Accent Housing Limited (202220911)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220911

Accent Housing Limited

31 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property which includes:
  1. A leaking sink.
  2. Holes in a boiler room ceiling.
  3. A leaking boiler overflow pipe.
2. The conduct of staff.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a bedsit property under an assured tenancy. This started on 30 March 2009.
The resident told the landlord that he is immunosuppressed and is at greater risk of paralysis if he gets an infection. The resident also disclosed a condition that causes his bones to fuse and a sleeping disorder. The resident told the landlord that he wanted any contractors who attended his home to wear face masks to help reduce the risk of germs spreading. The evidence reviewed by the Ombudsman establishes that the landlord was aware of the resident’s request on 8 February 2021. The resident also complained in respect of a gas safety inspection about the need for staff to wear masks and gloves on 11 February 2022. The resident also requested the landlord provide a two-hour appointment window on medical grounds.
At some point in 2022, the resident reported a leaking sink, that there were three holes in the ceiling of his boiler room and a leaking boiler overflow pipe. The records are not clear on when this was reported. On 7 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that the sink leak had left him without washing facilities. On 22 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord he had no heating because of a broken boiler overflow pipe.
The resident complained to the landlord on 24 November 2022 about:
1. missed appointments
2. contractors refusing to use face masks on visits
3. the information about repair appointments
4. the landlord’s policy on offering a five-hour morning or afternoon appointment slot
5. the landlord not calling him back or helping with his washing or heating.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 November 2022 and said:
1. the resident turned away its contractor on 16 November 2022 for not wearing a mask
2. although masks were not compulsory it would ask its contractors to wear these on all future visits
3. its contractors re-visited the resident on 18 and 21 November 2022
4. it could not always guarantee a specific time slot.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor repaired the leaking sink and the holes in the boiler ceiling room. The boiler overflow pipe repair remained outstanding.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 December 2022. It said:
1. it had previously posted its stage 1 response but had included another copy
2. it had logged the boiler overflow leak as a routine repair on 7 November 2022
3. it sent out an operative on 10 November 2022 after the resident called to report the leak had worsened
4. the resident turned away its operative on 16 November 2022 when they came to do follow on work
5. it would ask contractors to wear masks in future even though they were not mandatory
6. it attended the resident’s property again on 18 and 21 November 2022
7. it could not guarantee a specific 2-hour repair window due to contractor’s workloads and traffic.
On 30 December 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He disputed the accuracy of some of the statements in the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response. The resident complained to the landlord in January 2023 about the delay in the landlord dealing with his complaint at stage 3. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction at the problems the landlord had in accessing evidence he had sent.
The landlord repaired the boiler overflow pipe and completed a gas safety inspection on 6 March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 3 response on 21 March 2023. It said:
1. it had not managed the complaint well
2. it agreed to re-train staff to provide more consistent information and respond to complaints more quickly
3. it agreed to train staff to access evidence which its IT systems restricted
4. it was having conversations with its contractors “at the highest levels”
5. it had given its plastering contractor a ‘toolbox talk’ to remind them of the need to wear a face mask when requested to by residents
6. it promised “robust contract management”
7. it offered £100 as a good will gesture.
During the internal complaint process the resident complained about:
1. the attitude of a call handler on 28 October 2022 concerning the leaking sink
2. a plasterer coming at 10 am on 31 October 2022 when the appointment was for between 1pm to 6pm
3. a plasterer demanding that two operatives attend an appointment
4. missed appointments on 3 November 2022, 16 November 2022, 18 November 2022, and 22 November 2022
5. the landlord’s refusal to offer an emergency appointment on 22 November 2022 for a repair of the boiler overflow pipe
6. contractors not wearing face masks
7. the information provided by the landlord’s staff about appointments
8. the landlord not calling back.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Ombudsman is only free to investigate complaints duly made to him. In order for a complaint to be duly made, there must be evidence that a complaint issue has exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. 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”

