Stevenage Borough Council (202222963)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222963

Stevenage Borough Council

15 November 2024

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 about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the disconnection of the gas supply to the property.
2. a warrant to complete a planned electrical safety inspection and resulting damage to the property.
3. repairs to the boiler and fencing at the property.
4. a request for a disabled parking bay.
5. reports of anti-social behaviour.
6. the associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the events complained about, the resident occupied a 2-bedroom first-floor flat under a non-secure tenancy agreement. She occupied the property with her son.
On 9 January 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a planned electrical safety inspection that it carried out under a warrant of entry. She complained that:
1. the landlord knew she was not going to see the letters to inform her of the planned electrical safety inspection, or subsequent warrant, as she and her son cannot live at the property due to there being no gas supply.
2. the landlord had caused damage to the property in carrying out the warrant of entry and she would have made herself available to grant access if it had properly informed her. Specifically she stated in terms of damage:
  1. there were scorch marks on the front door which indicated the property had been burgled.
  2. the landlord unnecessarily removed and dismantled an intruder alarm.
3. the landlord cut off the gas to the property in September 2021 and it had still not resolved this.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2023. In this it stated:
1. it would not respond further to the resident’s complaint about it disconnecting the gas supply in September 2021 as it had previously addressed this fully as part of its complaint process.
2. it made the decision to apply for a warrant as the resident had failed to allow access to the property for the electrical safety inspection on 3 occasions. On 1 December 2022 the magistrates’ court issued a warrant for the landlord to enter the property. It delivered a copy of the warrant on 5 December 2022, 3 days before the date of the warrant.
3. on its attendance on 8 December 2022, once it was satisfied the resident was not going to grant access, it forced entry to the property in line with the warrant. The landlord explained the scorch marks on the front door were caused by the locksmith using an angle-grinder on the door in order to remove the barrel lock.
4. on entry the landlord noted a stand-alone intruder alarm on the kitchen wall. It explained it took this off the wall and removed the batteries to silence it.
5. it fitted a new lock to the front door after forcing entry. Following the completion of the electrical safety inspection it checked that the lock functioned correctly and the property was secure before leaving.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2023. In this she:
1. reiterated that the property was uninhabitable as there was no gas, and now electricity, at the property.
2. stated the warrant was not valid.
3. complained that the landlord had damaged the door in the process of carrying out the warrant and did not return this to how it was found which makes it responsible for disrepair.
4. said that the removal of the intruder alarm was unnecessary and it was left in her bedroom which was an invasion of her personal space.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 February 2023. In this it:
1. reiterated the events that had led to the application for a warrant of entry. It stated it followed the correct process to gain access and the court was satisfied with the action it took, as shown by its decision to issue the warrant.
2. stated that from the photographs taken as part of the warrant the property was already in a ‘very poor condition’ prior to it forcing entry. The landlord stated the execution of the warrant did not cause the property to enter a state of disrepair.
3. explained the decision to remove and deactivate the intruder alarm was because it had activated when it gained entrance to the property.
4. reiterated that it would not respond further to the complaint about the disconnection of the gas supply in September 2021 as it had already investigated and responded to this. It told the resident her home was not uninhabitable and she was choosing not to be at the property, it described it had made multiple attempts to contact her to arrange to reconnect the gas supply but she had ignored these.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its decision not to offer any compensation to her. On 8 June 2023 she escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is set out in the Scheme.
Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
From the available records the resident had complained about the landlord disconnecting the gas supply shortly after September 2021. On 26 May 2022 the landlord sent the resident an email outlining its previous responses to her complaint about the disconnection of the gas and explaining it did not have anything further to add. It stated that the email was its ‘full and final response’ to her complaint and she could contact this service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident did not bring this complaint (set out in paragraph 1(a) above) to the Ombudsman until 8 June 2023, which is over 12 months after she exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. We have not seen any reason why the resident could not bring this complaint to the Ombudsman’s attention sooner. As such the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint in accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme.
Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
We have seen that the landlord applied to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of entry to carry out the planned electrical safety inspection, which included evidence of the action the landlord had taken to attempt to gain access. The court approved this application and approved the warrant. As such in relation to the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the planned electrical safety inspection (as set out in paragraph 1(b) above), the Ombudsman is not able to consider the landlord’s application for a warrant, or the reasonableness of this application, as a court has already made a judgement on the merits of this application.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale
In her complaint to this service the resident raised several issues that were not referred to in her complaint to the landlord. These include complaints about:
1. that the landlord did not appropriately respond to repair requests she made in 2017 about a leak from the boiler and broken fencing at the property (as set out in paragraph 1 (c) above)
2. that the landlord had delayed painting a disabled parking bay by the property (as set out in paragraph 1 (d) above)
3. that the landlord has not appropriately followed-up her reports of anti-social behaviour she has experienced from neighbours (as set out in paragraph 1 (e) above)
The landlord should have the opportunity to respond to these complaints through its complaints procedure before we investigate. As these are separate issues from the complaint that has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman will not investigate them in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of the electrical safety inspection

