Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202207363)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207363

Sovereign H A Ltd

12 January 2023

 

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:
    1. Toilet repairs and the bathroom adaptation.
    2. The resident’s reports of issues with the repair contractor’s conduct.
    3. The associated complaint.
    4. A reported data breach due to the resident’s personal information being shared with the local authority.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s handling of a reported data breach due to the resident’s information being shared with the local authority. Paragraph 39 of the Scheme says:

The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(k) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

  1. The landlord informed the resident in its final response to this complaint that it had referred the resident’s concerns regarding permission that had been given to share his information with the local council to its data protection team.
  2. Matters relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and if the resident is dissatisfied with the response from the landlord’s data protection team to his concerns, it is recommended the resident contact the ICO for further information regarding this matter.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that his toilet was not flushing properly on 26 November 2021, and a contractor attended the same day, with follow-on works identified.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord as he was dissatisfied that the follow-on works to the toilet had not been completed. He also raised concerns  regarding the contractor’s conduct, which he thought was aggressive during a phone call. He queried whether the landlord had adhered to its complaint handling process.
  4. In its final response to the complaint on 29 March 2022, the landlord stated that the toilet could still be used and it had previously agreed with the resident to delay any further repairs until the completion of the bathroom adaptation works. It advised it would provide updates on the progress of the works, which were being completed alongside an occupational therapy (OT) assessment of the resident’s needs regarding the bathroom. It addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the contractor’s conduct, apologised for how the situation escalated and noted it could have been handled differently. It asked if the resident wanted to be referred to a mediation service. It stated it had found no evidence of discrimination against the resident.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as he had only accepted the landlord’s resolution to complete the toilet repair at the same time as the bathroom adaptations, as he was advised it would be completed in June 2022, but this did not take place as expected. He stated the toilet was still faulty. He also raised concerns regarding the conduct of the landlord’s contractor.

Assessment and findings

The toilet repairs and the bathroom adaptation

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping toilets in good repair and working order. As a result, upon receiving the resident’s report that the toilet was not flushing, the landlord was required to attend and complete any required repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and it aims to complete responsive repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord initially responded reasonably as the resident reported the issue on 26 November 2021, and a contractor attended and resolved the issue the same day, which was an appropriate timeframe as a lack of any toilet facilities in a property would be regarded as an emergency. The contractor noted that the toilet could be used but follow-on works were required. In the case of follow-on works, the landlord is expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding the required works and the expected timeframe for these.
  3. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding an unscheduled appointment on 10 January 2022 and a missed appointment on 19 January 2022. The landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns as it offered a £20 voucher as discretionary compensation for the first appointment. It also offered an appropriate reason for the cancelled appointment, as it explained the required parts were not available to complete the repair. Several following appointments were cancelled by the resident. Whilst there may be legitimate reasons why residents need to cancel appointments, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays caused by such cancelations.
  4.  The repair records show that repairs were completed on 14 February 2022, but the toilet was not flushing properly, so it was recommended for the toilet to be replaced. A follow-on appointment was attended on 21 February 2022, but the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. There is no evidence of any further repairs, but in its final response to the complaint, the landlord stated the resident had advised on 21 March 2022, that the toilet was functioning. The landlord has not provided any records of communication with the resident in the intermittent period. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to ensure the toilet was properly functioning, but due to the absence of evidence, this Service cannot confirm whether this happened, or whether the toilet was functioning during this period. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any further issues or chased any outstanding repairs.
  5. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it stated that the resident had agreed on 21 March 2022 to delay any further repairs to the toilet, pending completion of the adaptation work to the bathroom. This was reasonable, as the resident had reported the toilet was functioning, so although it needed to be repaired this was not an emergency situation and it may be less disruptive to carry out the bathroom works at the same time as replacing the toilet. This would also likely be more financially efficient for the landlord. Social landlords are expected to look for the most cost effective way to fulfil their repair obligations in order to manage their limited resources effectively, for the benefit of all their residents. However, given that the repair issue was originally reported on 26 November 2021, there was a significant delay before the agreement was put in place, meaning there was a prolonged period of time where the landlord had not appropriately managed the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it would take in respect of the toilet issue.
  6. The landlord’s disabled adaptations policy states any adaptations above the value of £500, will require a referral from an occupational therapist. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that it would work with OT to progress the bathroom adaptation works. As OT is managed by the local authority, the landlord would not be in control of any delays caused while the resident was waiting for an OT assessment. It was reasonable for the landlord to not proceed with the works until the OT assessment was completed, as OT are appropriately qualified to ensure that the resident’s requirements are properly assessed and the necessary adaptations are completed. There was an assessment scheduled for 24 February 2022, but was cancelled as the resident was self-isolating.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that he had only agreed to include the toilet repairs in the bathroom adaptation works as he had been advised that the works would be completed in June 2022. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, however as a fair and impartial service, we can only base our decisions on the documentary evidence available and there is no evidence to confirm the details of this conversation. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident on 8 April 2022 that it did not have control over the timeline for the OT assessment, as it was outside of the scope of its service. As a result, the landlord demonstrated that it attempted to manage the resident’s expectations and it would not necessarily have any more specific information regarding the predicted timeframe, due to the reliance on the OT report before it could commence the works. The landlord had a meeting with OT on 20 April 2022 and was advised the resident had not yet been assessed and he needed “to make an appointment to be assessed at their clinic”. It is unclear whether the onus was on the resident to make the appointment, however, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm the process and clearly communicate this to the resident.
  8. There is no evidence to confirm that the bathroom works have since been completed or whether the landlord has provided updates following completion of the complaint process. The landlord’s repair records show that a contractor had attended the property on 27 July 2022, but was unable to gain access. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for providing access to the property, so the landlord would not necessarily be accountable for this delay. However, as it is unclear whether the resident was given prior notification of the appointment, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether there was a reason why the appointment was missed.
  9. Overall, the landlord has to some extent handled the repairs to the resident’s toilet and the associated bathroom adaptations in line with its repairs policy and obligations. However, communication failings have been identified in this report which the landlord has not acknowledged. The landlord failed to confirm that the resident’s toilet was functioning between 14 February 2022 and 21 March. It also did not advise the resident to contact OT to arrange an assessment, which potentially led to additional delays in progressing the works. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has provided the resident with any updates following completion of the complaints progress.
  10. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was minor failure by the landlord, which it failed to appropriately acknowledge or fully put right. As the poor communication likely led to distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100. The landlord should also review its staff training requirements regarding communication about outstanding repairs.

