The Havebury Housing Partnership (202121218)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121218

The Havebury Housing Partnership

21 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s:
  1. reports about repair issues in her property, including damp and mould;
  2. concerns about harassment;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since June 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
In early 2023, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s recent works to her roof. It is evident that in March 2023, the landlord sought to inspect the property; however, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with its communications, which she considered to be “harassment.” She subsequently made a formal complaint about her ongoing concerns, following which the landlord sought clarification about precisely what the complaint included. However, the complaint was not progressed at this time.
Throughout 2023, the resident frequently reported concerns to the landlord about actions which she considered it had taken. These reports included that the landlord had remotely shut off her water supply and installed monitoring equipment in her property during repair works. The landlord surmised that there was an issue with her hot water. It subsequently attended and provided advice about how to use the boiler. It also confirmed that it was not seeking to harass or otherwise covertly monitor her.
In September 2023, the resident advised that she wished to be moved to a new property. It is not evident that the landlord directly addressed this request. She also reported mould in her property and provided a photograph depicting mould in a corner of her stairwell.
In November 2023, the resident reiterated that she wanted her concerns investigated as a formal complaint; however, the landlord advised that, while it would continue to communicate about any repair issues, “in line with our complaints policy, we will not be taking your complaint forward.”
Given the ongoing and frequent communication from the resident, on 1 December 2023, the landlord advised that it was imposing contact restrictions. It noted it had given previous warnings about the frequency and nature of her communications. It advised it would now only respond in writing to new repair issues and would only respond on the telephone in emergencies. It noted it would review these restrictions in 12 months’ time and provided information about how to appeal.
The resident continued to regularly report her concerns and also raised concerns that an extractor fan installed in the bathroom was dangerous. The landlord attempted to explain that this was not the case but subsequently agreed to relocate it.
Throughout the period of the complaint, both parties were in contact with this Service. The landlord advised this Service that it had concerns about the wellbeing of the resident. It had chosen not to go through its formal complaints procedure as it was concerned about the impact this would have. It further advised that it had made multiple offers to refer the resident to support services but that these had been declined.
Given her ongoing complaints, in February 2024, this Service advised the landlord to further clarify its complaints position to the resident. In particular, this Service advised that it should address her concerns regarding damp and mould. The landlord subsequently chose to raise a formal complaint on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024, which included the following:
1. Regarding damp and mould, the landlord noted it had inspected the property in December 2023 but had not discovered any damp or mould. It had redistributed some of the loft insulation to reduce cold spots and had also recommended the installation of trickle vents; however, these were declined by the resident.
2. It also noted that, despite its position that the bathroom vent was safe, it was seeking to arrange a time with the resident for it to attend and relocate the vent.
3. It repeated that it was not spying on the resident and that it did not keep a secret key to her property. It also noted that the contact restrictions remained in place and that it would not raise works to remove repair works on the basis of the resident’s concerns about spying. It further reiterated that it remained committed to ensuring any repair issues were addressed.
It is evident that the fan was relocated in April 2024; however, the resident continued to regularly report her concerns about what she considered to be harassment and spying.
The landlord acknowledged an escalation request in May 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 10 June 2024. It noted that the fan had now been relocated and reiterated its position that it would not undo repair works, in particular, that it would not remove the resident’s smoke alarms. It repeated its reassurance that it was not spying on the resident and confirmed its contact restrictions remained in place.
It is evident that the resident continued to report the same concerns. The landlord’s internal records note that as of September 2024, it did not consider there to be any outstanding repair issues.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

When a landlord receives reports of repair issues, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate the reports and action any necessary repairs for which it was responsible within a reasonable timeframe. However, this becomes challenging when there is a difference of opinion between the parties about what repairs are required. Managing a resident’s expectations in such circumstances, therefore, becomes an important part of the landlord’s service delivery.
Throughout the period of the complaint, there has been a high volume of communication from the resident. This communication often included overlapping and repeated reports which the landlord had previously addressed. For example, following the resident’s initial reports about her boiler, the resident expressed concerns that the landlord had remotely switched the boiler off. The landlord inspected the boiler and attempted to provide instructions to the resident about how to use the boiler. It also repeatedly advised the resident it did not have the capability of switching it off remotely. However, this remained a concern of the resident, and she continued to report similar issues.
In such circumstances, the Ombudsman understands that the landlord does not have unlimited resources to continually inspect a property for the same issue. It is therefore reasonable, in the absence of new evidence, to seek to provide a final position and to manage the resident’s communications.
The landlord operates an unreasonable behaviour policy. The policy notes that continual communications which take up an unreasonable amount of the landlord’s time and resources are considered unreasonable behaviour. Additionally, repeated requests for services that are contrary to the landlord’s policies are also considered unreasonable behaviour.
Given the repeated communication from the resident, the landlord chose to use its unreasonable behaviour policy and place restrictions on her contact. It communicated this to the resident appropriately, provided examples of the behaviour it was seeking to manage, provided a timeframe in which it would review its decision, and provided information about how to appeal its decision. All of these steps were in line with its policy and with what the Ombudsman would consider best practice.
The contact restrictions allowed for the resident to continue to report new repair issues or emergency repair issues, and it is evident that the landlord continued to respond to many of the resident’s ongoing reports. This demonstrated a genuine attempt to resolve the substantive issues effecting the resident.
One such repair included addressing damp and mould, which the resident attributed to the landlord’s works near her roof. Given that the mould depicted in the photograph provided by the resident appeared to cover a relatively small area, it was reasonable for the landlord not to treat the issue as an urgent repair. While it took some time for the landlord to conduct a full investigation of the issue, it is evident that there was ongoing difficulty in effectively communicating with the resident and arranging an inspection. However, once it did carry out an inspection, it appropriately informed the resident that no damp was present, it redistributed her insulation to assist with cold spots, and it offered trickle vents to aid ventilation. While these were declined, this again demonstrated that the landlord was proactively seeking to assist the resident where possible. It is not evident that it provided formal communication to outline the outcome of its inspections at the time, which would have been helpful for the resident. However, it appropriately explained its actions in its later stage 1 complaint response.
Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that the extractor fan it installed in the resident’s bathroom was unsafe due to its location being above the bath. It was reasonable for the landlord to repeat this position to the resident. Given her ongoing distress, it was also appropriate that it chose to relocate the fan as a gesture of goodwill to help maintain the landlord/tenant relationship.
As noted above, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to investigate any reports of repair issues. Part of such an investigation includes an initial assessment of what is proportionate. While the resident repeatedly reported concerns about spying equipment installed in the boiler and smoke detectors, it was reasonable for the landlord not to expend resources conducting a physical inspection given the lack of supporting evidence. It also appropriately provided its position on this matter to the resident several times throughout the period of the complaint. It further explained the legal requirement for the smoke detectors to remain in the property.
Similarly, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to remove repairs it had previously completed. In the absence of a repair need, any additional works would be considered improvements, which the landlord is not obligated to undertake. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decline undoing repairs it had previously completed.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord recognised the need to offer support to the resident, and it appropriately offered to make referrals to support services. However, following the resident’s mention of wanting to move to a new property, it is not evident that the landlord provided a clear position. While this was not the focus of the resident’s complaint, it would have been helpful for the landlord to assist her with understanding her options. A recommendation has, therefore, been made below for the landlord to provide the resident with relevant information about her options for relocation.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to manage the resident’s communications and expectations throughout the period of the complaint. It showed a genuine concern for the resident’s wellbeing and offered appropriate support. It also completed reasonable investigations of repair reports and completed works where necessary. Despite the contact restrictions in place, it has continued to respond to repair concerns and even completed additional works where reasonable. While the Ombudsman recognised the resident’s ongoing concerns about the landlord’s service delivery, based on the evidence provided, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Harassment

