Spitalfields Housing Association Limited (202016687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016687

Spitalfields Housing Association Limited

26 April 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Repairs team’s responses to the resident’s calls and emails.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a tenant of a four bedroom house, owned by the landlord, since 1996.
The resident’s complaint has been brought to this Service by his son, who this report will refer to as ‘the representative’.
In January 2021, the landlord raised repairs for the windows and balcony doors in the property. On 23 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the repairs, via the online complaint form, as he believed that the balcony doors needed to be replaced. The resident sent a follow up email to the landlord on the same day, stating that he was dissatisfied with its repair service.
The resident also submitted a complaint to this Service on 23 March 2021 about the landlord’s repairs service. In the complaint to this Service, he noted that there had been delays in the landlord completing repairs.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint the following day as a query. It informed the resident that repairs were normal to maintain the property and if the resident wanted to replace the balcony doors for aesthetic reasons, it could provide him with a quote and recharge him for this. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if he wanted it to provide the quote for replacement doors or, go ahead with the proposed repairs. The resident responded that he wished to go ahead with the repair.
The Service contacted the landlord on 13 April 2021 regarding the resident’s complaint and asked it to get in touch with the resident to discuss their complaint and provide them a response by 28 April 2021, as it was not evident that the complaint had finalised its complaints process. The landlord did not contact the resident and we wrote to it again in May 2021. It responded on 28 May 2021 and informed us that its email to the resident, dated 24 March 2021, was its response to his complaint. The landlord believed that the complaint was resolved because the resident agreed to go ahead with the repair.
We responded and requested that the landlord provide the resident a complaint response, as its response dated 24 March 2021 was not in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Between 2 and 23 June 2021, we remained in contact with the landlord encouraging it to provide a complaint response. In this time, the resident notified us that he also submitted a complaint to the landlord in 2020, that he did not receive a response to. We advised the landlord of this, sent it a copy of the complaint we received from the resident in March 2021 and advised it to contact the resident if it required further information on his complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2021, that it understood his complaint was related to his request for a window replacement and was resolved. The landlord said that it believed the Ombudsman’s understanding that there was an outstanding complaint was incorrect. It asked the resident whether he believed he required a further response to the repair matter. The resident responded on the same day and said his complaint was not about what the landlord said it was, although he did not provide further clarity. He asked the landlord to provide a copy of its complaint log.
The landlord responded on 24 June 2021, and asked the resident to provide a copy of his complaint, as it did not have a complaint logged. The resident did not provide a copy of the complaint but confirmed he submitted his complaint online. He mentioned the complaint he submitted in 2020 and also stated that the landlord had consistently failed to respond to his emails.
Later that day, the landlord provided a stage one response. It said that its response was prepared to the complaint the resident submitted to the Housing Ombudsman ‘out of courtesy’. It confirmed that it had no record of the complaint the resident said he submitted in 2020. It confirmed that it tested its online complaint form and found this was working. It provided a copy of a test online complaint form with its response, to evidence this. In response to the resident’s complaint about the repairs team not answering calls, the landlord said that it had a system in place, where calls were answered or there is an option to leave a voicemail. Regarding the resident’s complaint about a delay to repairs, the landlord said that it was not aware of a delay, as the balcony door repair was raised on 21 January 2021, after the resident reported it.
On 24 and 25 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord with information about why he was unhappy with its response. He confirmed within his correspondence, that the complaint relating to the repairs to the balcony door and windows had been resolved. But said that his outstanding complaints were:
1. About his experience of not being able to speak to a housing officer and the repairs team not answering calls or responding to voice mails his son had left.
2. That he had not received responses to his emails, with the exception of the complaint case. He advised that his son had a record of the emails that had been sent which the landlord had not responded to.
3. That he felt that landlord had ignored the Ombudsman’s request for it to respond to the complaint. He advised that the landlord could have discussed the complaint with his son amicably.
The landlord asked the resident on 29 June 2021, to provide clarity on the outcome he was seeking. It also asked if the resident if he could provide specific details of his complaints such as, copies of emails he sent or, dates and times of the calls he made to the repairs team, so that it could investigate. It said that in the absence of such information, it was difficult to understand what the resident expected.
The resident responded and said that he had forwarded the landlord, the emails he had not received responses to. This Service has not seen the emails the resident sent. He said that his main concern was the communication from the landlord and he wanted it to confirm:
1. How it was going to improve its responses to email enquiries and whether it was working to improve its call handling.
2. Whether its online complaint form provided a receipt of complaints, as he did not recall getting one. He asked if not, could the landlord explore this.
3. Where he could find the complaints procedure.
4. What the landlord’s KPI’s were and how often they were reported against.
5. How he could join the resident’s panel, as he wanted his son to attend on his behalf.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint. It acknowledged the emails the resident forwarded to it, said that it had resolved the maintenance queries raised and said that a housing query the resident had sent the week before, would be responded to by the Housing Team. The landlord confirmed that the resident did not provide a copy of the complaint he submitted and said it understood the resident was pursuing the complaint with the Ombudsman. It advised the resident to continue to pursue the matter with the Ombudsman. The landlord provided a link to its complaints policy and a link to information on its website about resident involvement opportunities available.
The resident questioned why the landlord sent him a link to information about the resident involvement opportunities when he asked how he could join the resident panel. This Service notes that the resident did not receive a response to this and had to chase the landlord again on 7 September 2021. The landlord responded on 17 September 2021 and requested information from the resident for its resident’s panel to consider.
The resident confirmed to this Service on 2 August 2021, that he remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint because:
1. The landlord did not provide details about how to join the resident’s panel and did not respond to his email expressing his interest to join the panel.
2. The landlord had not responded to the complaint about the long call wait time and lack of response to emails sent to its generic inbox.
3. The landlord did not apologise for not responding to his email and only responded after the Ombudsman’s intervention.
4. He found that the landlord fabricated his complaint and did not provide a satisfactory response.
5. The landlord had not answered his question about whether the online complaint form provided a receipt. He explained that the reason why he asked the question was because he was unable to evidence the submission of his complaint in 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs’ team responses to the resident’s calls and emails.

