Magna Housing Limited (202323728)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323728

Magna Housing Limited

17 December 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. Handling of reports of a leak and remedial works required.
2. Response to health and safety concerns about a neighbour’s behaviour.
3. Contact with the resident’s doctor.
4. Relocation of the resident’s careline unit and handling of reports of a fault with the unit.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat. The property is part of a sheltered housing scheme. The resident’s niece is representing her, and her member of parliament (MP) has supported her. For the purposes of this report, the resident and her representative will both be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident reported a leak from the flat above to the landlord on 17 May 2023. The leak resulted in water dripping through the resident’s bathroom light fitting. The neighbour had not reported the leak, which caused the resident concern. She asked the landlord how it would ensure the neighbour would report issues and follow processes in future.
The landlord conducted a routine site visit on 23 May 2023. The resident asked one of her neighbours on 22 May 2023 to tell the landlord she was resting and would not be available to speak during its site visit.
The landlord telephoned the resident’s landline 3 times on 24 May 2023, with no answer. She then received a call from her GP that evening, at the landlord’s request. This upset her as she felt it was unnecessary.
Two paramedics visited her later that evening. They said she pressed the red emergency button on her careline unit and that she did not answer when the responder tried to speak to her.
The resident received a phone call from the community nurse on 25 May 2024. They said her GP had made the referral.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 May 2023. She said she had not pressed the emergency button on that occasion, but that someone did report a fault with the careline unit. She said that after the landlord moved the unit to the hallway, she would not be able to hear it if she was in her lounge. She asked why the community nurse called and if this was part of the landlord’s procedure. She told the landlord it could have knocked on her door, telephoned the next of kin, or used the key safe instead. She added that it had not addressed her health and safety concerns.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response letter to the resident and her MP on 3 July 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that:
1. neighbours had expressed concern over the resident during its site visit, and it called her GP after other contact attempts were unsuccessful.
2. its ‘one wall’ policy meant the careline unit could not be more than one wall away from any room, which is why it was moved to the hallway.
3. the paramedics found she had pressed the emergency button accidentally.
4. it gained access to the neighbour’s flat and made a temporary repair, and empathised that the neighbour’s behaviour had a detrimental impact.
The resident responded to the landlord on 18 July 2023. She said:
1. it had not acknowledged the unsafe situation she felt she was living in, and wanted to know when it would act against the neighbour.
2. she wanted to know why she was being asked to keep a log, and how the landlord was monitoring the situation.
3. the neighbour had not complied with maintenance and safety checks for 8 months, and the landlord made no regular monthly safety checks on the neighbour until around April 2023.
4. relocating the neighbour to the ground floor would be beneficial to residents.
5. the landlord had left her with no electricity for 9 hours, a flood in the bathroom, and had not logged the leak as an urgent emergency.
6. the landlord did not access the neighbour’s property to inspect the leak, nor inspect the water damage in the resident’s flat, only replace the light fitting.
7. she did not press the careline emergency button, and the paramedics who tested the system said there was a fault, which the landlord did not address.
8. she felt the landlord should not have contacted her GP, and asked for its policy on GP contact.
The landlord apologised to the resident for its delay in responding on 8 August 2023. It said it escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 10 August 2023. Her MP asked it to address her concerns on 5 September 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 final response letter to the resident and her MP on 8 September 2023. It confirmed:
1. the complaint to be about the landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s alleged non-compliance for 3 and a half years, and the leak from 17 May 2023.
2. that the resident wanted it to inform future residents of the neighbour, and consider relocating the neighbour to the ground floor.
3. it had completed all health and safety inspections in the neighbour’s flat, including a full fire safety check on 30 May 2023, but it would continue to work with all residents to ensure obligations are met.
4. that asking residents to complete a log ensures incidents are recorded accurately, and could be shared to see if anything needed investigating.
5. it could not force someone to move, but could support a move if a resident wanted to move.
6. it did not uphold the complaint, but said the complaint could be escalated to the Ombudsman.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint letter on 13 September 2023. She said she chose not to comply with monthly checks from September 2022 to March 2023, and felt this was evidence that the neighbour also did not have monthly maintenance checks. She logged that her neighbour did not answer the door to the landlord on 15 February 2023. It pinned two notices to the neighbour’s door on 27 February 2023, and it wrote to them on 6 March 2023 about access to install a fire alarm system.
The resident claimed the landlord said that smoke and fire alarms were not fitted in the neighbour’s flat due to no access. This left the resident vulnerable. She asked why a log was necessary if it would not take action. She said the landlord had not apologised to her for the leak and lack of electricity. She asked for its 2022 and 2023 records to show what regular checks it had done.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she has now moved properties.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, The Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that:
1. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
2. concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
3. seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction at how the landlord handled the leak from 17 May 2023. She raised this when she asked to escalate the complaint on 18 July 2023. Though this was after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it did not address, acknowledge, or advise on this complaint point during its investigation.
As the landlord did not address or acknowledge this concern, the Ombudsman believes that this was a complaint handling failure. This brings the handling of the leak into the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has considered this aspect of the resident’s complaint within this investigation.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concern about an issue with the careline unit in its stage 1 complaint response, but not at stage 2. This is despite the resident alleging a fault with the unit when she responded to its stage 1 outcome. For the same reason as the leak, this would be a complaint handling failure and something the Ombudsman has considered within this investigation.
The resident wanted the landlord to consider relocating the neighbour to the ground floor. This is an outcome that we do not have the authority to order.
The resident previously reported the landlord’s handling of health and safety concerns to us. This was determined in March 2024 and the finding was maladministration. The prior report had considered the landlord’s monthly access records up to December 2022. To avoid any duplication, the investigation will not consider issues which were already raised and investigated in the previous determination.

