Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202221326)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221326

Saffron Housing Trust 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.     The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b.     The resident’s reports of a crack in one of the internal walls.

c.      The resident’s reports of a defective front door.

d.     The resident’s reports of an uneven path leading to the property.

e.     The resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm.

f.        The resident’s request to remove a telecare alarm system cabinet.

g.     The associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the resident’s complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a crack in one of the internal walls.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective front door.

d.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an uneven path leading to the property.

4. Paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.
5. In this case, the landlord advised this Service that it had started legal proceedings on 10 July 2024 to obtain an access injunction to carry out various repairs. Based on the court application papers and all the other evidence, the Ombudsman has concluded that the aspects of the resident’s complaints listed in paragraph 3 of this report are outside its jurisdiction and cannot be investigated by this Service.

Background

6. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 16 February 2009.
7. The landlord’s records state that the resident is vulnerable and has a visual impairment.
8. Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and external areas of the property. The landlord is also responsible for various internal repairs, including repairs to basins, sinks, baths, toilets, heating systems, smoke alarms, internal walls and doors.

Summary of events

9. The resident sent emails to the landlord on 10 and 11 October 2022 covering various issues including:

a.     A request for a cabinet relating to a redundant pull cord system to be removed from her external wall. She stated that she had been requesting its removal for about 12 years.

b.     A defective smoke alarm she reported on 28 September 2021. The resident said the smoke alarm had been beeping and the landlord had not repaired it. She was also concerned that the landlord’s staff had previously advised her to vacuum out the alarm and change the battery, even though the battery was not designed to be changed.

10. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 October 2022 and reported various issues that she stated were outstanding.
11. On 9 December 2022, the resident wrote to this Service and stated that the landlord had refused to deal with her complaints about various issues, including:

a.     She stated that her complaint had included reports of a smoke alarm that had been beeping and her request for the landlord to remove a redundant telecare cabinet.

b.     The resident believed that the landlord had discriminated against her by not taking her disabilities into account.

c.      The resident said she had developed chronic respiratory issues, which she said had been caused by or exacerbated by the property condition.

d.     The resident requested this Service to investigate the landlord’s complaints handling and the way the landlord had dealt with her in relation to her disabilities. She also requested this Service to investigate the distress caused to her during the previous 18 months.

12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 February 2023 and advised her that she should provide access to allow the landlord to carry out inspections or works to the property. The landlord referred to a letter it had sent the resident on 27 January 2023 reminding her of the need for her to provide access for the landlord to inspect the property. The landlord stated that as per its complaints policy, it would not investigate any alleged service failures that were more than 6 months old.
13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2023 and stated that she was under a contractual obligation to allow access. The landlord added that it would be willing to consider any allegations made by the resident about previous damage to her property.
14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 April 2023 to summarise the outcome from its visit to the property on the same day. The landlord noted that there was a redundant Tunstall system and antenna attached to the external wall in the back garden. The landlord said it would check with its electrical manager regarding the removal of the equipment.
15. The resident replied to the landlord on 14 April 2023 and stated that she did not want the landlord to attend the property as she was anxious about damage being caused to the property.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2023 to update her on some of the matters it had noted during its visit on 12 April 2023. The landlord confirmed that the issues would be inspected by a surveyor on 26 April 2023. (It was later agreed on 20 April 2023 that the planned visit on 26 April 2023 would be cancelled and everything would be covered during the inspection planned on 3 May 2023).
17. The landlord carried out a detailed property inspection and risk assessment under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) on 3 May 2023.
18. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 21 June 2023 regarding the removal of the cabinet for the redundant pull cord (warden call) system in which it stated the following:

a.     The landlord confirmed it had referred the matter to the UK Power Networks (UKPN) as it was not clear whether the cables leading to the cabinet were still live.

b.     The landlord stated that in 2012-13 there was a project to disconnect and remove similar equipment by UKPN but the landlord was not sure whether the cabinet in question had been included in the order.

c.      The landlord apologised that it had not arranged the removal of the cabinet over a period of years and therefore apologised and offered £100 compensation.

19. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 July 2023 and requested it to escalate her complaint regarding the redundant pull-cord system to stage 2. She said her complaint had been dated 11 October 2022. The resident mentioned that she had information dating back to 2014-2019 regarding the electrical cabinet.
20. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2023 to set out the future contact arrangements between the landlord and the resident. One of the restrictions was that the resident should not send more than one email per week to the landlord regarding housing matters and no more than one per week on repairs matters.
21. On 1 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply regarding the smoke alarm in which it stated the following:

a.     The landlord had corresponded with the resident about the need to fit a mains powered smoke alarm with a lithium battery back-up. The landlord had advised her that the alarm could be silenced in the event of it sounding by pressing the ‘hush’ button.

b.     The landlord’s records showed that the mains powered smoke alarm had been fitted on 25 March 2015, which was compliant with the regulations (prior to 2013 battery alarms had been compliant).

c.      The landlord said it had checked the electrical installation condition report dated 1 November 2022 and noted that the report was satisfactory.

d.     The landlord said it had not detected any faults with the mains system and the resident was free to fit battery alarms herself if she wanted additional alarms to supplement the mains alarm.

22. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 September 2023 and stated that the reply she had received regarding the smoke alarm did not address her October 2022 complaint about the landlord refusing to come out regarding the smoke alarm that had been beeping.
23. On 18 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply regarding the removal of the telecare power cabinet from outside her property. The landlord stated:

a.     The landlord needed to engage with UKPN to remove any electricity power cables. The landlord was therefore waiting for an appointment before it could remove the cabinet from the property.

b.     The landlord had again chased UKPN for an appointment and the company had confirmed receipt of the landlord’s application form.

24. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 September 2023 in response to her emails dated 10 and 11 October 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and said this was due to the large number of enquiries she had submitted. The landlord stated that it would not be raising complaints for some of the enquiries submitted by the resident on these dates because they referred to events that occurred over 6 months ago.
25. On 22 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply regarding the smoke alarms in the resident’s property. The landlord stated:

a.     The landlord stated that  it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 17 August 2023.

b.     The landlord advised the resident that there were difficulties in investigating the reasons for dissatisfaction dating back to 2011.

c.      The landlord confirmed that the smoke alarms in the property were compliant and in working order.

d.     The landlord accepted that its stage 2 reply was late and offered compensation of £50.

26. On 27 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident regarding the removal of the telecare power cabinet outside her property. The landlord’s stage 2 reply stated the following:

a.     The landlord had submitted the relevant forms to UKPN for the removal of the cabinet. UKPN had confirmed receipt of the forms and said their lead-in time was 6-8 weeks. The landlord confirmed it was still waiting for an appointment and this was out of its control.

b.     Access would only be required to the resident’s garden and the landlord would make good any screw holes after the cabinet was removed.

27. On 27 September 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to reiterate the arrangements for contact with the resident. It also gave details of appointments that had been made and the resident had not given access or had declined the appointments. The landlord stated that the resident had been given 14 days notice by post and all appointments were offered as morning or afternoon slots.
28. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023 to reiterate the contact restrictions and to offer mediation should the resident wish to agree to this option.
29. The resident confirmed to this Service on 16 July 2024 that she had reported a fault with a battery-operated smoke alarm in September 2021 and after she had contacted the landlord, she arranged for a family member to remove the alarm. The resident confirmed that she has a mains-wired smoke alarm in her property.
30. The landlord wrote to this Service on 17 and 18 July 2024 to advise that it had started legal proceedings to obtain access to the property to carry out various repairs. It had therefore applied to the county court on 10 July 2024 for an access injunction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

31. The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions and stated that she had reported defects for several years. The resident also referred on various occasions to problems she had experienced following the installation of a new heating system in June 2021.
32. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of matters from October 2022 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to October 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
33. The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to report that she was suffering from various medical conditions, including respiratory issues because of defects to the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
34. The resident wrote to this Service on 9 December 2022 and stated that her landlord had refused to make reasonable adjustments in relation to her disabilities and had therefore discriminated against her. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 or otherwise. This is a legal matter that would have to be determined by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to the Equality Act as part of our consideration of a complaint.
35. The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions and referred to a SAR she had submitted. The Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR because this falls under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO considers complaints about data handling, confidentiality, compliance with the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation.

The resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm

36. The resident advised the landlord on 11 October 2022 that she had reported a beeping smoke alarm in September 2021 and it had not yet been repaired. She also stated that she had been given inappropriate advice by the landlord’s staff regarding cleaning the alarm and changing the battery. As the evidence indicates that the advice referred to by the resident was before October 2022, the Ombudsman has not investigated the advice given by the landlord.
37. The landlord’s records state that it carried out an inspection of the electrics on 1 November 2022 and this showed that the electrical installation was satisfactory. It was appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to have inspected the electrical installations within the property to ensure they were satisfactory and safe.
38. This Service has not seen any evidence after 1 November 2022 that the resident reported a fault with the existing mains-wired smoke alarm. In her email dated 9 December 2022 to this Service, she mentioned that the smoke alarm was missing from her property. The Ombudsman understands that this refers to a battery-operated smoke alarm that had previously been present in the property and had been beeping. The resident advised this Service that she had arranged for a family member to remove and dispose of the alarm.
39. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s notes from its visit to the property on 12 April 2023 and can confirm there is no mention of a defective smoke alarm in its notes. Furthermore, the surveyor’s detailed report from his inspection on 3 May 2023 stated that he had tested the smoke alarm during the inspection and no faults were noted in his report. He noted that the alarm was not due for replacement until 2026. Finally, in its stage one reply dated 1 September 2023, the landlord said it had not detected any current faults with the smoke alarm system in the property and it had not been able to find any record of a fault that the resident had reported regarding the system.
40. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident had reported a fault with a smoke alarm in 2021, however, as stated earlier, this Service has not investigated matters before October 2022. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman has concluded that following the resident’s correspondence in October 2022 regarding the smoke alarm, the landlord took appropriate steps to check and test the mains-powered smoke alarm system to ensure it was functioning correctly. Furthermore, the landlord had appropriately explained in its stage one reply that it had fitted the mains powered system in 2015 to ensure the alarms remained compliant.

The resident’s request to remove a telecare alarm system cabinet

41. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 October 2022 and stated that the landlord had previously agreed to remove a redundant electrical cabinet attached to the external wall in her garden. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request to remove the cabinet and this prompted the resident to write to the Ombudsman on 9 December 2022 in which she mentioned the electrical cabinet. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to the resident’s email about removing the electrical cabinet, particularly as she said she had been waiting some time for the landlord to remove it.
42. The landlord agreed during its visit to the property on 12 April 2023 that it would consult with its electrical manager regarding the removal of the electrical cabinet. The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident in which it confirmed that it had referred the removal of the cabinet to UKPN as it was unclear whether the cables leading to it were still live. The landlord also confirmed there had been a previous project for UKPN to remove all the redundant cabinets relating to the former warden telecare system.
43. As the landlord had previously commissioned UKPN to remove similar cabinets and it was unsure whether the cables were still live, it was reasonable that it had decided to refer the matter to UKPN.
44. The landlord apologised for the delay in progressing the removal of the electrical cabinet and offered the resident compensation of £100, which was in line with its Goodwill and Compensation Policy.
45. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence indicating that the cabinet was causing a significant detriment to the resident. However, as the electrical cabinet was redundant and the landlord had previously agreed to remove it, the resident was clearly disappointed that the landlord had not carried through with its commitment. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to her enquiry about the cabinet in October 2022. Having considered the level of detriment and all the circumstances, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was reasonable and proportionate to put things right in terms of the delays regarding the removal of the electrical cabinet.
46. The landlord reiterated in its stage 2 reply dated 18 September 2023 that it was waiting for UKPN to remove any live cables leading to the cabinet before the landlord could remove it. The landlord advised the resident that it had chased UKPN and they had confirmed receipt of the landlord’s application form. As the landlord could not control the work of UKPN, the steps taken by the landlord to chase them and check they had received the application form were reasonable.

