Wandle Housing Association Limited (202308288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308288

Wandle Housing Association Limited

31 July 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:
a. The landlord’s handling of reports about its contractor’s method and level of contact with the resident in respect of a gas safety inspection.
b. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is unable to use the phone due to disabilities and states they have requested the landlord only communicates with them in writing.
The landlord uses an external contractor to handle heating related repairs, including annual gas safety checks. The contractor uses an automated system to send appointment letters to residents when their annual gas safety check is due.
On 10 March 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. They were unhappy that:
1. The contractor had attended their property that afternoon, but they had not booked an appointment for an annual gas safety check.
2. The contractor told them there were 3 telephone numbers on their account. The resident advised there should only be one number, which the contractor was only to use for texts.
3. The phone number the contractor had called to advise it was on the way to the property belonged to a neighbour.
4. The contractor had told them that, as they were not allowing the annual gas safety check to go ahead that day, they had missed 3 appointments and their gas would be cut off.
5. After receiving an appointment letter on 25 February 2023, they had tried to change the offered appointment using the contractor’s online system, but this had not worked. They had then emailed the contractor but had received no response.
6. They had complained about the same issues previously and the landlord told them last year that it had highlighted their communication needs to the contractor.
On 20 March 2023, the landlord’s contractor issued the stage 1 response. It apologised for the service the resident had received and said:
1. Its records contained alerts to ensure that it communicated with the resident by email and text as their preferred method of contact.
2. It would still send the annual gas safety check appointment letters as part of the automated process, but the letter included details to allow the resident to re-book the appointment online.
3. It had removed all telephone numbers from the resident’s records, other than one number which it had confirmed with the landlord.
4. It was aware that it had emailed the resident to arrange an appointment for the annual gas safety check. It said the resident could respond to that email or email its call centre directly.
The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 24 March 2023. They said that:
1. While the contractor may have alerts on its records, it had not been adhering to their communication needs. They said the contractor was ignoring their emails and had asked them to call it as recently as 3 March 2023.
2. Every time their gas safety check was due, they needed to raise a complaint with the landlord to get the check completed. This was due to the contractor not responding to them and attending appointments that the resident had not agreed to.
3. The online system to rebook appointments did not work and they would use it if it did. They said they had reported this issue for the past few years.
4. They did not believe any investigation of their complaint had taken place or that they had been given a meaningful response which acknowledged and addressed the points they had raised.
5. They did not feel the stage 1 response had acknowledged or addressed all the matters raised in their complaint. They were also unhappy that the contractor had issued the stage 1 response.
The landlord issued its final response on 25 April 2023. It said:
1. Its contractor automatically generates and sends out the annual gas safety check letters. It will attend the appointments offered in the letters unless the resident re-arranges, which they could do by phone, email, and/or the online portal.
2. It had referred the issues with the online portal to the contractor’s IT department as it was unable to check the system directly. It advised the contractor was updating the online portal and this was in testing.
3. The annual gas safety check was a legal requirement and that the contractor would send 2 letters with appointment offers. If both appointments were missed then the contractor would make attempts to contact the resident until it completed the check.
4. If the resident felt the contractor was ignoring their emails, they should let it know and it would follow up with the contractor.
5. It appeared the neighbour’s number had been added to the resident’s records at the contractor in February 2022. It confirmed the contractor had updated their records to state that the resident was unable to communicate by telephone.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports about its contractor’s method and level of contact with the resident.

The Ombudsman expects landlords to make reasonable adjustments for residents’ individual needs. The Ombudsman also expects landlords to comply with reasonable adjustment agreements made with residents wherever reasonably possible.
Landlords are entitled to contract a third party to provide services on its behalf. However, where a third party is providing services to a landlord’s tenants, the landlord remains responsible for any actions taken on its behalf.
The resident states they had previously raised similar complaints about the contractor with the landlord. There is evidence of an email from the resident to the landlord in April 2022 that raises these issues. This email states the raised matters had been occurring every year when the gas safety check was due, and that the resident had written to the landlord and contractor about it each year. The landlord has not disputed that the resident has raised their concerns previously.
Although previous complaints are not the subject of this investigation, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that evidence of previous complaints about substantively the same issue is important context in the consideration of the current complaint.
While the landlord confirmed that the contractor had now updated the resident’s record to reflect their communication needs, it would have been reasonable for it to have investigated why this update had not taken place sooner. This should have included reviewing its previous communication with the contractor about this matter and any responses the contractor had given.
It also would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated how the resident’s neighbour’s phone number became linked to the resident’s record at the contractor. This should have identified whether it had been an error by the landlord or the contractor, whether any personal data might have been incorrectly disclosed to the resident or the neighbour, and whether there was a need to review policies or procedures relating to record management.
Doing these investigations and providing a clear explanation of the findings to the resident may have given them confidence that the landlord had taken their concerns seriously and would ensure it met their communication needs in the future.
There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the lack of responses when they emailed the contractor. It would have been reasonable for it to have asked the contractor to provide details of any communications it had received from or sent to the resident. The landlord could then have assessed that information to determine whether it considered the contractor, acting on its behalf, had provided the resident with a reasonable level of service.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have processes in place to allow it to proactively monitor the level of service the contractor was providing on its behalf and to allow it to take prompt action where failings were identified. However, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman can reasonably conclude that this was the case. This was a failure by the landlord.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have passed the resident’s concerns about the online portal to the contractor’s IT department. However, it should have done this during the stage 1 complaint, and if further investigation was necessary, it should have provided the resident with a time-specific action plan. This would have allowed the resident to hold the landlord to account and may have meant that escalating the complaint to stage 2 would not have been necessary.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that things can go wrong, and agreements are sometimes not kept to due to human error. In those circumstances, the Ombudsman expects landlords to acknowledge the failure, apologise, and explain how it will prevent similar failings in future. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was sufficient to demonstrate it had met this expectation.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about its contractor’s contact with them. It should not have been necessary for the resident to repeatedly raise complaints to the landlord about the contractor.
The landlord did not make any offer of compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman does not consider this was appropriate.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy does not indicate that, where a contractor is providing a service on behalf of the landlord, it will pass stage 1 complaints about that service to the contractor. The landlord has not provided any evidence of an agreement with the contractor for it to handle complaints on the landlord’s behalf.
In the absence of any agreement with the contractor or evidence that the resident had been notified and agreed to their complaint being handled in this manner, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint was not appropriate.
While the contractor issuing the stage 1 response was unlikely to have had a significant adverse impact on the resident, the landlord did not, in its final response, acknowledge the resident’s concerns about this or provide an explanation for why it had happened. The Ombudsman therefore considers this was a service failure by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about its contractor’s method and level of contact with the resident, in respect of a gas safety inspection.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:

1. Pay the resident compensation of £300 which is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the impact of the repeated failure to comply with the resident’s contact preferences and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble the resident experienced in making repeat complaints to the landlord about the same issue

All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

27. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertake:

1. A review of its record-keeping procedures and its knowledge and information management. It should satisfy itself that it has sufficient processes in place to assist with effective customer service and complaint handling.
2. A review of the agreement it has in place with the contractor to ensure it is sufficient to allow the landlord to hold the contractor to account and, if necessary, take action to resolve issues or complaints. If it identifies any issues with the current agreement, it should identify the required changes and implement them at the earliest opportunity.