The resident referred to several issues relating to disrepairs or the conduct of the landlord’s staff during the complaint process. These happened prior to their most recent complaint. These were:
1. a threat of gas disconnection
2. a poor boiler installation
3. having an insecure front door
4. damp and mould
While the Ombudsman has seen evidence these issues were raised with the landlord, there is no evidence the issues were pursued and have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. If they were, the complaint responses have not been provided to this service. These issues are therefore outside the scope of this investigation, under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and because they have not been duly made to the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s repairing obligations

The landlord was responsible for repairing the resident’s sink, ceiling, and boiler overflow. This was under the resident’s tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s responsive repair and voids policy states that the landlord must complete routine repairs within 28 days.
Routine repairs are those that do not create an immediate risk to a resident or their property. The landlord must deal with emergency repairs within 4 hours and fix them within 24 hours. These include where there is an immediate risk to the resident’s health or safety.

The repair of the leaking sink

The Ombudsman expects landlords to create and maintain adequate, accurate and clear records. There is no requirement for records to be excessively detailed that it would affect the landlord providing its day-to-day services like repairs. The records should be clear on key information, such as the date of the incident or event, the date and time of the written note and key details and outcomes. Repairs records should be clear to set out:
1. when the resident first reported the issue
2. what actions the landlord has taken
3. when the repair was recorded as complete
4. any follow up works
5. where there is a dispute over the quality of workmanship, time and date stamped photographs and confirmation that the works have been completed.
Adequate records assist with:
1. effective property and resident management
2. effective risk management
3. accountability and transparency – and being able to respond to complaints
4. ensuring the landlord can demonstrate it has complied with its contractual, legal, and regulatory obligations.
The landlord has provided this service with call recordings of conversations between the resident and its repairs team. While we have considered the recordings, they do not state the date they were made. These are therefore no substitute for the landlord’s repair records. The landlord has, therefore, clearly failed to comply with the key principle of good record keeping.
In this case, the landlord has told the Ombudsman that it no longer has repair records after it ended its maintenance agreement with its heating contractor. This is not appropriate. Landlords must be able to access records as and when they need them. When contracts end with suppliers, there should be adequate terms and enforcement mechanisms within those contracts to ensure that the landlord can access key information about its residents and their homes.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered the resident an appointment to repair the leak on 11 November 2022. This was on the understanding that the leak was containable, and the resident did not need an emergency appointment. As there is no evidence of when the resident reported the leak we cannot be satisfied that this was in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
The call recordings reviewed show that the resident called the landlord back on 28 October 2022 to report the leak had become worse. The landlord offered the resident a 4-hour emergency appointment after it clarified the resident was calling about a leak and not a blockage. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable response as the resident reported the leak was uncontainable.
The resident told the landlord that he could not make this and so the landlord booked another appointment for 3 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor failed to attend or cancel the appointment. This was a service failure as it was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
The evidence shows that when the resident called on 7 November 2022 the landlord offered another appointment on 28 November 2022. The resident accepted this, and the landlord completed the repair on this day. At some point between these dates the landlord said it would raise an emergency repair, but this did not happen. This was a service failure as the landlord failed to fulfil its promise. The missed appointment and unfulfilled promise of an emergency appointment caused the resident distress. However, there is no evidence that the leak caused any physical damage.

