Amplius Living (202311022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311022

Longhurst Group Limited

31 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

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s report of damage caused to his front door after the police forced entry.
   2. Response to the request for a replacement front door.
   3. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started in December 2010. The property is a 1–bedroom ground floor flat.
3. Vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s system for the resident include physical and mental health conditions including mobility issues. The resident is also elderly.
4. On 9 March 2023, the police forced entry into the resident’s home. This happened due to a request from the ambulance service as they had been unable to gain entry following the resident’s report of experiencing a fall in his home. The next day the resident reported to the landlord that his front door needed repairing and it raised an emergency repair. Its operative attended the same day but found the door was irreparable, so the landlord raised a job for a temporary door to be fitted as an emergency measure.
5. A contractor attended later that day after the resident had gone out. When the resident returned later that evening, he was unable to enter the property as it had a security key code lock and he did not know the code. Despite the resident’s attempts to obtain the code, he was unable to enter the property. This resulted in the resident having to spend several hours outside in very cold weather until he called an ambulance and was taken to hospital.
6. In his formal complaint raised with the landlord on 24 March 2023, the resident requested compensation for the costs he incurred while in temporary accommodation (a hotel) while waiting for his front door to be replaced. Such costs included meals and a phone charger. He also requested compensation for the cost of the phone call he made to the contractor who installed the metal door to get instructions on how he could gain entry after being left outside in the cold. The resident said the contractor’s phone line was 50p per minute.
7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 24 May 2023. In its response it noted from its investigation that:
   1. It received a report on 10 March 2023 regarding a repair to the front door. Its contractor attended the same day but found the door could not be repaired. A request was made for a temporary door to be fitted as an emergency measure.
   2. Later that day a temporary door was fitted by a different contractor. Due to a misunderstanding, a heavy-duty “sirex” door was fitted. The resident was not at the property at the time it was fitted. When he returned later that evening, he could not access the property as he did not know the code for the door.
   3. The resident advised he then spent the night locked out of the flat. It understood he tried to call it although it had not found any record of his call. At some point after this he returned to hospital.
   4. The next day the hospital contacted it to try to resolve the situation. It made attempts to gain entry but could not as its contractor did not know the code to the front door. Its Housing Service Manager (HSM) arranged for him to stay in a hotel while it arranged for a replacement door to be fitted. It covered the cost of the hotel and meals in line with its policy.
   5. A temporary door was fitted on 13 March 2023 and the resident was able to return to the property on 14 March 2023.
   6. It was very sorry that the temporary door fitted was unsuitable and that this resulted in the resident being locked out of his home at a time he was already unwell. It acknowledged this must have been distressing and disruptive for him. It had asked him for receipts for costs of sundry items that the resident estimated to be £100 however he had not provided these. It would not usually reimburse costs without receipts but as a goodwill gesture it offered £50 to cover sundry expenses while he did not have access to his home.
   7. It was also offering £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by being locked out of his home and £50 for the delay in replying to his complaint. This came to total compensation of £450.
8. During his call with the landlord on 26 May 2023, the resident advised that he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered for being locked out of his home all night. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He clarified he was left in a freezing cold carpark for 6 hours until an ambulance took him to hospital.
9. During a phone call with the landlord on 1 June 2023, the resident said he had tried calling the landlord’s out of hours service on 11 March 2023 when he was unable to gain entry but got no answer.
10. On 27 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 final response. Within its response the landlord repeated the events which led to his formal complaint. It stated as soon as its HSM became aware of the situation, it attempted to get the code for him. As this wasn’t possible, it provided emergency accommodation for him at a hotel. It had offered £450 in total compensation at stage 1. It understood his frustration and it was sorry he felt the need to complain but as its stage 1 response resolution covered all of the issues he raised and there had been no service failure, on review of the information it could not uphold his stage 2 complaint. The landlord said its offer of £450 remained available should he wish to accept it.

Assessment and findings

Outside of jurisdiction

11. The resident told this Service he was unhappy about the length of time taken by the landlord to replace the temporary front door installed on 13 March 2023 with a permanent one. The resident raised this and other issues as a formal complaint with the landlord earlier in 2024 to which the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 April 2024. In accordance with section 42.a of the Scheme, this Service is unable to consider complaints until such time they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the request for a replacement front door will not be considered in this investigation.
12. After we informed the landlord that the resident was unhappy with the redress offered in its stage 1 response dated 29 April 2024, the landlord told us on 23 October 2024 that it would escalate this complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.

Scope of this Investigation

13. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said he suffered a stroke a few days after he was locked out of his home and believed the landlord’s actions had caused this.
14. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between health conditions experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to his report of damage caused to his front door after the police forced entry.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage caused to his front door after the police forced entry

