him. He said that the landlord’s statement that it was not required to verify appointments via letter was unreasonable.
2. The resident felt that the landlord had disregarded his requests to delay the electrical safety check until COVID–19 restrictions were lifted. He said that the landlord’s request for a shielding letter so that it could delay the check was unreasonable.
3. The resident said that there were multiple instances of the landlord delaying email responses by restricting recipients to internal teams only.
4. The resident said that he provided the landlord with his access requirements in 2018. He said that records from the landlord’s system in 2018 confirmed that it had a record of his vulnerability. He questioned why the landlord’s response said otherwise.
5. The resident said that the landlord denied him fair access to stage 2 of its complaints procedure and that it had no reasonable grounds to refuse an escalation request.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s electrical safety policy.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has a responsibility for keeping in repair the installations in the property that supply electricity. The landlord’s electrical safety policy explains how the landlord meets the requirements for electrical safety and provides assurance of the measures in place to ensure compliance with regulations and to identify, manage and or mitigate the risks associated with electrical installations.
In accordance with the policy the landlord delivers a programme of testing and inspection of all properties on a rolling 5 year cycle. This ensures that its properties have a valid EICR that is no older than 5 years from the date of the previous EICR.

COVID–19

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, new legislation and government guidance was issued in March 2020 in response to the outbreak and the guidance continuously changed. Guidance was specifically introduced for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning repair works and landlord’s repair obligations. Guidance on working safely in other people’s homes was also provided.
In January 2021 the government announced the third national lockdown since March 2020. People were advised to stay at home but the national guidance advised that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice. On 8 March 2021 a phased exit from lockdown measures began and continued until restrictions were entirely eased on 19 July 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the electrical safety work.

