Tower Hamlets Homes (202107361)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107361

Tower Hamlets Homes

14 April 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of staff.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a two-bedroom flat located on the 6th floor. It is a household of seven occupants. The resident suffers from a number of medical conditions which is supported by medical records that have been provided to this Service by the resident. It is not clear whether the landlord had any record of these vulnerabilities prior to the complaint.
3. The complaint was first brought to the landlord on 17 March 2021. The resident was concerned that reports that his hot water was not working had not been dealt with appropriately. He had raised the issue with the landlord several times and on both occasions the contractor failed to arrive to carry out the work. Additionally, he felt that he had been treated badly by the landlord’s agent whilst reporting the issue over the phone, noting that he believed the person he spoke to was ‘unprofessional’ and lacked sympathy for his situation. The resident said that the telephone call had given him a panic attack and reiterated that he suffered from ‘severe’ anxiety and depression. The resident also noted that himself and his family suffer from eczema and as a result, need to bathe more regularly than average.
4. The landlord acknowledged that after reviewing repair records and listening to telephone recordings, its service had fallen below expectations. The landlord confirmed that the repair had been raised as an emergency repair, however it was raised incorrectly under the wrong tradesperson. As a result, the landlord guaranteed that it would be issuing refresher training to those involved, to ensure that repair orders are allocated to the correct tradesperson and to avoid a repeat of the situation in the future. The landlord also agreed that its agent’s service had not reached the standard required when speaking to the resident and assured the tenant that the relevant feedback had been given as well as making an offer to the resident for the agent to call back and offer an apology. A discretionary offer of £30 compensation was also made by the landlord in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, as well as the stress and inconvenience caused. Additionally, the landlord offered a further £10 compensation for the missed appointment.
5. The resident wasn’t satisfied with the landlord’s response as he believed that the compensation wasn’t enough due to his ‘inconvenience, upset and anxiety’. The landlord argued that the compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy. It is also referenced in the landlord’s final response that the resident had sought the services of a private electrician and was charged £60, therefore he wanted to be compensated for this. The landlord explained that it was not liable to reimburse the resident for this as they had not advised him to seek private help.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

6. Rule 14 of the tenancy agreement states that ‘[the landlord] will keep in repair and working order installations in [the resident’s] home: A. For the supply of water… B. For heating or hot water’. This reflects the landlord’s implied repair/maintenance responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which requires the landlord to resolve issues relating to the structure and exterior of the property.
7. Section 4.2.5 of the landlord’s complaint procedure states that ‘the landlord must phone the complainant within 48 working hours’ to discuss the complaint and determine what the resident is unhappy about, what can be done to resolve it and in what timeframe it can be done.
8. Section 4.2.7 of the complaints procedure outlines that most complaints are ‘to be resolved within 20 working days’ and that if circumstances require longer, then this will be ‘confirmed and explained as part of the resolution.’ Section 4.3.4 states that for the final response it will also be issued within ’20 working days’.
9. Section 7.3 of the complaint’s procedure states that the outcome of complaints are to be recorded in a ‘prescribed format’ which allows the landlord to generate reports that will ‘pick up any service failures and service improvements.’
10. Section 4.2.2 of the redress and compensation policy states that ‘it is… necessary to think about the complainant’s time and trouble in making the complaint’. It refers to this Service’s remedies guidance and suggests that ‘time and trouble’ payments are normally within the range of £25 to £250.
11. Section 10.2 of the responsive repairs policy notes that the landlord should provide compensation for a missed appointment by the contractor in the form of a £10 voucher.
12. Section 6.2 of the responsive repairs policy states that the landlord must attempt to carry out an emergency repair within 24 hours.
13. Appendix 3 of the responsive repairs policy states that loss of hot water is classed as an emergency priority repair.