Handling of reports of a leak and remedial works required

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair and proper working order the water installations of a property.
The landlord’s repair policy from the time categorises repairs as either responsive repairs or priority repairs. Responsive repairs are small scale day-to-day repairs that are reactive in nature, rather than planned work or long term. These can be scheduled and completed by appointment with the resident and will take no longer than 5 hours to complete. Some follow up visits may be needed to complete the work. Priority repairs are when there is a serious, immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety, or the security of their home.
The landlord’s records show that the leak was logged on 17 May 2023. The resident confirmed that it visited her the same evening to isolate the bathroom light and reinstate the electricity. Though the landlord’s repairs policy does not set out response timescales, it acted appropriately by attending the property the same day to reinstate the electricity. She said she had to telephone the landlord for them to do this. It is not known how long the landlord would have otherwise taken if this were the case. We cannot conclude the landlord’s response time was a failing.
The records show the landlord tried to telephone the resident on 25 May 2023 to see if it was able to fit a new bathroom light. It said it would try and move the visit to the neighbour’s flat from 20 June 2023 to 6 June 2023. Its stage 1 complaint response said it had made a temporary repair. There had been no reports of any further leaks after the landlord responded. However, its records do not show when it repaired the leak, replaced the bathroom light, visited the neighbour’s flat, or if it inspected any water damage. Good record keeping is necessary to allow a landlord to deliver its repair obligations. It acted inappropriately in not documenting the steps it took in handling the resident’s report of the leak.
Its records show that it still needed to check whether it was safe to reinstate the bathroom light on 1 June 2023. This means that the resident had been without a bathroom light for 2 weeks at this stage. It is not appropriate for a resident to have been left without light in their bathroom for this time. The resident was already distressed by the lack of action being taken, and being left without a bathroom light for this time would not reassure her that the landlord was taking action. It also means she would not be able to use her bathroom at certain times of the day when it was dark, unless she was able to provide her own lighting. The resident should not be left to do this and the landlord should have provided temporary lighting if it knew it could not install a new light immediately.
Taking this into consideration, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs following the leak. There was poor record keeping and insufficient evidence that it handled the repair in line with its policy. It attempted to put things right, and the Ombudsman can empathise that this can be difficult if a resident restricts access to a property. However, it did not address the detriment to the resident or consider the distress she was in. It also left the resident without a bathroom light for 2 weeks, and there is no evidence temporary lighting was provided. This is likely to have limited the resident’s use of her own bathroom. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord should pay £100 compensation for how it handled the report of the leak and remedial works required.
The Ombudsman’s prior investigation already made orders for the landlord to update its repairs policy. The Ombudsman will not make these orders again.

Response to health and safety concerns about a neighbour’s behaviour

The resident complained that the neighbour was not reporting repair issues to the landlord, nor allowing it to complete monthly health and safety maintenance checks in their flat.
As explained in the previous report, residents are obliged to report repairs to the landlord as soon as they become aware of them. The repair issue in this case was the leak on 17 May 2023. There is consensus that the leak came from the neighbour’s flat above, but the evidence does not show when the neighbour became aware of the leak. The Ombudsman therefore cannot conclude that the neighbour breached their tenancy obligations. The landlord was correct to not have taken action against the neighbour on this basis.
The previous report considered the landlord’s maintenance records up to December 2022. The resident alleged that the landlord made no monthly safety checks in the neighbour’s flat until it installed a new system around April 2023. The investigation has considered this 4–month period as it was not investigated previously.
The landlord’s records have inspections scheduled for each month in the neighbour’s flat, but do not confirm whether they were completed. The representative said the resident’s log disputes the landlord’s claim that it completed regular checks. She logged that her neighbour did not answer the door to the landlord on 15 February 2023. She added that 2 notices had been pinned to the neighbour’s door on 27 February 2023, and it wrote to them on 6 March 2023 for access to install a fire alarm system. It told the resident on 30 March 2023 that it could not access the neighbour’s flat to fit smoke and fire alarms.
It was right for the landlord to continue to try and access the neighbour’s flat, and to fix notices to the door when it did not have access. In our previous report, it was acknowledged that the landlord set out the requirements regarding the monthly checks on 10 October 2022. There was more it could have done in this case to reassure the resident about a lack of access, such as an action plan. However, the resident had clearly seen the notices on the neighbour’s door, which may have outlined what next steps it would take if the neighbour denied access.
The landlord acted unreasonably in not directly engaging with the resident, but it was clear it was taking appropriate action. The Ombudsman is satisfied there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to health and safety concerns. The landlord should pay £50 compensation to reflect this.

