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

bpha Limited (202404685)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404685

bpha Limited

29 April 2025


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 reports that the resident’s emergency pendant was not working.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom flat with extra care facilities. This includes that the resident has access to an emergency call system which she pays through her service charge.
  2. Due to the resident’s health, she had a representative act on her behalf in communicating with the landlord, as well as with the Ombudsman. The representative will be referred to throughout this report.
  3. On 21 March 2024 at 11:30am, the resident’s representative visited the resident at her property. The representative found the resident slumped in her chair. They telephoned 999 and requested an ambulance. The resident was taken to hospital. The representative told the landlord that the resident said she had pressed her emergency pendant that day between 8:00am and 11:30am. She said no one responded to her request for emergency assistance.
  4. On 23 March 2024 the resident’s representative visited the resident’s property. At 17:14pm they activated the resident’s emergency pendant. The representative said they waited for an hour and during that time, no one responded to their request for emergency assistance.

 

  1. On 24 March 2024 the landlord commenced an investigation into why it had not responded to the resident’s request for emergency assistance. This included by checking its computer systems and testing the resident’s emergency pendant. The landlord said the pendant worked but had a low battery, so this was replaced.
  2. On 26 March 2024 the resident’s representative raised a complaint to the landlord. They said the landlord had not responded to 2 requests for emergency assistance between 21 March 2024 and 23 March 2024. The representative said this was a serious matter that required the landlord to carry out an immediate investigation.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 April 2024. The landlord said it had investigated its lack of response to the resident’s request for emergency assistance. Its contractor who operated the on-call emergency system confirmed the last recorded activity from the resident’s emergency pendant. This was on 19 March 2024 at 11:59pm, and then on 24 March 2024 at 7:00pm. The contractor said the system had not recorded any requests between these dates.
  4. The landlord said it had tested the resident’s emergency pendant twice on 24 March 2024. The resident’s emergency pendant worked during each test but recorded its battery was low. The landlord replaced the pendant which it normally does every 3 months. The landlord said it could find no explanation why the resident’s emergency pendant had not worked.
  5. The landlord said it had engaged with the local authority, which had opened a separate safeguarding investigation into the incident. The landlord said that the local authority had responded that it was satisfied with the landlord’s investigation. The landlord said it had also reassured other resident’s that the system was operating as normal.
  6. On 1 May 2024 the resident’s representative asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord said it provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 28 May 2024. It repeated what it had said in its stage 1 complaint response. On 21 June 2024 the resident’s representative reported they had not received a copy of its final response. The landlord emailed this to the representative the same day.

 

 

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. Her representative brought the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman stating they wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the incident. They also wanted the landlord to improve its handling of its on-call emergency assistance system. They requested an award of compensation to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, who had been unable to return to her property, due to her ill health following the incident.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of this complaint, the resident’s representative has said that the resident’s health has been affected by the landlord’s failure to respond to her request for emergency assistance on 21 March 2024. We our sorry to hear that the resident was in hospital for a significant period of time, and is now in residential care, having been unable to return home. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the representative’s concerns about the resident’s health.

 

 

 

  1. The resident has told the Ombudsman that they were unhappy with the local authority’s safeguarding response to the landlord’s investigation. This aspect of the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because the local authority was acting in its capacity as a provider of social care rather than in its capacity as a landlord. We are only able to investigate complaints about local authorities acting in their capacity as social landlords. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
  2. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, then her representative can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint at each stage within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. This will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2, without good reason.

Reports that the resident’s emergency pendant was not working.

  1. On 21 March 2024 the resident’s representative told the landlord that it had not responded to the resident’s request for assistance that morning. They confirmed the resident had pressed her emergency pendant but had not got a response. The landlord said it would make itself available for the resident’s representative to discuss the incident, and so the representative could check the equipment themselves. The landlord’s communication was reasonable because it showed it was engaged and committed to understanding what had happened.
  2. The resident’s representative tested the resident’s emergency pendant again on 23 March 2024. The representative said they waited for an hour and the landlord failed to respond. They reported this second incident to the landlord. It was right that the landlord raised an investigation the next day. This was because it recognised it needed to identify the cause and fix the issues within its on-call emergency system.

 

  1. On 24 March 2024 the landlord did the following:
    1. Checked the data recorded within its on-call computer system which showed it had not received any emergency activations from the resident’s pendant between 21 March 2024 and 23 March 2024.
    2. Raised a job with its on-call systems operator for its engineer to carry out a check for any faults in the wider system between the above dates, and for the operator to provide a report of any findings.
    3. Inspected the resident’s emergency pendant which had an automated message saying the battery was low. The landlord changed the emergency pendant.
    4. Confirmed that the most recent activations for the resident’s emergency pendant which showed it had been activated either side of the reported incidents, on 19 March 2024 and 24 March 2024.
  2. The landlord’s investigation, as referred to above, showed a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s representative’s report. This was because the landlord was seeking to find an explanation of its failure to respond to the resident’s request for assistance, and that it was looking to fix the issue. It was appropriate the landlord’s investigation also demonstrated that it had considered if there had been a wider risk to all its residents during this period.
  3. On 26 March 2024 the resident’s representative raised a complaint to the landlord about it failing to respond to the resident’s emergency pendant twice. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the next day. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it told the resident what it had done to investigate the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that when it tested the resident’s emergency pendant, although the battery was low, that it had worked. The landlord explained that its operator found no faults in its on-call system during the period the resident’s pendant had not worked. The landlord said that because of this, it had been unable to explain why the resident’s emergency pendant had not worked on the 2 reported occasions.
  5. We understand that the resident’s representatives have said that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation. However, the landlord has taken a proportionate approach to discover what happened. It was also reasonable that it communicated its findings to the resident.

 

  1. Records show that the landlord shared the resident’s emergency activation history between 19 March 2024 and 24 March 2024 with the resident’s daughter. This was positive as it showed that the landlord was being open and transparent in its investigation with the resident and her family.
  2. Records show the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 28 May 2024. This was 18 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s representative’s request to escalate their complaint. On 21 June 2024 the resident’s representative telephoned the landlord stating they had not received a copy of the final response. The landlord emailed this to the resident whilst they were on the telephone, that same day. This was reasonable because the landlord acted immediately upon becoming aware of the delay, and prior to this it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assumed the resident, and her representative had received its final response to their complaint.
  3. The landlord explained it checked resident’s emergency pendants every 3 months. It said it changed any pendants once the battery reached 40 percent power or below. Overall, the landlord’s explanation of its procedure, and how it investigated this incident was communicated to the resident in a clear, proportionate, and appropriate manner.
  4. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s emergency pendant was not working. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s emergency pendant was not working.