Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Abri Group Limited (202229695)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229695

Abri Group Limited

22 January 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 erection of scaffolding at the resident’s property.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. Throughout the case the resident has been assisted by her daughter who has authority to discuss with the landlord. With the aim of simplifying the report both the resident and her daughter will be referred to as the resident.
  2. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord since 21 July 2017. The property is a 2–bedroom house.
  3. The house next door to the resident’s property had a leak in the roof. To fix the leak the landlord needed to erect scaffolding on her property.
  4. On 31 October 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its subcontractor who had accessed her garden on 29 October 2022 to erect scaffolding. She stated:
    1. The subcontractor had accessed her property without permission.
    2. The resident had told the subcontractor she would contact them directly to arrange a suitable date for them to attend and erect the scaffolding.
    3. The resident found the subcontractor to be very rude.
    4. She believed the subcontractor had broken the law by entering onto her property without permission.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2022 telling her it would need a further 10 working days to respond to the complaint.
  6. On 16 November 2022 the landlord sent the stage 1 response to the resident. It did not uphold the complaint, it outlined its findings as follows:
    1. On 31 October 2022 the resident made a complaint that a subcontractor had put up scaffolding on her property without permission.
    2. It was sorry the resident was unaware the scaffolding was going to be erected.
    3. The subcontractor made two attempts to erect the scaffolding. The resident refused access on 2 September 2022. She requested the subcontractor return in 2 weeks. The subcontractor returned on 21 September 2022. The resident refused access saying that she would make contact in a week to arrange an appointment. The subcontractor did not receive any contact from her.
    4. The repairs had become critical, the landlord was unable to leave them any longer. The subcontractor erected the scaffolding on 29 October 2022.
    5. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience, acknowledged the resident was unaware and appreciated how this had made her feel.
  7. The resident spoke to the landlord on 28 November 2022. She explained she was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response as it had not addressed her concerns. She stated:
    1. The information provided in the response was not correct. The subcontractor turned up on the day to erect the scaffolding without any prior appointment.
    2. The resident told the subcontractor she was having a shed installed. The scaffolding would prevent this from happening.
    3. She told the subcontractor she would contact them when her shed had been installed.
    4. The subcontractor turned up and climbed over her fence to install the scaffolding.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 28 November 2022 and spoke to the resident on 17 January 2023 to discuss the complaint. In addition, she said that the works were not an emergency and that the contractors had been rude to her.
  9. The resident informed this Service that the subcontractor erected the scaffolding at the rear of the property in error. She said that the landlord did not carry out any work on the roof while the scaffolding was up between 29 – 31 October 2022. It was then necessary for the landlord to make further arrangements to have the scaffolding put up at the front of the property to carry out the repairs.
  10. The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the resident on 26 January 2023. It had reviewed its decision and was upholding the complaint. It gave the following reasons:
    1. In the stage 2 process it had considered the issues the resident had experienced throughout the complaints process.
    2. It apologised for how the resident was made to feel and that she had felt her side of the story had not been heard.
    3. It acknowledged she had found the subcontractor confrontational and this had left her feeling worried every time she returns home.
    4. The landlord apologised it did not speak to her before investigating her complaint.
    5. The subcontractor made 2 attempts to erect the scaffolding to complete a repair required at the neighbouring property. As the resident was carrying out work on her own garden, she advised the contractors she would call to make an appointment when it was suitable. The roof repairs became critical. Having not received any contact from the resident the subcontractor had to proceed and erect the scaffolding.
    6. The resident had questioned whether the landlord could enter her property without permission. Having consulted the lease, it confirmed it could enter without permission if required.
    7. The unannounced visits had left the resident feeling vulnerable and worried about people turning up at the property unannounced. The landlord agreed to place a notification on its system. This would ensure anyone required to visit would contact her if they required access to the property in the future.
  11. The landlord confirmed it had provided feedback to the subcontractors on the impact on the resident. It also confirmed it was looking at other subcontractors for future work. It offered the resident £200 compensation for how she was made to feel, for the inconvenience caused and the poor complaint handling.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. She felt the landlord was still blaming her for not making contact. She wanted the wording changed to make it clear the subcontractor had not contacted her before any of the attempts to erect the scaffolding.
  13. The resident brought her complaint to this service on 28 February 2023 in which she stated:
    1. The resident felt that the £200 would help her secure her property.
    2. The landlord should have contacted her before the scaffolding it erected the scaffolding.
    3. It has still not completed the works to the roof.
    4. The resident does not feel the wording in the stage 2 response is an apology.
    5. The resident believes she should not have had to deal with the subcontractor without the landlord introducing them to her.