The tenancy agreement between the landlord and resident says:
1. under clause 4.16 a resident must allow the landlord or any person with written authority from it to enter the property to look at the state of repair or the condition of the property. It states whenever possible it will give the resident a minimum of 24 hours notice before the visit.
2. under clause 4.28 if a resident does not respond to a reasonable request for access to the property the landlord may ask the Court for an injunction to force entry.
3. under clause 4.32 a resident must replace or repair any damage caused by their own fault or the fault of other occupants of the property or visitors. The landlord may undertake this repair work but will charge the resident the full costs.
As set out previously it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider landlord’s application for the warrant of entry or the reasonableness of this application as this has already been subject to court proceedings. As such our investigation of this part of the complaint will only look at the damage the resident claimed the landlord caused by during its execution of the warrant.
The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the scorch marks on the door were caused by the need to force entry to the property since the resident did not grant access. In the Ombudsman’s view as the resident did not act in line with her obligations under clause 4.16 of the tenancy agreement this damage to the decoration of the door was a result of her failure to allow access.
In relation to the intruder alarm the landlord said that it removed and deactivated this as it triggered on entering the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions were reasonable so it could carry out the work it had been authorised to complete as part of the warrant, without disruption. There is no evidence that the landlord caused damage to the alarm from its execution of the warrant, which would have caused a detriment to the resident.
In summary the Ombudsman’s view is that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrical inspection.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint in 2021 about the disconnection of the gas supply had three stages. At stage 1, the landlord aimed to respond to a complaint within 10 working days. If the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2, a senior member of the landlord’s staff reviewed this and aimed to provide a written response to the complaint within 15 working days. If the resident further escalated to stage 3, an alternative senior member of the landlord’s staff reviewed this. The landlord said it would provide its stage 3 response within 20 working days of this referral.
The landlord updated its complaint policy since the resident raised her complaint, reducing this to a 2-stage process in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Ombudsman updated the Code in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about. We will refer to this as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between the two versions, otherwise the version will be specified.
Following the resident’s complaint of 9 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2023, 7 working days later. The landlord’s actions were appropriate as it was consistent with the timescales of its policy.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 25 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 February 2023, 21 working days later. The Code in 2022 stated that landlords should respond within 20 working days of the complaint escalation.
From the available evidence the landlord noted the resident’s escalation on 26 January 2023 and asked that it send an acknowledgment to the resident. From the available records there is no evidence to show the landlord sent this. It would have been better if the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s complaint and responded a working day earlier. However, there is no evidence that the resident was caused any detriment from this.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses refused to comment further about the resident’s complaint about the disconnection of the gas supply as it said it fully addressed this in the resident’s previous complaint. In line with the Code there are limited reasons where it is acceptable for a landlord to refuse to accept a complaint, an example of this is where the complaint concerns matters which have previously been considered under the landlord’s complaint policy. As set out earlier we have seen that the landlord issued a response on 26 May 2022 explaining that this was its full and final response and she could take this to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. As such the landlord’s decision to refuse to accept this complaint was reasonable and consistent with the Code.
In terms of its response to the resident’s complaint about the execution of the warrant on 8 December 2022 the landlord’s responses gave a clear explanation of:
1. the circumstances about why it considered the warrant was necessary.
2. how the damage the resident had complained about was caused due to the need to force entry.
3. how it made the property secure before it left.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord gave the resident an appropriate response which clearly explained its actions, and the reasons for these, which we would expect to see in line with the Code.
In summary it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling that would require the landlord to take action to put things right for the resident when considered against our guidance on remedies. Though there was a delay of a day in issuing the stage 2 response this was not significant enough to be considered a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the following complaints as there is no evidence the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler and fencing at the property.
2. the landlord’s handling of a request for a disabled parking bay.
3. the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 41.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint about the disconnection of the gas supply at the property as it was not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of completing the landlord’s complaint procedure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrical safety inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.