It is evident from the information provided that the landlord took steps to ensure that the electrical safety check was completed in line with its policy. It provided reasonable notice to the resident in the first instance and thereafter made several attempts to gain access to the property.
The landlord’s need to meet its obligations set out in its policy are understood and its pursuit to gain access to the property was motivated by the expectations set out in its electrical safety policy. However, the landlord in its handling of the matter did not act fairly in the circumstances.
The resident informed the landlord from 2 March 2021 that he wanted to postpone the appointment until COVID–19 restrictions were eased. At the time the request was submitted, the announcement had been made by the government about easing of the restrictions from March 2021 onwards. Given this, the resident’s request to postpone the appointment until the restrictions were eased was reasonable. Wanting to have the appointment carried out when restrictions were eased by the government was likely to have provided the resident reassurance that the risk of transmission of COVID–19 was lower than during the lockdown period.
On notice of the request from the resident it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have considered the resident’s concerns and try to reach an agreement with the resident which achieved a fair outcome for both parties.
However after the resident requested the postponement of the appointment, the landlord continued to send the resident letters threatening legal action if he did not provide access. It also placed the onus on the resident to provide a shielding letter from the government and said that it needed this to postpone the appointment. This was not appropriate as there was no requirement on the resident to provide this. The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s request and initially did not try to work with the resident to come to a compromise within a reasonable time. It is recognised that the landlord agreed to the request to postpone the appointment 2 months after the request was made, however by this time, there was increasing frustration between the parties that could have been avoided.
The resident incurred distress and inconvenience and time and trouble as a result of the landlord’s actions, which included legal threats from the landlord. This could have been avoided if the landlord had addressed the resident’s request fairly in the first instance.
The landlord also failed to record or address the resident’s complaint to it in March 2021, about its response to his request to postpone the appointment. We note that around the same time, the resident also complained about the undated final notice letter and the landlord addressed this complaint in its stage 1 and 2 responses. It is not clear why the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about its response to his request to postpone the appointment.
Failing to record the complaint has meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate and reflect on the way it dealt with the matter. It did not try to work with the resident to reach a compromise initially and instead persistently threatened the resident with legal action over a 2 month period, before eventually agreeing to postpone the appointment.
In relation to the recommended follow on works and the arrangement of this, the EICR visit confirms that an appointment was scheduled for the contractor to return and complete the recommended works on 4 August 2021. The resident disputes having agreed to this appointment and the report does not explicitly clarify whether the appointment was agreed with the resident.
There is no obligation on the landlord to confirm appointments with the resident in writing, but there is an obligation on it to provide the resident with reasonable notice of repair appointments. There is no evidence of the landlord explicitly informing the resident that its contractor would be returning on 4 August 2021. We are satisfied that the resident had access to this information via the EICR but recognise that the EICR was sent to the resident the day before, less than 24 hours before the time of the appointment. We cannot therefore conclude that the resident was given reasonable notice of the appointment.
The landlord also did not take the opportunity within its complaint response to address the resident’s question about whether a further appointment was required for electric works. Its response focused on the notification period for electrical safety checks in general and it was vague about the follow on works. It said that it would not seek the intervention of its solicitor if the follow on works were completed within 28 days of the inspection. At the time the stage 1 response was provided, there had already been a no access appointment on 4 August 2021. Given the resident’s query about the follow on works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to notify the resident of its contractor’s attendance on 4 August 2021 and offer dates to reschedule the visit at that point.
After the no access appointment on 4 August 2021 the landlord took over a month to contact the resident. This delay was not appropriate, particularly because the photograph taken of the no access note was outside of the entry gate to the block. This would, therefore, indicate that the operative was not able to post the note through the resident’s letter box.
In accordance with the electrical safety policy the landlord would have been expected to complete the follow on work from the inspection within 28 days of the inspection. However, it took 6 months for the landlord to complete the work. A month of that delay was the result of the time taken for the landlord to contact the resident to reschedule the appointment. The majority of the delay however was not due to a service failure by the landlord, who was ultimately granted an injunction order by the court in November 2021.
The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s complaint concerning its email acknowledgment dated 29 July 2021. Having seen the email in question, it is evident that the email was intended for the resident and was sent to the Data Protection Team in error as the email addressed the resident by his name. The landlord fairly apologised and explained the error. The error also did not have a significant impact. The email did not contain any substantial information and was solely an acknowledgment of the resident’s queries. The landlord’s follow up email dated 3 August 2021 that was delivered to the resident’s email address, provided the relevant responses to the queries he had raised on 27 and 28 July 2021.
It is recognised that during the duration of time when the inspection and follow on works were outstanding the landlord was in receipt of a high volume of correspondence from the resident. This resulted in the landlord appointing a single point of contact for the resident in March 2021.
The resident raised several queries to the landlord about various policies and questions concerning the outcome of the safety inspection and the content of the EICR report. The landlord made reasonable efforts to respond to the resident and shared the report with the resident, which detailed both the inspection findings and the recommended works. When the resident highlighted concerns about the quality of the images in the report, the landlord acknowledged that the timestamps on the images could be misleading and confirmed the learning that had been shared with its contractor to improve this.
The learnings the landlord identified were proportionate to the service failures it found, but overall maladministration has been found in the landlord’s handling of the electrical safety works. This is because it:
1. Failed to fairly respond to the resident’s request to postpone the appointment for the inspection.
2. Failed to record and respond to the resident’s complaint concerning its response to his request. As a result of this it did not recognise that the way in which it responded resulted in avoidable distress and frustration for both parties. In particular, the landlord continued to send the resident threats of legal action after the resident requested it postpone the appointment until lockdown restrictions were eased, which in the circumstances was a fair request as the country was in a national lockdown at the time.
3. In relation to the follow up works there is no evidence of the resident being given reasonable notice of the appointment on 4 August 2021 and there was a delay in the landlord following this up. While part of the delay in the completion of the follow on works was due to the landlord’s delivery of service, the majority of the delay was not due to a service failure by the landlord. The evidence shows that when it made the resident aware of the missed appointment, it provided several alternative appointment dates to complete the work before it pursued access via the injunction order.
The resident has indicated that he considers that he has been subjected to discrimination by the landlord. We cannot make a finding on this, however we have found that the landlord acted in a heavy handed manner, particularly in the way it responded to the request to postpone the appointment. For this reason we consider that an award of £50 compensation is appropriate to recognise the impact on the resident. The impact is not considered to be significant on the overall outcome for the resident because the landlord eventually did agree to postpone the appointment. However, it is recognised that the resident experienced time and trouble persistently requesting the postponement which the landlord could have considered and agreed to at an earlier opportunity.
The landlord not providing a response notice of the appointment on 4 August 2021 is also not considered to have had a significant detriment on the resident. The landlord’s offer of several alterative dates is considered appropriate redress in the circumstances. Offering alterative dates allowed the resident to choose a date suited to his availability and would have enabled the completion of the follow on works.