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to fix the hot water, and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint has affected the mental health of himself and the physical health of his wife. The ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern the matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer and more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s heating and hot water system

15. The resident first contacted the landlord on 4 March 2021 to inform it that the hot water in the property had stopped working the day previous. He also contacted it a second time that day, and again on 5 March 2021 after nobody had shown up to carry out the repair the previous day. On 5 March 2021, a contractor attended the property, though he identified that the repair required a different tradesperson (an electrician).The resident said to the landlord that everyone in the household experienced health conditions that required them to bathe more regularly. Appendix 3 of the responsive repairs policy states that the loss of hot water is classed as an ‘emergency priority repair’ and repairs that fall under this category must be completed within the 24-hour completion target time as stated in section 6.2 of the responsive repairs policy.
16. The resident’s formal complaint was submitted on 17 March 2021, in which he made clear that he was unsatisfied that himself and his family had been left without hot water for five days. The hot water was repaired on 8 March 2021, and this was confirmed in a communication between the landlord and resident on 28 March 2021.
17. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 March 2021 and issued its formal stage one response on 30 March 2021. The landlord agreed that its service had fallen below expectations and confirmed that it had reviewed its repair records and had listened to its telephone recordings. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to log the repair appropriately and this led to it not being attended to in line with its emergency repair timescales. The landlord confirmed that the repair work had been raised as an emergency, however, its failure to correctly raise the repair work under the right tradesperson directly led to the delay and therefore constitutes a service failure.
18. When there has been service failure from a landlord, this Service’s dispute resolution principles guide a landlord to learn from the outcomes and investigation of a complaint. Where possible, the landlord should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything can be improved in terms of process and systems, as well as remedying the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered a total of £40 compensation collectively for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, and also for the missed appointment of 4 March 2021. Additionally, the landlord has shown in its formal complaint response that it has taken upon itself to do improve its processes and systems by giving refresher training to the agents who had raised the incorrect repairs to ‘ensure that repair orders are allocated to the correct tradesperson’.
19. In its final complaint response, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint that the compensation was not sufficient when considering the amount of time that himself and his family had been without hot water. The landlord offered a breakdown of the compensation offered noting that £30 was for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and that as mentioned above, £10 was compensation for the missed appointment. It explained that ‘the amount of compensation payable for loss of hot water is £1.50 a day after the first five days’, and that as the water had been fixed on the fifth day ‘compensation for loss of hot water is not applicable in this instance’. The landlord was right to make clear to the resident exactly what the compensation had been awarded for, and why it wouldn’t be giving further compensation. Unfortunately, this Service is unable to verify that this is standard procedure for the landlord as the compensation policies provided by the resident don’t set out the compensation guidelines for the loss of hot water. However, landlords are required to resolve repair issues within reasonable timescales and the 5 days taken to resolve the issues at the property was not excessive in the circumstances. As such, the landlord decision to not award compensation for the time taken between the resident’s initial report (4 March 2021) and the date that the issue was resolved (8 March 2021) was reasonable in the circumstances.
20. The landlord, however, didn’t respond to the resident’s concern that he and his family suffered from a medical condition that required them to bathe more often than average. This is supported by the medical records provided by the resident to this Service. However, it is not clear whether or not the landlord had a record of these vulnerabilities prior to the resident’s complaint. Even so, it was clearly a concern of the resident and therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to this aspect of the complaint. It would be expected that the landlord should have enquired as to whether the resident and his family had any means for them to bathe during the days in which the hot water wasn’t working, at either a local family member or friend’s house. If the compensation offered to the resident was awarded with this in mind, it should have made this clear to the resident.
21. Additionally, the landlord offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment, which is in line with its compensation policy (section 10.2). When coupled with the recognition of its service failure and its assurance to give refresher training to its agents, the landlord has offered a reasonable redress to the resident in regard to the delay in repairing the hot water.
22. The resident also stated that he wanted compensation to reimburse the costs of a private electrician that he had hired prior to the hot water issue being resolved. The landlord stated in its final response that it was not liable to pay compensation for this as it did not advise the resident to ‘procure a private contractor’. This was reasonable as it was made clear to the resident that efforts were underway to fix the hot water. Although the work was delayed for a number of days, multiple phone conversations between the resident and the landlord confirmed that there was no dispute that the landlord was attempting to resolve the issue and that it was the landlord’s responsibility to do so. this Service expects that a landlord is given the opportunity to resolve the repair issue in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and its repairs procedures. The work was delayed as a result of the wrong contractor being booked; however, the landlord’s efforts suggest that the issue was treated as an emergency repair nonetheless, and it was in the process of a genuine attempt to repair the resident’s property.

