Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202006090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006090

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

11 February 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint concerns:
1. the landlord’s decision regarding its liability and responsibility for repairs to the downstairs toilet and the conservatory
2. the landlord’s response to the residents’ complaint about the customer service they received.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more that 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure;”
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) and 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord’s decision about its liability and responsibility for repairs to the downstairs toilet and the conservatory.
In the residents’ correspondence they have made reference to historical disputes about the liability for repairs on the downstairs toilet and conservatory in the property. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the residents were aware of the landlord’s stance concerning the liability for these repairs from a letter to the residents following a visit to their property in June 2016. In this letter the landlord stated that it believed the residents had installed the conservatory and made alterations to the downstairs toilet. The residents complained to the landlord about its decision regarding the conservatory and toilet in 2016, along with a range of other issues. The landlord responded, following which the residents brought their complaint to this Service. However, the specific issue of responsibility for these two parts of the property did not form part of the Ombudsman’s subsequent investigation, which was completed in 2017. The landlord wrote to the residents on 5 December 2017, following the investigation. In that letter the landlord again made clear that it believed the conservatory and downstairs toilet were “either a tenant responsibility or have been installed by yourselves.”

The residents later complained again to the landlord about this matter in July 2020. However, it is evident that they were aware of the issue several years previously, and had complained about it at that time. They did not bring these specific issue to the Ombudsman at that time, after receiving the landlord’s final complaint response, and their complaint in July 2020 on the same matter is too long after the event for the Ombudsman to investigate it now.

Background and summary of events

The residents are tenants of the landlord.
The residents are a married couple who have been assisted by a representative for this investigation. For the purpose of this investigation all parties will be referred to as the ‘residents’.
The landlord organised three mediation sessions for the residents and landlord on 13 May, 26 May and 25 August 2020 in an attempt to address and gain an understanding to the residents’ concerns.
On 13 July 2020 the residents raised a formal complaint. They complained about a range of issues, primarily regarding the landlord’s decision about liability, which does not form part of this investigation. They also complained that they felt that the landlord was discriminating against them due to them living in a “valuable property” and the landlord “want[ed] them out” so it could sell the property onto private developers to build flats.
They stated that the landlord refused to address any of their concerns, and had refused the residents’ alternative suggestions for a resolution, (the residents did not give specific examples or details, such as when these matters had occurred). They also said they were “astonished” with the landlord’s behaviour, who they alleged was “bullying” the residents, but did not refer to specific examples.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord advised the residents that it would require additional time to produce its stage one complaint response. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
On 31 July 2020 the landlord sent the residents a letter unrelated to the complaint which concerned the outstanding matters to the property. In this letter the landlord concluded by stating that it felt it had “gone above and beyond to work with you, help you and resolve any issues you have raised with us”. The landlord also expressed its hope that the mediation sessions had helped to build a positive relationship between itself and the residents.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It apologised that the residents felt that they had been mistreated, and acknowledged that they had raised this issue on numerous occasions. It stated that mediation sessions it had organised were in recognition of the residents’ feelings, and were intended to improve their relationship with the landlord.
It reassured the residents that it did not want to see them leave the property, and that it did not treat the tenants on the basis of what type of home they occupy (in reference to the resident’s concerns that the landlord wanted to take back the property because of its value).
The landlord concluded by explaining that it felt it had made “strenuous effort to reassure you and to keep you informed and involved”. It acknowledged that the residents’ trust in it had been eroded, but hoped the efforts it had made would help restore it.
The landlord advised the residents that they could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if they remained dissatisfied.
On 8 August 2020 the residents approached this Service. They disputed the landlord’s claim of wanting to build a better relationship as they felt they had been “ignored” and “dismissed”.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord escalated the residents’ complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. It gave a deadline of 24 August 2020 for a response.
On 24 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response. It said it was sorry that the residents felt their treatment from the landlord had been poor. It stated it had “invested a significant amount of time and resource to your case, exceeding our normal service standard”.
The landlord explained that it was unable to uphold the residents’ complaint, given that no new evidence had been provided which could have changed the outcome of its formal complaint investigation.
The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if they remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

According to section 5.2 of the landlord’s feedback policy, it aims to treat each case justly, make sure they put things right where they have gone wrong and demonstrate a willingness to learn from the issues raised. From following these principles, the landlord aims to provide excellent services by operating in “a fair and open manner to build trust and mutual respect”.
When the residents raised their formal complaint detailing their concerns with the landlord’s overall treatment of themselves, they stated that they felt “astonished” with the landlord’s behaviour and that it continued to “disrespect” them. However, the residents’ concerns were general, and they did not give specific examples of when or how the landlord had acted in such a way.
In their stage two complaint the residents said that even though the landlord had claimed it wanted to build a better relationship with them, it had in fact “ignored” and “dismissed” them. However, they did not provide specific examples in their complaint to illustrate their concerns. The landlord acknowledged the residents’ complaints, and apologised that they felt this way. However, it could not provide specific responses to the resident’s allegations because no clear details had been provided.
Overall, from the evidence that has been provided for this investigation, it is apparent that the landlord attempted to improve its relationship with the residents, and address their concerns that they had been treated poorly. The mediation sessions organised by the landlord demonstrated its willingness to listen to the residents and resolve their outstanding issues before they had logged an official complaint. In its stage one and two complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the residents’ dissatisfaction with how they felt they had been treated. The correspondence between the residents and landlord demonstrated that the landlord was attempting to build their trust and understand the root of their concerns. Furthermore, in the absence of specific evidence of how the landlord had been “bullying”, aside from apologising for how the residents felt, there was no further action the landlord could reasonably have done to rectify this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents’ complaint about the customer service they received.