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident repeatedly expressed her dissatisfaction with the actions of the landlord, which she considered to be threatening and harassment. She also alleged that the landlord was monitoring her and spying on her.
As noted above, the landlord introduced contact restrictions to manage its communications with the resident. While the resident considered this action to be an example of the landlord’s harassment, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in order to manage its resources effectively and were in line with its policies.
As part of the contact restrictions, the landlord noted that it would only visit the resident’s property in pairs. While the resident expressed concern about this, it is reasonable for the landlord to seek to enable its operatives to feel safe while completing their work. A second person also helps both parties by providing a second witness to any conversations or interactions which may occur. While the resident expressed concern about this condition, it was reasonable for the landlord to put this in place, and it provided a reasonable explanation for its decision.
Throughout its communication, the landlord repeated that it was not attempting to spy on the resident and that none of the installations in her property had this capability. It appropriately reiterated this in its stage 1 response and provided additional reassurance by explaining its legal obligation not to keep a spare key. As noted above, it was also reasonable for it to explain why it could not remove necessary installations from her property.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports that her experiences and interactions with the landlord throughout the period of the complaint caused her distress. However, it is evident that the landlord sought to reassure her about her concerns and offer support. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord’s communications or actions were intended to cause distress. In the absence of such evidence, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. The policy notes that it may alter its method of engagement where there is behaviour that is deemed unreasonable. There may also be instances where it will not consider a complaint. In such instances, it will contact the resident and provide a detailed explanation about why it is not accepting the complaint. It will also advise the resident about their right to refer the complaint to this Service.
It is not disputed that the resident made repeated requests for her concerns to be treated as a formal complaint. Given that she often sent multiple communications a day, many of which included references to a formal complaint, the landlord reasonably knew that she had wanted a formal complaint response since early 2023.
Given that her communications often included multiple overlapping concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek further information about the nature of her complaint prior to opening a new complaint. This raised the resident’s expectation that a complaint was possible; however, the landlord did not make any further attempts to progress the complaint. This would have left the resident unclear if her complaint had been accepted or what her other options were.
The landlord did not address the possibility of a formal complaint again until November 2023, at which point it simply said that it would not take the complaint forward. While it referenced its policy, it did not signpost the resident to the part of the policy it was basing its decision on. Nor did it signpost the resident to this Service. While it may have assumed the resident already knew about this Service, its approach was contrary to its policy and could have been confusing for the resident.
In its communications with this Service, the landlord noted that it had made this decision based on its safeguarding policy. It has not, however, provided this Service with a copy of this policy. Given that the complaints policy does not reference safeguarding concerns as a reason not to provide a complaint response, it is difficult to assess if this approach was in line with its policy.
Despite not initially progressing a formal complaint, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did continue to respond to the resident’s reports and also raised appropriate inspections and works. It also repeatedly attempted to reassure the resident it was not seeking to spy on her or harass her.
The landlord appropriately raised a formal complaint once this Service requested it reconsider its response. Its subsequent complaint responses were broadly provided within the timeframes of its policy and included sufficient detail about its position on the concerns raised.
In summary, the Ombudsman understands that managing the communication and expectations of the resident has been challenging for the landlord. It is also evident that it has remained committed to providing the resident with support and ensuring any substantive issues were addressed. While it missed the opportunity to provide greater clarity about its approach, the detriment this caused the resident was mitigated by its ongoing support. Therefore, in the circumstances, this did not fall within the threshold for a finding of service failure, and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its:
1. response to the resident’s:
  1. reports about repair issues in her property, including damp and mould;
  2. concerns about its actions and communication
2. complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord is to write to the resident and provide her with relevant information about her options for relocation.