The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

23. In the resident’s complaint, he expressed concerns that during a call to the landlord on 5 March 2021, an agent of the landlord was rude to him, and that he had no sympathy for the resident’s situation. The resident explained that he had to answer questions that he had already answered on previous phone calls and suggested that during the call, the agent had started to argue with him. The resident also stated that he felt threatened by the agent’s use of the phrase ‘I am going to teach you something new’. In the complaint, the resident suggested that somebody else should take calls for the landlord and that customer care training should be issued.
24. This Service will not comment on personnel issues relating to the staff of the landlord as it is not the place of this Service to determine how a member of the landlord’s staff has acted. The landlord’s response to the resident’s claims of poor staff conduct, and the steps it has taken to address them, however, is something that this Service is able to investigate.
25. In its formal response, the landlord outlined how it had addressed the issue. It stated that it had listened to the phone call and determined that ‘the call in question fell below [its] acceptable standards’. The landlord also assured the resident that the ‘relevant feedback has been given to the advisors in question to ensure this does not happen again. It also stated that there was ongoing customer care training on ‘how to deliver soft skills when [it is] dealing with the customer’s enquiries’.
26. The landlord was right in giving a thorough acknowledgement and response to the resident regarding his dissatisfaction with the phone call. In line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, the landlord has shown that it has learned from the outcome of its investigation by giving relevant feedback to the agent. Notably, in an internal email, the landlord suggested that it had asked the resident if he would like the agent to call him directly to offer an apology, but the resident did not want to proceed with this option. Additionally, as stated above, the landlord awarded £30 compensation in recognition of the ‘time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused’. This is in line with section 4.2.2 of its redress and compensation policy. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the failure, the compensation offered, and the indication that it has learnt from the outcome constitutes reasonable redress to the acknowledged service failure of its staff’s conduct.
27. Although the landlord did conduct a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaint, there were aspects of its complaint handling that fell short of expectations, notably the timescale of its final response. The landlord confirmed with the resident on 9 April 2021 that he would like to escalate his complaint. The landlord’s final response was issued over one month later on 27 May 2021. Section 4.3.4 of the landlord’s complaint policy states that its final response will be issued within twenty working days. The landlord failed to do this, and it also failed to notify the resident that it’s response would be late as it says it should in section 4.2.7 of its complaints policy. However, given the length of the delay and the award of £30 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, this Service feels that this serves as a reasonable redress to possible issues relating to the late final response.
28. Aside from the late final response, the landlord showed that it adhered to its complaints procedure and conducted a detailed investigation into the resident’s complaint. Section 7.3 of the complaints procedure states that the outcome of complaints are to be recorded in a ‘prescribed format’ which allows the landlord to generate reports that will ‘pick up any service failures and service improvements. Internal notes provided by the landlord show that it had followed this procedure after both complaint responses had been issued. It shows that the aspects of the resident’s complaint, and the failures of the landlord have been thoroughly examined in order to provide an appropriate response. This willingness to investigate itself and improve upon its mistakes is an example of good complaint handling by the landlord, and an example that falls in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles that suggest a landlord should attempt not only to put the resident back in a position in which it would have been prior to the complaint, but also to learn from its own mistakes and failures.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the scheme:

1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its handling of repairs to the heating and water system.
2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures relating to its handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct.