Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202216797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216797

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

22 September 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 response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom flat; at the time of the complaint the resident was sharing the property with a flatmate.

 

3. On 6 May 2022 following the resident’s report that the shower in his property was not registering hot and cold, a job was booked to inspect the shower, however, the contractor was unable to access the property on that date. On 30 August 2022, the resident again reported that the hot water was not working in the shower and a job was raised for an electrician to inspect the shower. The electrician inspected the shower on 7 October 2022, and the shower was left in working order.

 

4. On 11 October 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint via Facebook. The resident stated he was unhappy with the lack of service from the landlord. The resident explained he had expected the electrician to replace the shower, however, the electrician was rude and did not do anything apart from turn it on and off; and told him nothing was wrong. The resident claimed the electrician would not listen to him and that by explaining the shower was working fine was making him a liar. A formal complaint was logged by the landlord.

 

5. On 13 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that it is its policy to repair an item until it is no longer repairable. During the visit, the electrician had confirmed the shower was working, although the water pressure had been turned down which was the cause of the reported hot water issues. The electrician had provided a statement in which he explained he was not rude but that the resident was unhappy with the decision not to replace the shower. The landlord apologised to the resident if they were unhappy with the decision not to replace the shower and the way it was provided to him.

 

6. On 18 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise he was unhappy with its stage one response and requested the complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident also provided a typed statement from his flatmate who stated he was in the flat during the electrician’s visit and overheard the contractor being rude to the resident. The statement also advised the flatmate had been present during the visit on 10 August 2022 by a plumber and during that visit, the resident had been promised a new shower.

 

7. On 31 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord advised that it had reviewed its records and was unable to locate any evidence the resident had been advised a new shower would be fitted. In response to the witness statement provided by the resident’s flatmate, the landlord again contacted the electrician who attended on 7 October 2022, who strongly denied displaying any attitude towards the resident and in addition did not recall anyone else being in the flat at the time of his visit. The landlord apologised for any upset the incident had caused and explained that as it was not present, it could not favour either side’s account of what occurred during the visit. The landlord advised that due to the allegations, for the visit scheduled for 3 November 2022 to inspect the shower, a pair of contractors would be attending the property.

 

8. On 31 October 2022 the resident advised the landlord he would be taking the issue further as the landlord insisted it had done nothing wrong. The resident contacted this service on the same date and advised he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, believing it had not adequately investigated the incident. As a resolution the resident requested a replacement shower to be installed and in future no longer wished the landlord’s contractors to enter his flat. The resident also mentioned the landlord’s plan to have two workmen attend on 3 November 2022 had caused him to have a panic attack.

Assessment and findings

9. In complaints such as this, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not take place, particularly where there are conflicting submissions from two parties. Our role is therefore to assess the way in which the landlord responded to the report, and whether it took a reasonable approach to establish what took place and how a similar issue could be prevented in the future.

 

10. Upon receiving a report regarding its operative’s conduct, it is the landlord’s role to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and collect evidence from the contractors and the resident to determine what events had taken place.
11. This Service can see that the landlord did this. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted the contractor who had attended the property, in an attempt to establish the events that had occurred. The electrician stated that he inspected the shower, and after adjusting the water pressure it was left in working order. He stated the resident had been expecting him to fit a new shower, which became the issue of contention.
12. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek to obtain the accounts of all parties involved. As there was no CCTV footage or recordings of the event, the landlord could only rely on this as its primary evidence.
13. After the stage one response was issued, the resident also provided a statement from his flatmate who stated he was also present during the October visit. This supported the resident’s account regarding the contractor’s conduct and attitude. It was appropriate that the landlord accepted this statement and considered this alongside the other accounts. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to confirm that the alleged witness was present at the time of the event, and in doing so, again received conflicting views. As the contractor did not witness a second occupant, it would have been difficult for the landlord to determine how reliable the statement was.

 

14. The landlord also obtained a statement from the plumber who visited the property in August 2022 to fix the kitchen taps as the resident had claimed that the plumber had also inspected the shower and agreed it had to be replaced. It found that the plumber had no recollection of inspecting the shower on the visit. It subsequently listened to calls between itself and the resident in which the shower was discussed, on 6 May and 30 August 2022, and found no evidence on these calls that it had agreed to replace the shower. It was therefore able to confirm for itself that its operative had not aggravated the situation by failing to undertake a scheduled shower replacement.

 

 

15. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s allegations and why it was unable to favour either account. It apologised for the resident’s experience, nonetheless. This was a fair approach. It was also appropriate, given that the resident advised that he did not want the operative to return to his property / he was intimidated by operatives turning up, that two members of staff would undertake future visits. This provided protection for both parties and ensured that there were additional witnesses should another issue transpire. The landlord did not confirm that these would be different contractors, but this Service appreciates that landlords are not always able to choose, particularly where there a very few operatives.

 

16. In light of the above, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s complaint. It is clear to the Ombudsman that the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously, undertook a proportionate investigation, and based on the evidence available, arrived at a reasonable conclusion. Under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to take no further action regarding the alleged incident.

 

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

Recommendations

15. As an outcome to this complaint, the resident was seeking a replacement of his shower. As the substance of his complaint relates to the conduct of the landlord’s member of staff, and this Service has seen no evidence that the shower replacement was initially agreed, however, this is not an outcome that would be proportionate.

 

16. Since speaking with this Service, nonetheless, the resident has advised that despite a replacement being agreed on 3 November 2022, nothing has taken place and the reported fault remains. This conflicts with the information provided by the landlord to this service which suggested that the shower unit was replaced on 16 December 2022. As such, this service recommends that the landlord contact the resident within five working days of receiving this report to confirm the status of the shower and, if further works are required, when this will take place.