Six Town Housing Limited (202103076)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103076

Six Town Housing Limited

6 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the conduct of a contractor that attended her property.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the property is a semi-detached house.  
3. An electrical contractor attended the resident’s home on 12 January 2021 to check the electrics prior to refurbishment work on the kitchen and bathroom. He started in the kitchen, and then proceeded upstairs (where the bathroom was located). The resident had not expected the electrician to need to go upstairs, and challenged him, partly because her children were asleep in their bedrooms upstairs at the time. There was an altercation between the resident and the electrician, who left the property soon after.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 January 2021. She said the contractor that attended her home had gone upstairs without her consent. She explained that on arrival he explained the work he would do: the kitchen sockets, meters and the fuse box. The resident said that she believed all the jobs were downstairs. However, “a minute later” she noticed that he had gone upstairs, at which point she confronted him (at the bathroom door), questioned why he had not informed her, and asked him to leave her property.  The resident further explained that her children were asleep upstairs and she was uncertain if he had entered their rooms or not.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone to clarify the details of the incident. The resident said she felt she had already explained “exactly what [had] happened in [her] complaint”. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 11 February 2021. It explained that after the electrician completed his checks in the kitchen he went “immediately into the bathroom” to check for broken sockets and/or light switches but at “no time did the electrician enter any bedroom”, nor was he advised that there were children still in bed. It explained that the electrician believed the resident had been advised what his visit entailed, and had not intentionally tried to be discourteous. The landlord apologised that the resident felt that she had not been given enough information on the day of the visit, but noted that its purpose had been explained to her during a telephone call on 6 January 2021. The landlord acknowledged that the lack of information on the day made her anxious, and apologised for that, and said it would evaluate how to avoid such situations in future. 
6. In March 2021, the resident asked that her complaint be escalated as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She raised similar issues as in her formal complaint in January, and disputed that she was informed by anyone of the electrician’s need to access the upstairs rooms. The resident requested an apology from the landlord, for the electrician to be retrained and compensation for the stress and upset caused.
7. The landlord issued its final complaint response in March 2021. It reiterated the electrician’s job requirements and intentions for going upstairs, and confirmed that he did not inspect any of the sockets in any of the bedrooms. The landlord apologised for the stress and upset caused and it advised that it would ensure it was clearer in its reasons and what access was required for future visits. The landlord explained that its response formed the end of its complaint process, and provided details for this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.
8. The resident passed her complaint to this Service in May 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She raised similar issues as in her report in January 2021 and disputed that the landlord had addressed her issue.

Assessment and findings

9. Given the nature of the resident’s complaint, the landlord was obliged to take the resident’s concerns seriously. However, the options available to it were limited by the lack of independent witnesses. The landlord appropriately reached out to obtain accounts from both the resident, and the electrician, and relied on their statements as evidence. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take as it investigated both statements against the information it had provided the resident prior to the electrician’s visit. Its conclusions were fair and balanced, and acknowledged that while the electrician had acted appropriately, the resident’s concerns were equally valid and understandable.
10. Ultimately, the evidence indicates that the contractor would be required to access the upstairs rooms, to complete electrical checks for the bathroom renewal. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the contractor entered any rooms upstairs besides the bathroom. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the scale of the work intended was explained to the resident prior to the visit in January. Nonetheless, the evidence also makes clear that at the time of the visit the resident was not expecting the full extent of the work the electrician intended to do. The evidence does not imply this was due to any specific failing by the landlord (or contractors), but does show room for improvement in the landlord’s processes, which the landlord appropriately identified and undertook to address.
11. In the circumstances of this complaint, where there were no independent witnesses, or other evidence on which the landlord could rely, the landlord demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns, and appropriately explained the requirements for the electrical tests.

Determination

12. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.