Magenta Living (202302098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302098

Magenta Living

6 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident following a stopcock replacement.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow and the resident has health conditions the landlord is aware of.
3. On 29 December 2022 the resident reported that the stopcock in the property would not open or close properly. He said it needed a switch as he was worried he would not be able to turn it off in an emergency. He also asked that any attending operative should wear a mask.
4. A landlord operative attended on 11 January 2023 but could not find an issue with the stopcock. They fitted a Surestop stopcock which had a switch to enable the resident to stop the water supply in the event of a leak. It explained that the Surestop would stick out and would not be boxed in, and noted the resident ‘moaned, complained and was aggressive’. On leaving the property, the operative reported that the resident described the work as messy and shocking.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint later that day, saying that the work was poor, a mess was left, and the operative did not wear a mask and was abusive towards him. The landlord emailed the resident the following day and said it would contact him.
6. On 13 January 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he could not shower because of the mess left following the work. The landlord arranged to re-attend and inspect the work on 17 January 2023. The resident called again on 14 January 2023 and said the operative had damaged the bathroom wall. The landlord asked him to send photographs so it could assess the damage, but no evidence has been provided to confirm if he did so. On the morning of the scheduled inspection, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for it to be rescheduled as he was unwell.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2023, in which it said:
   1. It had reviewed its photographs of the work and found that reasonable attempts had been made to clean up. It accepted that the paint by the stopcock had flaked off, but redecorating was the resident’s responsibility.
   2. It had attempted to inspect the repair on 17 January 2023 but the resident refused access due to his health.
   3. It would contact him to arrange a follow up appointment to fit trunking around the Surestop wire to improve its appearance.
   4. Staff no longer have to wear masks but its operative had worn a dust mask in an attempt to accommodate the resident’s request.
   5. The resident’s conduct had been confrontational and made its operative feel uncomfortable whilst the work was completed. It asked him to keep this in mind during future visits.
8. The resident responded by email 2 days later to escalate the complaint and said:
   1. A lot of plaster was removed as well as flaked paint, and the photographs did not show the full extent of the mess.
   2. He had not refused access and tried to let the landlord know he was unwell.
   3. He was not confrontational and approached the operative in the van once he saw the mess that was left, when he submits the operative waved his arms and shouted at him.
9. The landlord discussed the resident’s comments on 24 January 2023 and rescheduled the inspection for 8 February 2023.
10. The resident called the landlord to chase an update regarding his request for the complaint to be escalated on 1 February 2023. He also said he had trodden on a cable clip which lodged in his foot and did not know if the bathroom floor was safe following the work. The same day a local councillor also emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf and reiterated his concerns about the repairs visit and subsequent events.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 February 2023 and said the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and he should expect a response by 20 February 2023. In the resident’s response emails he reiterated his submissions about treading on a cable clip, asked for this to be added to his complaint, and asked when the post-inspection would take place.
12. The landlord attended on 8 February 2023 and found the work was “a little untidy” and said feedback would be provided to the operative. Follow-on work was scheduled for 2 March 2023 to install trunking and complete minor plaster repairs.
13. In the landlord’s email to the councillor of 10 February 2023, it confirmed that follow-on work had been arranged. It explained that the cable clip had been dropped and missed by the operative by mistake but it was glad it had not resulted in serious injury to the resident. With regard to the interaction between the resident and the operative it said that, due to a lack of impartial evidence, it was not possible to know exactly had happened between them. 
14. The landlord completed the follow on work on 15 February 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident, if its operative offended him or made him feel unsafe, and for any upset caused by the cable clip stuck in his foot. It accepted that, whilst the clip was left accidently, it could have had serious consequences for the resident due to his health, and going forward operatives must clear all materials before leaving.  

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it must make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water are in working order. It says leaking pipework is its responsibility, but decorating is the responsibility of the resident. The policy says its response time for routine repairs is 21 working days. The landlord also has a code of conduct which says it should clear away all rubbish created from any work and avoid involvement in any confrontational situations. It also asks residents to be polite and courteous to its staff that visit or carry out work.
16. The landlord raised the work as a routine repair and attended 8 working days later within its policy timeframe. Whilst it could not find an issue with the stopcock, it appropriately installed the Surestop with a switch to allay the resident’s concerns. The photographs taken before and after the installation show additional copper pipework was required, the plastic wire to the Surestop switch was not boxed in, and paint had flaked off.
17. The Ombudsman acknowledges the upset caused to the resident by the altered appearance, but considers it reasonable to expect some aesthetic changes when different equipment is being installed. The photographs do not show evidence of any mess left, and there is no evidence the resident provided any photographs to show the purported mess and damage to the wall following the work. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s submissions, it is important to note that we can only base our decisions on the documentary evidence provided.
18. The evidence shows that the landlord arranged to inspect the work promptly following receipt of the complaint, which was reasonable. It is unfortunate that the inspection could not be completed as planned, but the landlord discussed the resident’s comments internally and proactively rescheduled it. However, the resident was not made aware of the rescheduled inspection as of 6 February 2023, 8 working days after the landlord had discussed his concerns and re-arranged the inspection.
19. The evidence suggests that this lack of communication led the resident to contact his councillor and chase the landlord for an update which caused some inconvenience. The inspection was ultimately completed 15 working days after the cancelled inspection. The landlord acted reasonably after the inspection and arranged follow-on work to improve the Surestop appearance, with the work completed promptly 5 working days later, again in line with its policy. 
20. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened during an incident and a lack of independent evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman, as an impartial arbiter, cannot definitively determine what happened. This Service will, however, consider the landlord’s response to the accounts and assess whether its actions were reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. The landlord apologised to the resident in relation to the operative’s behaviour, mess and inconvenience in its stage 2 response, and advised that operatives would be instructed to clear all materials before leaving a job. This response was proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances. 
21. The evidence shows that, overall, the landlord acted swiftly and in line with policy when carrying out the work to the stopcock, and the follow-on work. It took the opportunity of the complaints process to fully consider the issues raised, apologise for the impact on the resident, and identify learning points. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfavourably or that he was significantly impacted by the issues raised. There was, therefore, no maladministration by the landlord, but recommendations are made in relation to the landlord’s communication and its code of conduct to avoid similar issue arising in future.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident following a stopcock replacement.

Recommendations

23. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. Remind operatives of the code of conduct in its repairs guidance, which says they should clear away all rubbish created from work and avoid involvement in any confrontational situations.
    2. Ensure it updates residents when a repair appointment has been rescheduled.