The repair of the holes in the boiler room ceiling

In the absence of repair records, it is not possible to say when the resident told the landlord about the three holes in the boiler room ceiling. The evidence shows that the landlord booked an appointment on 31 October 2022, between 1 pm to 6 pm to repair the holes. The resident reported that the plasterer turned up at 10 am and did not have a mask.
This was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy or the resident’s request that contractors use a face mask. The evidence indicates that when the landlord booked the appointment it was aware of the resident’s request. Despite this there is no evidence of the landlord having told the contractor this. This failure caused the resident distress and frustration, it also meant the repair was delayed.
The plasterer’s demand that two operatives attend caused the resident additional distress. This was because the resident wished to minimise the number of operatives in the house. This was to reduce his potential exposure to germs. Although there is no evidence it was necessary for the contractor to send two operatives, the Ombudsman notes that the second plasterer remained outside. It is not possible to quantify the risk to the resident of having two operatives around his house, but this caused him distress.
The plasterer also failed to attend the appointment that the landlord booked for 7 November 2022 between 8 am to 1pm due to sickness, however the contractor only told the resident at 1.05pm. The landlord made a revised appointment for 28 November 2022 when it repaired the holes.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that it may not always be possible for landlords to meet scheduled appointments due to staff sickness. However, the Ombudsman notes that this late cancellation caused the resident frustration as the appointment window had expired.

Repair of the boiler overflow pipe

The resident reported to the landlord a broken boiler overflow pipe on 7 November 2022. The landlord made an appointment to repair this on 10 November 2022. This was reasonable as it was in line with the landlord’s repair policy. Although this appointment went ahead the landlord identified further follow on work. It booked this for 16 November 2022 although this appointment could not go ahead as the contractor turned up without a mask.
The landlord was aware that the resident had asked for contractors to wear masks. As such, the Ombudsman considers that this was a failure. This is because the landlord noted that the contractors needed masks when it booked an appointment for 31 October 2022. Despite this there was no evidence the landlord provided this information to its contractor.
The landlord rebooked the appointment for 18 November 2022 and again on 22 November 2022. These appointments did not go ahead because the resident was not at home when the contractors arrived. This is because the resident believed that the landlord had arranged the appointments for between 8am to 9am and between 8am to 10am on the 18 and 22 November 2022, respectively.
The evidence indicates that while the landlord requested that a contractor attend between these times it made clear to the resident that it could not guarantee this. It agreed to request the first appointment of the day to fit with the resident’s stated needs. The evidence shows the landlord consistently told the resident when he booked these appointments that it offered a 5-hour morning or afternoon repair slot. The contractors attended between the 8am to 1pm windows the landlord booked.
While for most residents general AM and PM appointments might be appropriate, landlords are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to their practices and to ensure that they (the practices) do not indirectly discriminate against those with a disability as defined by s.6 of the Equality Act 2010. There is no evidence in this case that the landlord considered if the resident had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and its duties under ss.19, 20 and 21 in respect of Part V of the Act (premises). There is no evidence that the landlord considered this in its complaint responses. On this basis, the landlord ought to have considered the resident’s reason for needing specific appointments. The fact it did not was a failure.
The landlord, on learning of the failed appointment on 22 November 2022 and the resident’s report of no heating, did not call the resident back to rearrange. This was not appropriate as it promised to do this. The landlord did not raise another job for the repair until 1 February 2023, this completed on 6 March 2023. This was four months to complete the repair. There is no evidence the delay was outside the landlord’s control. It would have been appropriate of the landlord to have raised an emergency repair as the resident said he had no heating, and this could have been a risk to his health.
However, the resident stated that he did not have any heating between 22 November 2022 and mid-December 2022. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord attempted repairs on 18 and 22 November 2022 to help with this.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord failed to organise an emergency appointment on 22 November 2022 to restore heating. This is because the lack of heating represented a risk to the resident during winter and given his health conditions. The Ombudsman considers it would have been appropriate to offer compensation for this.
The resident told the landlord that he experienced iritis and epileptic issues caused by the lack of heating during this period.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident felt the landlord had at times provided inconsistent information about appointments. There is evidence of some inconsistencies. For example, the landlord told the resident that it may be possible for a contractor to complete a repair in a 4 hour “make safe emergency” appointment. However, the landlord contradicted this on 22 November 2022, when it told the resident that it did not offer less than 5-hour appointment windows.