The records held by the landlord in relation to access to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s electrical safety policy states that it has a robust process in place to gain access to properties where tenant vulnerability issues are known or identified.
The resident queried whether the contractor who attended on 20 July 2021 logged a request he made about disability access, to the landlord. The resident did not specify what this specific request was. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask for clarification on this so that it could bear this in mind for any future visits required to the property. The EICR report made no mention of any request from the resident about disability access.
In relation to the resident’s question about what happened to the records he previously provided to the landlord about his vulnerability, the landlord responded and confirmed that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Records the resident provided from 2018 indicate that the landlord previously identified a vulnerability for the resident. It is not clear from the record what the vulnerability was.
While the landlord confirmed in its complaint response that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident at the time of its response it did not address whether it previously had held such records as the resident believed it had.
The landlord asked the resident to provide details about his vulnerability and his request for disability access which, in the absence of any records, was reasonable for the landlord to ask for so that it could consider what reasonable adjustments might be appropriate.
While the landlord confirmed that in its response that it did not currently have vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, it did not address the resident’s questions about the historical information it had relating to his vulnerability. We have therefore found a service failure in relation to this. The evidence the resident provided from 2018 indicates that a vulnerability was recorded but does not specify what the vulnerability was. The resident, in his communication with the landlord, also did not specify what his vulnerability was or the specific information about his request for disability access.
Given the service failure finding an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to establish what vulnerabilities he has and what reasonable adjustment/s it may offer. We note that the resident has not previously been forthcoming with this information but would encourage this so that the landlord can consider reasonable adjustments he requires in future.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord has 2 stages within in its complaints process. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days.
The policy states that to move a complaint to stage 2 the reasons the resident has provided for escalating the complaint must meet 1 or more of several criteria set out in its policy. This is line with the principles of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which notes that reasons for declining a complaint escalation must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord failed to record and respond to the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s request to postpone the appointment for the electrical safety check. This was a service failure and it missed the opportunity to investigate the matter and offer a resolution.
Furthermore there was a delay in the landlord addressing the resident’s complaint about the undated final notice letter. The resident raised the complaint to the landlord in March 2021 but it was not addressed until the landlord provided its stage 1 response in August, 5 months later. The landlord did not offer any apology to the resident for the delay in addressing the matter but as noted above, the learning taken from the complaint was appropriate to prevent the same issue recurring in future.
The landlord explained that it considered the resident’s initial responses to its stage 1 response as a stage 2 escalation request. The Code allows landlord to exercise discretion and consider escalation requests when a resident indicates a dissatisfaction with a stage 1 response. The decision to consider the resident’s emails as a stage 2 complaint therefore was in line with the principles of the Code however, the landlord did not notify the resident that his emails would be considered as such.
Its failure to inform the resident that it would consider his emails of 19 and 20 August 2021 as a stage 2 complaint, resulted in further frustration to the resident. In its later stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately explained to the resident why it changed its position on reviewing the complaint at stage 2. It was appropriate for it to answer the resident’s question about this. However, the landlord did not offer an apology or redress to the resident to recognise the frustration and confusion potentially caused as a result of it not making clear that it was considering the resident’s initial emails about its stage 1 response, as a stage 2 request.
Shortly after receiving the resident’s escalation request on 17 September 2021 the landlord agreed to review the complaint at stage 2. Therefore there was no considerable impact on the overall handling of the complaint.
It took the landlord 3 months to provide a response to the resident at stage 2, which is significantly outside of the timeframes within its complaint procedure and the Code. The delay however is not attributed to a service failure by the landlord. During the period of the delay, the landlord made active efforts to engage with the resident and establish the outstanding matters of the complaint so that it could provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord was also in receipt of a vast amount of correspondence from the resident. In line with its complaints procedure it offered to meet with the resident, which provided the opportunity for the resident to set out his position on the outstanding matters of the complaint.
While the landlord’s handling of the complaint has been found to be appropriate in some respects, overall maladministration has been found in its handling of the complaint. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint concerning its response to the request to postpone of the electrical safety check. It also delayed its response to the complaint about the undated later. It offered an explanation for why it changed the decision to review the complaint at stage 2 but did not recognise the impact that its initial refusal to escalate had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme a finding of maladministration has been found in the landlord’s handling of the electrical safety work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme a finding of service failure has been found in relation to the landlord’s records concerning the resident’s vulnerability and requirements for access to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme a finding of maladministration has been found in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to postpone the appointment in an appropriate manner. Its response did not take into account the concerns about COVID–19 at the time, including the fact that the county was in a national lockdown. The delay in it agreeing to postpone the appointment meant that it sent the resident letters threatening legal action, despite having received the resident’s legitimate reason why he wanted to postpone.
The landlord confirmed that it had no record of vulnerabilities for the resident and asked him for clarification of his specific vulnerabilities. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this information in the absence of any record. However, there is evidence to show that the landlord had previously recorded a vulnerability for the resident and the landlord did not address the resident’s query about the absence of this information within its current records.
Maladministration has been found in the landlord’s complaint handling because it has not acknowledged or offered any redress to the resident for the failings identified in relation to its response to his request to postpone the appointment. It also provided a delayed response to the complaint concerning the undated letter. The landlord also did not recognise the frustration caused to the resident as a result of it not being clear that it was going to consider his initial responses to the stage 1 response as a request for escalation to stage 2.

Orders and recommendations

In recognition of the findings of maladministration it is ordered that within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord pays the resident £100 compensation comprising:
1. £50 in recognition of the failure found in its handling of the handling of the electrical safety work.
2. £50 in recognition of the failure found in its complaint handling.
Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not be used to offset any arrears that the resident may owe the landlord.
It is ordered that within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord contacts the resident to establish what vulnerabilities he has, including any requests he may have for the landlord about accessing the property. In the event the resident confirms any vulnerabilities, the landlord is to clarify what, if any, reasonable adjustments it can make to its service and confirm to the resident that this information is recorded on its system.
Once the landlord has complied with the above orders, it is to provide evidence of compliance to us.