15. On 9 March 2023, the police forced entry to the resident’s property on welfare grounds. He was medically assessed at home. After receiving contact from the resident via its out of hours service early on 10 March 2023, the landlord raised a job with its repair contractor. They attended within a couple of hours to repair the resident’s door. This action was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which requires it to fix or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. However, its contractor was unable to repair the door due to extensive damage. There is no evidence to show the door was ‘made safe’.
16. In this situation, it was important the landlord took urgent action to ensure the resident’s home was made secure on the same day by installing a temporary front door. The landlord’s housing officer attended the property and told the resident it would arrange for a temporary front door to be installed that day by its contractor. This action was appropriate. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, we would expect to see evidence of the landlord working closely with its contractor and updating the resident until such time the job was completed, and the temporary front door installed. This did not happen.
17. As a contractor had not turned by 5pm, the resident left the property to visit a friend or neighbour shortly after this time. The landlord’s notes of the visit earlier that day suggest the resident told them that he would be at home all day. The landlord’s repair policy indicate repair appointments usually took place between the hours of 8am and 5pm on weekdays. While it is acknowledged this situation was different because it was being treated as an emergency, it is understandable why by 5pm the resident believed the visit may not be happening that day.
18. However, a contractor subsequently attended that evening and installed a metal ‘sirex’ door while the resident was not at home. The resident was unable to open this when he returned a few hours later as there were no instructions, and it required a security code. Despite the resident’s efforts to obtain the code by calling the contractor on the number left on the door, he did not obtain the code and could not gain entry. The resident later told the landlord that he tried to call its out of hours service but there was no answer.
19. The resident’s circumstances were such that he had no option to remain outside in very cold weather during the night until an ambulance arrived 6 hours later when he was taken to hospital. This Service acknowledges the significant distress caused to the resident as a result of this situation.
20. The contractor that fitted the door ought to have had the resident’s contact phone number and been aware of his vulnerabilities. To fit a front door when the resident was not at home and then leave without a way for the resident to re-enter his home, was a significant failing. There is also no evidence to suggest the contractor attempted to find out if the resident was expected home that evening.
21. In its complaint response, the landlord explained its usual repair contractor had instructed a different contractor to fit the metal door. The landlord’s internal communications confirm this but also show there was confusion internally at the time about which contractor had fitted the door. Regardless, it is clear that the landlord’s inadequate oversight of the situation and poor communication between the landlord and various contractors led to the situation occurring.
22. It is also clear the front door installed at this time was unsuitable as it was a metal sirex door that was heavy and difficult to move. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and said this had happened due to a misunderstanding. This is further evidence of miscommunication between the landlord and its contractors regarding the resident’s situation and the type of front door that was required.
23. When the hospital contacted the landlord the next day to resolve the situation, efforts were made by the landlord to obtain the code to open the front door. However, because its efforts were unsuccessful, it arranged for the resident to stay in a hotel while it took steps to remove the metal door and install a more appropriate temporary wooden one. This action was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s decant policy which states it will move a resident into temporary accommodation in an emergency situation. It is evident the front door was fitted by 13 March 2023 and the resident was able to move back in the next day on 14 March 2023.
24. In summary, the landlord’s failure to appropriately manage the emergency repair led to the resident being locked out of his home overnight. This was partly due to an unsuitable metal door being fitted that required a security code to use that was not provided to the resident. The resident was not kept updated about when to expect the contractor and no one called him to inform him the metal door had been installed while he was not at home. This shows the landlord failed to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with the repair. As soon as the landlord was told about the situation the next morning, it took reasonable and prompt steps to resolve the situation. It found the resident temporary emergency accommodation the same day and arranged for the metal door to be replaced with a more suitable wooden one within a couple of days.
25. To resolve his complaint the resident requested compensation from the landlord for costs incurred while in the hotel and for being locked outside in cold weather overnight.
26. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed it had paid for the resident’s hotel accommodation and meals. This was appropriate. Regarding the resident’s request to be reimbursed £100 for expenses incurred while away from his home, the landlord told the resident that as he had not provided receipts, it would pay him £50 towards these as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s offer is in line with its decant policy which states it pays £10 per day towards sundry costs during a decant. Therefore, its offer was reasonable.
27. The landlord offered the resident £350 in compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused by being locked out of his home overnight with no alternative accommodation. While this offer went some way to putting right the failings by the landlord found during this investigation, due to the significant impact caused to the resident, this offer fell short of what would be appropriate. The landlord also did not mention in its responses what changes it intended to make to its policy or procedure to ensure the situation did not happen again. This is indicative of the landlord not learning from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. This constitutes service failure by the landlord.
28. In the circumstances, the landlord will pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation, bringing the total to £650 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings. This is in line with the level recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance whereby there has been a significant impact on the resident which is appropriate here.

Complaint handling

29. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 24 March 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 30 March 2023. This was within the 5 working day timescale in its complaints policy. However, the landlord then did not provide its stage 1 complaint response until 36 working days later on 24 May 2023. This was 26 working days outside of the 10-working day timescale in its policy. This is evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints policy.
30. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in responding and offered him £50 in compensation for this delay. On balance, this redress reasonably resolved the complaint handling failing.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to his front door after the police forced entry.
32. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the request for a replacement front door is outside of jurisdiction.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress while handling the related complaint.

Orders

34. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pays the resident additional compensation of £300 (£750 including the amounts offered during its complaints process) for distress, inconvenience time and trouble for failings while handling the resident’s reports of damage caused to his front door after the police forced entry due to his welfare.
35. Within 8 weeks the landlord shall carry out a review of the failings identified in this report and consider learning and what changes it can make to its policies and procedures relating to emergency repairs to avoid the same situation happening again particularly where a resident has vulnerabilities.
36. The landlord shall provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.