Summary and conclusions on the handling of the repairs

In summary, the Ombudsman finds:
1. the landlord failed to create and maintain records that were accessible to demonstrate it had taken appropriate actions in respect of the resident’s repairs
2. the landlord allowed contractors to attend the resident’s home without wearing masks – this was not appropriate
3. the landlord unreasonably missed appointments
4. the landlord agreed to allow the resident the first appointments of the day, whilst reasonable, the landlord said it could not guarantee this. The landlord has not shown it considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
5. there were delays in completing the repairs.
This is likely to have caused some distress, inconvenience, and frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman does not consider the redress offered via the landlord’s complaint procedure was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process. The first stage was the early resolution, the second was the manager investigation and the third stage was the director investigation. The landlord should have responded to each stage within 5 working days.
The resident complained on 24 November 2022 and the landlord responded on 28 November 2022 at stage 1. This was in line with its policy. Although the resident disputes receiving this before the stage 2 response there is no definitive evidence to make a finding on this.
It is unclear when the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, but the landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 December 2022. The lack of record keeping means that it is not possible to be satisfied that the landlord responded in line with its policy.
The resident requested a stage 3 escalation on 30 December 2022, the landlord responded on 21 March 2023. It took the landlord 56 working days to respond against a target of 5 working days. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy. Part of the delay was because the landlord decided in error to open a new complaint at stage 1 in January 2023. This delay caused the resident frustration and distress, the Ombudsman has therefore included an order of compensation for this.
In dealing with the complaint the resident stated that the landlord had not respected his preferred method of communicating by email. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence of the resident agreeing to telephone calls. The primary reason the resident wanted the landlord to communicate by email was so there was a written record. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s telephone calls were all recorded, and the resident has been able to access these.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for the lack of washing facilities which the resident accepted as “fair”. However, as set out above, there were delays in reinstating the heating and hot water. This is because the resident experienced discomfort and distress by not having heating, and this was caused by the landlord’s failure. The landlord’s policy allows for a payment of £4 per day for a lack of heating and hot water after the date the landlord should have done the repair.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to address the points raised in resident’s complaints. This service notes the following service failures in complaint handling:
1. the landlord’s failure to investigate or comment on why the contractors had not worn masks on 31 October 2022 or 16 November 2022
2. the landlord’s failure to investigate and comment on the reasons for the cancelled appointment on 3 November 2022
3. the landlord’s failure to investigate the late communication of the missed appointment on 7 November 2022
4. the landlord’s failure to investigate and comment on the plasterer’s disclosure that the office provided him with different appointment information relating to the appointment on 7 November 2022
5. the landlord’s failure to investigate or comment on the plasterer insisting that two operatives attend appointments
6. the inconsistencies over whether the landlord could offer less than a 5-hour appointment slot
7. the landlord’s failure to call him back on 22 November 2022 and on another call made after 30 January 2023
The failure of the landlord to engage with the resident’s complaint by addressing these issues caused him distress, the Ombudsman orders of compensation reflects this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) the complaint about staff conduct has not been investigated by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. pay the resident directly £592 made up of:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs including the missed appointments
  2. £92 for the lack of heating and hot water between 22 November to 15 December 2022 (£4 per day x 23 days).
  3. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage 3 and not addressing all his complaint points
2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.
We have made an order in 202230744 for the landlord to review its record keeping (specified at paragraph 48(e) of that report). The landlord must include this case as part of its review on record keeping. The review must also include the following:
1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repairs
2. whether its record-keeping systems and processes are adequate and meet the demand for the service
3. what it could do to encourage positive behaviours and better record keeping with staff and prevent the same failures from occurring in future
4. consider if more training is required for front-end staff in respect of good record keeping
5. consider whether it needs to introduce written guidance for staff on the principles and importance of good record keeping and consider if staff training is required. The landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The orders specified at paragraphs 49 to 53 of that investigation report (202230744) shall be applicable to the additional review of this case specified in this report at paragraph 57 above. The landlord must comply with the timescales set out in that case (202230744) for the review order in this report only.