Events since the complaint was brough to this Service

  1. Further works were necessary to the front section of the roof. This required the landlord to have another scaffolding tower erected at the front of the property. In a call on 6 March 2023 the resident told the landlord that the subcontractor for the latest work had missed two appointments. In the conversation it provided a reason for the missed appointments. It arranged a visit for the following week to confirm a date for the scaffolding to go up. It also discussed work required on the resident’s roof. It committed to look at her roof when the work to the neighbour’s property was taking place. The resident emailed later that day to say the subcontractor had been in touch requesting to visit in the evening. She had previously made clear evening appointments were not possible. This had left her feeling exasperated.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 March 2023 to confirm the changes made to its stage 2 response. It outlined the following:
    1. The resident was unhappy she did not receive any calls to arrange the appointments.
    2. The landlord confirmed it did not have a record of the calls as it was a subcontractor who completed the work. Its own records do not accurately reflect whether the subcontractor made the calls. It does not doubt the resident’s version of events.
    3. It offered sincere apologies she had not received the calls and for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
  3. She then spoke to the landlord on 5 July 2023 informing them a different subcontractor had turned up and erected scaffolding without permission and she wanted to make a further complaint. The landlord agreed to deal with the latest issue with the scaffolding as an extension of her stage 2 response.
  4. It issued the additional stage 2 response on 3 August 2023 stating:
    1. It had placed a pop up on the resident’s and neighbour’s properties. This required prior notification before any works took place requiring access to her property.
    2. The resolution the landlord had put in place had failed.
    3. The resident had called the landlord on 5 July 2023 informing it she had come home to find the subcontractor had erected scaffolding without her knowing and work had begun on the roof.
    4. It acknowledged the damage the subcontractor had caused to her grandfather’s rose bush and passed on its apologies for this damage.
    5. It was currently looking at ways it can ensure all staff are aware of customer requirements and that these details are passed to contractors.
    6. It acknowledged the resident had been feeling anxious because of the unannounced visits by the subcontractors and that she was looking at additional security measures. The landlord offered £800 in addition to its initial offer of £200 compensation. It also offered to waive the fee and fast track the approval of any alteration requests she made.
    7. To accept the additional compensation the resident had to sign a form confirming she would withdraw her complaint from the Housing Ombudsman. In addition, she had to inform this Service that she had reached a satisfactory resolution with her landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy details its intention to keep customers informed about works. The landlord aims to:
    1. Keep customers informed of the timescales and progress of their repairs and planned maintenance work.
    2. Always inform customers with as much notice as possible if appointments need to change or if it experiences delays due to operative, parts, or materials availability.
    3. For planned or cyclical works we will always contact customers prior to the work starting and make suitable access arrangements.
  2. The landlord has embraced the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints procedure with a 10-working day response time at stage 1 and 20–working day response time at stage 2. It commits to informing residents of potential delays and keeping them up to date on progress. It states it will carry out a thorough investigation, working with relevant teams or departments to investigate all aspects of the customers complaint.

The lease agreement

  1. Leaseholder Covenants, permit entry
    1. Clause 3.15: At all reasonable times during the term on notice to permit the landlord…to enter premises for the purpose of repairing any adjoining premises and for the purposes of repairing, maintaining…
  2. Provisos
    1. Clause 5.3: Notwithstanding anything contained in this lease the landlord shall have power without obtaining any consent from… the leaseholder to deal as the landlord may think fit with any other land, buildings…
  3. Schedule 3 exceptions and reservations
    1. Clause 3: The right for the landlord and all others authorised by it at all reasonable times on giving reasonable notice (except in the case of emergency) to enter onto premises for the purpose of preventing damage… to the landlord’s adjoining properties.