Contact with the resident’s doctor

The landlord’s policy says that residents will have an intensive tenancy management plan where weekly contact is made with the resident. This can be a knock on the door, text message, phone calls, intercom call, and being spoken to at an event or in the community. If a resident cannot be contacted and their location is unknown, reasonable enquiries must be made. This includes entering the property (with the resident’s permission), intercom, making reasonable enquiries with neighbours, and contacting the next of kin or named contact.
The landlord contacted the resident’s GP on 24 May 2023. This is because it made 3 unsuccessful telephone attempts to her earlier that day. She did not answer her door when it knocked during the site visit, and her neighbours told the landlord that she did not seem herself. The landlord’s policy does list other contact methods as reasonable enquiries, but does not say that all other contact methods must be attempted. It likely would have been distressing for the resident to receive a call from her GP, but it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the GP in the circumstances. It was only because of the GP’s successful contact that it became clear the resident did not need aid.
Taking this into consideration, there was no maladministration by the landlord when it contacted the resident’s GP.

Relocation of the resident’s careline unit and handling reports of a fault with the unit

The landlord has a ‘one wall’ policy when it comes to the location of the careline unit. This means the unit should be no more than one wall away from any room in the property. This is for ease of access in case of an emergency. It acknowledged it moved the unit from the resident’s living room into the hallway. The Ombudsman would not consider this to be a failing by the landlord. Careline recommends that the unit is centralised within the home, and the ‘one wall’ policy accounts for the fact that an accident could occur in any room.
The resident said someone reported a fault with the careline unit. The landlord’s records do not show a report of a fault for it to investigate. The Ombudsman therefore cannot say that the landlord failed in how it handled a report of a fault with the unit. The landlord could have told the resident to raise new faults through its repairs team, but the Ombudsman would conclude no maladministration for the handling of a report of a fault with the careline unit.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it has a 2 stage process. It will acknowledge both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, unless a different timescale is agreed with the resident. Responses would not exceed an additional 10 working days without good reason. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of its receipt, unless a different timescale is agreed with the resident.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 31 May 2023. The evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, which is a failing. The landlord issued is stage 1 response on 3 July 2023, almost 3 weeks beyond its published complaint handling timescales. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed a timescale extension with the resident, which is also a failing.
Section 5.8 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) from the time of this complaint confirmed that landlords must state the complaint stage at the completion of stage 1. The letter did not state that it was a stage 1 response, it only referred to “this stage”. This was not sufficient and was a failure.
The resident escalated the complaint with the landlord on 18 July 2023. The landlord did not respond until 8 August 2023, apologising for the delay. It acknowledged the escalation request on 10 August 2023, beyond its published acknowledgement timescale of 5 days. The landlord did not send its stage 2 final response letter to the resident and her MP until 8 September 2023. This was more than 3 weeks after its published timescales for addressing stage 2 complaints. These delays were failings.
Section 5.6 of the Code from the time says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord told us that it did not consider the complaint about how it handled reports of the leak. It should have acknowledged this complaint and set up a new complaint at stage 1. This is because the Code also said that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1. The resident raised the complaint about the handling of the leak after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. It was a failing for the landlord to not address this complaint point at any time.
The landlord only addressed the activation of the careline unit in its stage 1 complaint response. The resident responded to say there was a fault with the system, but the landlord did not address this in its stage 2 complaint response. This would also be a failing.
The delays, poor contact, and not having all complaint points addressed would have likely caused inconvenience to the resident, as well as time and trouble. The landlord did not consider compensation for the impact its failings identified in this report had on the resident either. The Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. £150 compensation would be appropriate for this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of the leak and remedial works required.
2. service failure by the landlord in its response to health and safety concerns about a neighbour’s behaviour.
3. no maladministration by the landlord in its contact with the resident’s doctor.
4. no maladministration by the landlord in its relocation of the resident’s careline unit and handling of reports of a fault with the unit.
5. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. A member of the senior management should provide the apology.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This comprises:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s response to reports of the leak.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s handling of health and safety concerns.
  3. £150 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord should pay compensation direct to the resident.