St Basil’s (202009400)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009400

St Basil’s

27 September 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

  1. This complaint is about the level of redress the landlord offered following the resident’s complaint that it granted unauthorised access to his flat.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began on 24 May 2019. The property is a self-contained one-bedroom flat within a housing project designed to provide supported accommodation for young adults who are homeless.
  2. The resident is concerned that the landlord allowed a member of the public, who was visiting the project, to access his flat without his permission. The third party gained access after the landlord unlocked his door and failed to prevent them from entering. The resident alleges that his phone was stolen as a direct of the landlord’s actions.
  3. Following an internal investigation, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and eventually offered to reimburse his £75 phone insurance excess. From the evidence seen by this service, it also undertook targeted staff training in relation to the incident.
  4. The resident is unhappy with the steps the landlord has taken to resolve his complaint on the basis that, he feels, the landlord’s resolution does not account for the distress or inconvenience that the situation caused him. In his Housing Ombudsman Service complaint form, he said the loss of his phone impacted his universal credit, banking and emails, which took him time to resolve. He has previously expressed concern that the member of staff involved in the incident remains employed with the landlord.
  5. The resident has said he wants the landlord to compensate him for the full value of the missing phone, or propose a similar solution, to resolve the situation.
  6. The resident is a vulnerable young adult who has previously experienced difficulties with his mental health. English is not his first language, so he has been assisted in his complaint by a Personal Advisor working for a local authority.
  7. The landlord has given information which includes, the tenancy agreement, its incident report form, and copies of its internal notes and correspondence.

Summary of events

  1. Based on the landlord’s incident report form, the incident occurred between 4:30am and 6:30am on 12 August 2020. Its report shows that staff were alerted to loud music coming from the resident’s flat which was causing disturbance to other residents. However, despite calling the resident, ringing his doorbell and knocking on his letterbox, the landlord was unable to make contact with him about the situation.
  2. The report shows that other residents were eventually drawn to the commotion and that one of these parties made himself known as the resident’s friend. It says this party accessed the resident’s flat, whilst the door was open, with the expressed intention of checking on his welfare.
  3. On 13 August 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s actions. His complaint form records his concerns that a non-resident was allowed unaccompanied access to his flat and, when he returned after the incident, his phone was missing.  
  4. On 10 September 2020 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. The response shows the complaint was upheld and that an apology was offered. Further, that the landlord offered to reimburse 50% of the resident’s excess, £37.50, on receipt of a crime reference number along with the resident’s proof of payment.
  5. On 4 November 2020 the resident responded through his personal advisor. The resident said that:

a.     He wanted his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process

b.     He was asleep when the phone was taken

c.      The value of the phone was £1500 and, whilst this was covered by his insurer, the excess fee was £75

d.     He had suffered emotional distress due to the incident and this was not reflected in the landlord’s offer of reimbursement

e.     He was concerned the landlord’s member of staff remained in employment

  1. On 5 November 2020 the landlord contacted the resident’s Personal Advisor to clarify his preferred outcome to the complaint. A response was received the same day confirming the resident would prefer his phone to be returned but he accepted this was not possible. Therefore, the resident was seeking reimbursement for the full cost of the phone as an alternative resolution. The Personal Advisor confirmed the cost of the phone was £1299 based on a receipt the resident had given him.
  2. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 10 November 2020. Its response acknowledged that it failed to follow the correct process and that it made a ‘poor judgment call’ in unlocking the resident’s flat. The response shows that the landlord increased its reimbursement offer to £75 to reflect the full amount of the resident’s excess. It also shows that the landlord declined to compensate the resident for the full value of his phone on the basis this cost was not incurred by the resident. The landlord’s response included referral rights to this service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has previously accepted the substance of the resident’s complaint. Since the core facts are not in dispute, this assessment will focus on whether the steps taken by the landlord to resolve his complaint were appropriate given the circumstances of the case. 
  2. We have considered the landlord’s stage two response in conjunction with both the resident’s escalation request, and the requirements set out in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Section 3.14. of the code gives the following information:

    ‘Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.’

  3. Whilst the resident’s escalation request describes the distress the situation caused him, the landlord has not acknowledged or replied to this aspect of his complaint in its response. Instead, it has focused solely on the cost incurred by the resident. Since it did not address all the resident’s concerns, contrary to the requirements of the code, the landlord’s stage two response was an inappropriate reply to his complaint.
  4. Section 5.9. of the code sets out the following information:

    ‘In awarding compensation, landlords shall consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have been incurred as well as the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.’

  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer full reimbursement for any costs incurred by the resident for which it accepted responsibility. However, the resident had previously raised the separate, but associated, matter of distress and inconvenience. The landlord should therefore have identified this concern would need separate redress, in line with the above information, based on the resident’s comments. Further, it should be independently considering whether the above listed impacts, for example time and trouble or distress and inconvenience, are relevant at any time it offers redress to a complaint.
  6. Given the above, this assessment identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, with respect to communication and appropriate remedy, which have contributed to an inappropriate level of redress being offered to the resident.
  7. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the incident, which should have been addressed, it was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the resident’s excess, rather than the full cost of the phone, given this was the cost he had incurred.
  8. This assessment has therefore considered what reasonable redress for distress and inconvenience would look like in relation to the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman’s internal guidance and the experience we have gained from investigating previous complaints.
  9. How it handles operational issues, such as mistakes made by members of its staff, is an internal decision for the landlord. However, it is noted that the resident’s concern that no action had been taken could have been allayed by the landlord’s stage two complaint response, if it had detailed the preventative steps that were taken on the back of the resident’s complaint.
  10. The evidence seen by this service shows additional training was provided in a number of relevant subject areas with a view to preventing similar incidents. This is in accordance with section 6.8. of the code which sets out the following information:

    ‘Landlord’s should proactively use learning from complaints to revise policies and procedures, to train staff and contractors and to improve communication and record keeping.’

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect level of redress it offered to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to offer an appropriate level of redress because it did not engage with each of the resident’s points. It therefore overlooked the associated, and reasonable, distress and inconvenience aspects of the resident’s complaint. It is recognised that the landlord did proactively learn from the resident’s complaint by using targeted training.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation. From this total, £100 is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the incident. A further £50 is allocated for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the identified failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its complaint handling policy in conjunction with the complaint handling code and to provide staff training where necessary.
  2. The landlord to demonstrate learning and improvement from complaints by confirming when it has taken preventative measures internally, for example conducting targeted staff training, in its complaint responses.
  3. The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding these recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.