The erection of scaffolding at the resident’s property

  1. On 8 August 2022 the landlord raised a work order for scaffolding and repairs to the roof. This is just over 1 month prior to the subcontractors first visit. It is reasonable to suggest this work would qualify as planned works. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it contacted the resident to inform her about the need to erect scaffolding on her property. Neither it nor the subcontractor has been able to show they contacted the resident before the visits on 2 or 21 September 2022. Clause 3, schedule 3 of the lease requires reasonable notice to be given to residents before entering onto the property.
  2. There was a period of 40 working days between the subcontractors first attempt to erect the scaffolding and when it did erect it on 29 October 2022. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should have been in contact with the resident during this time to discuss the work and the issues with access.
  3. In its complaint responses it has relied on clause 5.3 that allows the landlord entry without obtaining consent. It also relied heavily on schedule 3, clause 3, which permits entry without notice for emergency repairs. Whilst both clauses are there for the landlord to use, they should only be considered as a last resort. Before utilising the clauses, it would be expected to have applied the requirements of its repairs and maintenance policy and exhausted communication attempts. The Ombudsman notes that the repairs and maintenance policy is silent on access arrangements for emergency repairs.
  4. In its evidence the landlord refers to a business-to-business phone call where it made the decision that the works were critical. There is no date for this call and no notes associated with it. Other than this call the landlord has not been able to provide any evidence that the work was critical. There are no call records, inspection notes, survey reports or photographs of the leak. Entering onto a resident’s property without permission is a significant decision. If the reasoning is critical repairs, it is not unreasonable to expect the landlord to provide evidence supporting this decision. However, it has not been able to do so.
  5. There were additional works needed to the roof at the front of the property requiring scaffolding. The subcontractor missed three appointments that it had it arranged with the resident. The landlord failed to notify the contractor about the popup on the resident’s account and the need to make contact before visiting. Being unaware, it attended without an appointment and erected the scaffolding while the resident was not home. In this process a rose bush belonging to the resident’s grandfather was damaged.
  6. The landlord failed to comply with its repairs and maintenance policy and the lease. When planning the work, it did not contact the resident to make suitable arrangements or give reasonable notice of the subcontractors first two visits. It should have been in communication with the subcontractor and been aware of the no access visits. This would have allowed it to contact the resident and inform her of the necessity to conduct the repairs. It would also have given it the opportunity to explain to her what actions it may have to take if the repairs became critical. Even at the point when it decided the repairs were critical it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident informing her of its intentions. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right.
  7. The Ombudsman finds the offer of redress made by the landlord resolved the unauthorised erection of the scaffolding satisfactorily. This determination is made in view of the actions taken by the landlord to put things right for the resident. It put in place measures to prevent recurrence and worked to identify alternative subcontractors to erect the scaffolding. Although it failed a second time, its offer of compensation is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord provided the stage 1 response in line with the timescales in its policy. There was a delay, however it communicated this to the resident. The stage 2 response was also delayed. The landlord sent a letter highlighting the delay and committing to a response on 17 January 2023. It contacted the resident on the date advised and provided the stage 2 response on 26 January 2023.
  3. Part of the resident’s reason for escalating the complaint was because nobody had contacted her to discuss her experience before making the decision not to uphold her complaint. The landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation at this stage. It did not investigate its own records to find out if it had contacted the resident. It also did not ask the subcontractor if it had contacted her before attending her property. Whilst it did acknowledge it was looking at other subcontractors. It did not comment on the fact that the subcontractor had been rude to the resident. By not applying the requirements of its customer relations procedure, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at stage 1.
  4. In the stage 2 response the landlord made attempts to put things right. It highlighted the areas where it had fallen short and put in place measures to prevent it happening again. It was looking at different subcontractors at the resident’s request and also offered compensation for the inconvenience, and how she was made to feel.
  5. At this stage of the investigation, it had still failed to ask the subcontractor if it had contacted the resident before visiting. However, it stood by its decision to enter the property and erect the scaffolding. Also stating that the subcontractor had attempted to erect the scaffolding twice. The resident was unhappy with this part of the response. She felt the landlord was putting the blame on her and asked it to change the wording. In a further attempt to put things right it acknowledged this and sent and additional letter. The letter clarified that neither the landlord nor subcontractor had any evidence to show they had contacted her before the visits.
  6. After the second subcontractor erected scaffolding without permission the landlord agreed to deal with this as an extension of its stage 2 complaint investigation. It acknowledged that the measures it had put in place had failed. It confirmed the popup was on the account but that it had not been communicated to the subcontractors. It made further apologies for this and offered an additional £800 compensation to the resident. As part of accepting this offer the landlord required her to withdraw her complaint and inform this Service.
  7. The landlord was right to treat the additional unauthorised access in July 2023 as an extension of its complaint investigation. It was also right to offer further apologies and to increase its offer of compensation. However, asking the resident to withdraw her complaint from this service as a condition of the offer was unreasonable and amounts to service failure.
  8. In putting things right landlords should make offers of redress based on their policies, failings and the impact on the resident. Offers of compensation should never be conditional. The landlord is reminded that this Service can choose to continue and investigation even if there has been a request to withdraw a complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings in its handling of the erection of scaffolding at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1.  Pay the resident the £1000 offered in its final complaint resolution letter. This sum covers the erection of scaffolding at the resident’s property and the failures in complaint handling.
    2. Confirm to this Service it will no longer make offers of compensation conditional on a resident withdrawing a complaint from the Housing Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its repairs and maintenance policy to include the communication and access requirements for emergency repairs.