The resident’s reports of issues with the contractor’s conduct.

  1. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding the contractor’s conduct during a call on 3 March 2022, as they would not transfer him to the adaptation’s manager and he thought their conduct was aggressive.
  2. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. In the case of staff conduct complaints, landlords are expected to carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the issue with the resident, to understand his specific concerns and it reviewed the call with the contractor. It noted that it did not find any evidence of discrimination against the resident. However, it was reasonable that the landlord identified learning as it apologised for how the call escalated and stated it could have been handled differently. It discussed with the resident how his health conditions could sometimes impact his behaviour. The landlord should ensure that it correctly logs the resident’s vulnerabilities in order to tailor its service to the resident’s requirements. The landlord also offered mediation, which was reasonable to avoid similar situations arising.
  4. Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it appropriately considered and investigated the resident’s concerns. It also identified learning and preventative measures that it would put in place to avoid a recurrence of the issue.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident originally raised a complaint regarding the outstanding toilet repairs on 10 January 2022, as a contractor had attended without the resident being notified of the appointment. The landlord promptly closed the complaint as it stated it had agreed a resolution with the resident and awarded vouchers as a goodwill gesture. The resident raised a further complaint on 20 January 2022, as the contractor had not attended the appointment the previous day. The landlord issued a stage two response on 26 January 2022, in which it apologised for a potential miscommunication regarding an appointment date. The landlord therefore adhered to its complaint response timeframes. However, the landlord focused on specific appointment issues, rather than holistically assessing the toilet repair issue. As a result, there was a missed opportunity to address the repair issue in full at an earlier date.
  3. The landlord noted the resident had escalated the complaint on 3 February 2022, as he thought there were discrepancies in the landlord’s response. This Service has not been provided with record of this complaint. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of complaint correspondence, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the landlord is unable to provide the resident’s complaint, we may not be able to conclude that it was handled reasonably. Furthermore, it does not seem that the landlord addressed the resident’s additional concerns until 29 March 2022, so it exceeded its response timeframe.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint 3 March 2022 (again this Service has not been provided with a copy of the complaint), raising concerns regarding the contractor’s conduct and a potential data breach. Given that the resident had raised new issues, which had not been previously covered in the landlord’s complaint responses, it was inappropriate for the landlord to handle the complaint at stage two as it should have been raised as a new, separate complaint. The resident had also voiced concerns on 23 March 2022 (prior to the landlord’s response) regarding the complaint being registered at stage two, as he stated the issues were not related to his previous complaint. In its response, the landlord advised that both complaints were connected, so it had handled them together.
  5. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.” As a result, it was inappropriate for the landlord to incorporate the issues into its stage two response, rather than raise it as a separate issue, particularly as the resident had raised concerns about it doing so.
  6. When a complaint only goes through one stage of the complaint process, it can cause potential issues as it does not give the resident the opportunity to raise any additional concerns based on the information provided in the landlord’s response and it does not allow the landlord to review its decision to ensure it is fair and nothing important has been missed. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding its complaint policy, to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its policy and the Code.
  7. The landlord has failed to identify its complaint handling failures, so as a result this element of the complaint remains unresolved. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate where there was a minor failure by the landlord’s service that it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. Ultimately, the landlord’s response covered all the issues raised by the resident, however, issues related to the toilet repair should have been addressed in full at an earlier date. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address the additional issues raised by the resident at two stages. In light of the inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. The landlord should also contact the resident and ascertain whether there are any outstanding issues relating to his data protection and/or staff conduct concerns and address them as appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the toilet repairs and the bathroom adaptations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the contractor’s conduct.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. As a result of the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the toilet repairs and the bathroom adaptations, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100.
  2. Due to the complaint handling failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.
  3. The landlord should provide a clear update on the progress of the adaptations and confirm whether the resident needs to contact OT to arrange an appointment.
  4. Evidence that the landlord has complied with these orders should be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling to ensure staff are correctly following the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its staff training requirements regarding clear communication with residents while repairs are ongoing.