The resident has complained that he has experienced issues with his calls and emails to the landlord not being responded to. When the complaint was submitted in March 2021, the resident did not specify when he experienced the issues with the repairs team responding to his communication. To investigate the complaint, the landlord would have needed to know when the issues took place. After it provided the stage one response, the landlord asked the resident to provide details of when the issues took place. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask for such information however it could have done so sooner.
After the landlord requested the details about when the resident had encountered issues with its repairs team, the resident did not provide the dates and times he attempted to call the repairs team and was unsuccessful. However, on 29 June 2021, he said that he forwarded the landlord the emails he had sent that he had not received responses to. This Service has not seen those emails. We have asked the resident to provide copies of the emails the landlord did not respond to, but we have not received them.
Although we have not seen the emails the resident forwarded to the landlord, it is evident that the landlord addressed this matter as part of its stage two response. It confirmed that it had responded to correspondence the resident sent in 2018, and it has provided this Service evidence to show this. It also noted that the maintenance queries were resolved, as confirmed by the resident in their stage two complaint, and that the repairs had been addressed.
From the information this Service has been provided by both parties, there is no evidence that the landlord’s repairs team failed to respond to the resident’s emails and calls. After the resident emailed the landlord on 23 March 2021, it responded the day after. Following this the contact between the parties from 22 June 2021 onwards was in relation to the resident’s complaint, which the landlord provided its respective complaint responses to. The landlord’s handling of the complaint will assessed separately below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
A complaint can be made to the landlord via the online complaints form, by email, in person or in writing.
The landlord’s complaints policy indicates that its complaints can be resolved informally prior to engagement of formal complaints policy, which has two stages. At stage one, it will provide a response within 10 working days. At stage two the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days.
When the resident submitted his complaint on 23 March 2021, he complained about the landlord’s decision to repair rather than replace his balcony doors and the landlord’s repairs service. The landlord responded to the complaint as a query, and when doing so it did not acknowledge or address the complaint about the resident’s dissatisfaction with its repairs service. It solely responded to the resident’s concern about its decision to repair and not replace the balcony door.
When it responded to the resident on 24 March 2021, it did not communicate to him that it would be dealing with his complaint as a query or, give him the opportunity to agree or, disagree with its alternative approach. This was unfair to the resident and obstructed his access to the complaints procedure, which resulted in the resident having to approach the Ombudsman for assistance with the complaint.
After being contacted by the Ombudsman, the landlord did not take steps within a reasonable timeframe to try and resolve the complaint with the resident. Despite this Service explaining to the landlord, that its response to the resident on 24 March 2021 did not constitute a response to the complaint, the landlord insisted that the matter was resolved without speaking to resident. It took the landlord nearly two months to contact the resident about his complaint, after this Service asked it to in April 2021. Had the landlord contacted the resident sooner, it would have been able to confirm with the resident at an earlier stage that he was unhappy with its repairs service.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 24 June 2021, 65 working days after the resident submitted his complaint to it, via its online form and email, on 23 March 2021. It stated to the resident that the response was prepared ‘out of courtesy’. The requirement for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint was not a matter of courtesy (as the Ombudsman had asked it to respond) as it was something it was required to do in line with its own complaints policy. The response did not acknowledge the fact that the landlord had failed to address the resident’s complaint about its repairs service, in March 2021. The landlord also did not offer any explanation or apology for this.
In response to the complaint about the repairs service not answering calls, the landlord spoke about the system it had in place for calls. As noted above, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the repairs service failed to respond to calls and emails. But at stage one, the landlord did not provide an appropriate answer to the complaint as it did not provide any indication that it had investigated the issue the resident had or what its findings were. This is demonstrated by the fact that prior to providing the response, the landlord did not seek to find from the resident, any details of when they experienced issues with contacting its repair service. However, after the stage one response, the landlord did request this information from the resident.
Within his stage two response, the resident asked the landlord several questions pertaining to its service, its policies and how he could join the resident panel.
At stage two, the landlord provided a partial response to the resident’s questions. It provided a link to its complaints policy as the resident requested and it provided information about what the resident involvement opportunities it had available. But its stage two response failed to address the resident’s questions about, how it was aiming to improve its service, its online complaint form, its KPI’s or how he could join the resident panel.
An award of compensation to the resident and a letter of apology, in recognition of the findings on the landlord’s complaint handling in this investigation, has been ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s repairs’ team responses to the resident’s calls and emails.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has provided evidence that it responded to the communication the resident sent it. No evidence has been provided by the resident to show that prior to the submission of his complaint in March 2021, landlord’s repairs team had not responded to his emails or phone calls.
The landlord has not demonstrated fairness in its complaints handling. It did not take the opportunity to discuss the resident’s complaint with him at the earliest opportunity, which would have allowed it to complete a thorough investigation in a more timely manner. It also failed to address the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, despite the Ombudsman’s intervention. The landlord did not demonstrate that it was sympathetic to the resident’s experience and did not respond to his request for assurances about its repairs service, after he requested details of this at stage two. The landlord also failed to respond to several other questions the resident raised in his stage two complaint.

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s complaints handling, within four weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation.
2. Issue a letter of apology to the resident for the findings in this report about its handling of his complaint. A copy is to be provided to this Service.