The associated complaints

47. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process, which involves replying to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The stage one timescale may be extended by up to 20 working days, where necessary, in which case the landlord will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the extension. Any extension of more than 20 working days must be agreed by both parties. The timescale for stage 2 complaints may be extended by up to 10 working days, in which case the landlord will advise the resident of the reasons for the extension. An extension beyond 10 working days will be agreed by both parties.
48. The Ombudsman has not investigated the complaints that relate to the matters that are outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, this Service has only investigated the landlord’s complaints handling in relation to the resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm and her request to remove the redundant telecare cabinet.
49. In October 2022, the resident submitted complaints about various subjects, including her reports about a smoke alarm that had been beeping and her request for the landlord to remove the redundant telecare cabinet.
50. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord treated the resident’s emails sent in October 2022 as complaints. This was inappropriate as the resident’s emails made it clear that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these issues, which she said had been outstanding for a while.
51. The evidence shows that the landlord had been seeking to deal with the matters informally. It had carried out home visits and had carried out a full inspection on 3 May 2023. The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times where appropriate action can be agreed immediately. However, any decision to try to resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and a landlord’s audit trail/records should be able to demonstrate this. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay.
52. The landlord sent a stage one reply on 21 June 2023 regarding the redundant electrical cabinet. The landlord had therefore taken 8 months to formally respond to the resident’s complaint, which was unreasonable. The delay had led her to contact the Ombudsman on 9 December 2022 and therefore involved additional time and effort on her part in seeking a reply.
53. On 25 July 2023, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint about the redundant electrical cabinet to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 18 September 2023, which was 39 working days after the resident had requested the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord therefore took longer to reply than its advertised timescale and this was unreasonable. The landlord did not apologise for the delay in replying nor offer financial redress to put things right in terms of its complaint handling.
54. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 1 September 2023 regarding the resident’s complaint about the smoke alarm. It had therefore taken the landlord 10 months to send a formal reply and therefore this was again unreasonable as the resident had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord for a reply.
55. On 15 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with its stage one reply regarding the smoke alarm. However, in its stage 2 reply on 27 September 2023 the landlord stated that it had escalated the resident’s complaint about the smoke alarm to stage 2 on 17 August 2023. Therefore, the landlord had taken 26 working days to reply to the stage 2 complaint after it had escalated it. This was slightly longer than its 20-working day target for stage 2 complaints. The landlord offered financial redress of £50, which was in line with its Goodwill and Compensation Policy. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable to put things right in terms of the delay in responding.
56. The evidence shows that the landlord found it challenging to manage the number of complaints received from the resident. Although the landlord formally responded to the complaints about the telecare cabinet and the smoke alarm, there were failings in its handling of these complaints. These failings were:

a.     The landlord did not treat the resident’s October 2022 emails about the telecare cabinet and the smoke alarm as formal complaints, even though the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s previous handling of the issues.

b.     The landlord took 8 months to send its stage one reply to the resident’s complaint about the redundant telecare cabinet.

c.      The landlord took 10 months to reply to the stage one complaint about the smoke alarm.

d.     There was a delay in the landlord replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint about the telecare cabinet.

57. The Ombudsman has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints regarding these matters. The failures caused the resident frustration as she had to chase the landlord on various occasions and contact this Service. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100, which is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Determination (decision)

58. In accordance with paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
59. In accordance with paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a crack in one of the internal walls is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
60. In accordance with paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective front door is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
61. In accordance with paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an uneven path leading to the property is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm.
63. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request to remove a telecare alarm system cabinet.
64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

65. The landlord started legal proceedings on 10 July 2024 to obtain an access injunction to carry out various repairs. Therefore, as per paragraph 41c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service considers the following aspects of the resident’s complaints to be outside its jurisdiction:

a.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a crack in one of the internal walls.

c.      The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective front door.

d.     The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an uneven path leading to the property.

66. The landlord took appropriate steps to check and test the mains-wired smoke alarm system to ensure it was functioning correctly. Furthermore, the landlord had appropriately explained in its stage one reply why it had fitted the mains powered system in 2015.
67. The landlord apologised for the delay in progressing the removal of the electrical cabinet and offered the resident proportionate and reasonable financial redress to put things right.
68. The landlord did not treat the resident’s October 2022 emails about the telecare cabinet and the smoke alarm as formal complaints. It took 8 months to send its stage one reply to the resident’s complaint about the telecare cabinet and 10 months to reply to the complaint about the smoke alarm. There was also a delay in the landlord replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint about the telecare cabinet.

Orders

69. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling.

 

Recommendation

70. The landlord should reoffer the resident £100 for its handling of her request to remove the telecare alarm system cabinet if this sum has not already been paid.