Octavia Housing (202306380)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306380

Octavia Housing

20 November 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports that the communal television box needed to be relocated.
2. The blockages to the front external drain.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a one-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy that began on 13 April 2009. The property is a Victorian house that was converted into flats. The resident’s property is located in the basement area underneath street level. The resident explained that he had undergone cancer treatment, which the landlord acknowledged during the complaints process. The landlord had no vulnerabilities listed on its systems for the resident.
The resident’s television box (TV box) is located under the external metal stairs that go from street level to the basement. The resident raised concerns with the landlord in or around July 2022 that the location of the television box was causing difficulty in obtaining television services. This was because the TV box could only be accessed on one side of the stairs. This involved climbing over the railings and putting a ladder down the void between the side of the property and the stairwell.
The resident also raised concerns with the drains at the front of his property. He said these were difficult to access due to being in the void to the basement’s entrance and behind the bottom of the stairwell.
The landlord visited the resident on 20 September 2022. The resident said the landlord agreed it would look into whether it could reposition the TV box and the drains. The resident asked the landlord for updates on the progress of its investigations between October and December 2022 but had limited responses.
On 2 December 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said:
1. he was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord.
2. he wanted a solution to the locations of the drain and the satellite box.
3. he and other residents were experiencing frequent drops in the television service.
4. he was concerned about any torrential rain overwhelming the front drain because this could cause the water level to breach his threshold. This was causing him anxiety because he was getting out of bed in the middle of the night when it rained to check on the drains.
5. he had sought a quote on behalf of the landlord for the relocation of the TV box, which totalled £350.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 December 2022, just after midnight. It said:
1. the resident was having an informal dialogue with its staff member during July 2023, and this was considered a service request and not a complaint.
2. it had investigated the cost of moving the TV box and drain. This totalled over £500 and could increase once the works were started.
3. it could not relocate the TV box or the drains in the current financial year because of budget constraints. However, it would consider the resident’s request in the following financial year.
4. it said it was regrettable that this outcome was not communicated during the inspection, and it apologised for this.
The resident escalated his complaint on the same day. He was dissatisfied because:
1. the landlord had issued its response at 00:28 on Christmas eve.
2. the landlord had failed to address all the issues he had raised in his complaint.
3. with the length of time the landlord had taken to respond to his initial complaint.
4. the landlord had been insensitive to his recent cancer diagnosis. Its proposed action to review the relocation of the TV box in the next financial year was also insensitive.

He asked the landlord to provide an accurate response within the set deadlines as well as a plan of how to manage the issue.

The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 February 2023. It said:
1. it had not answered all the elements of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response.
2. it agreed that sending its stage 1 response on Christmas Eve and its lack of communications was unfair.
3. it would pay for Sky Stream for a period of 2 months as an alternative to repositioning the TV box.
4. it would revisit whether it could move the TV box in the next financial year or consider “splitting the cost.”
5. the resident was to continue to sweep the leaves around the drains and report any further concerns he had through its repair line.
6. It would offer the resident £50 in recognition of its poor communications.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was seeking the following outcomes from the landlord:
1. to apologise and acknowledge what went wrong during his complaint and why.
2. to give a solution to the accessibility of the drains and the TV box.
3. to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience of its failures.
4. review its practices to improve its complaint handling provision.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained that the concerns about the drain at the front of his property had been ongoing for several years.
This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from December 2021 onwards. This is because this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is also because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a reasonable time, which is usually within 6 months of the matter arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider any issues at the earliest opportunity and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident reported that the landlord had not acted on the recommendations of its contractor in November 2023, following a report that the front drain was blocked.
This issue occurred after the landlord’s complaints procedure was exhausted. As such the landlord has not had an opportunity to formally respond to any concerns about its actions at this time. It is unclear if the resident has raised a further complaint about this issue. However, in the interest of fairness, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to this incident. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint in relation to this specifically if he remains unhappy. While we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of matters in November 2023, the report has used this information as context about the ongoing issues the resident said he is experiencing with the front drain as well as his current position.

The resident’s request for the communal television box to be relocated

The resident has provided evidence that shows there is a small amount of space on one side of the stairs which makes accessing the TV box at the back of the stairs difficult. This is because there is a small void on one side of the stairs that can only be accessed by climbing over the railing and putting a ladder down it.
Landlords are legally obligated to carry out certain repairs to their properties. The main repairing obligations are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These are to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. Additionally, landlords are obligated to keep in good repair and working order installations for the supply of:
1. gas and electricity.
2. water and sanitation.
3. space heating and heating water.
In most cases, landlords are only required to repair items where they are damaged or deteriorated, or where the tenancy agreement obligates them to do so. The resident’s tenancy agreement states: “Services may be provided [by the landlord for] television aerials.”
The landlord’s satellite dish and aerial policy states: “Residents who live in our larger blocks are provided with access to a choice of digital terrestrial, satellite and radio channels including services in foreign languages such as Arabic, Spanish and German.” It also states: “Residents in our smaller blocks (those with less than four properties) do not have access to satellite television services as it is not cost effective for us to provide this.”
The resident lives in a converted property with four flats. However, the landlord’s position is unclear about whether the resident’s property falls under the remit of this policy. This is because it does not define what it considers to be a larger block. It would be fair to conclude there would be a distinction between a smaller set of flats and a tower block, which has a greater capacity to install the necessary apparatus to facilitate digital, terrestrial, satellite, and radio channels. However, there is no evidence the landlord set out its position on this to the resident with reference to its policy. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the landlord’s obligations.
The resident said he raised issues about the location of the TV box in July 2022, while on an away day with a representative of the landlord. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that this was an “informal” dialogue given the context of where and how the resident had raised his concerns. However, there is evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident during August 2022 to arrange a visit to assess the issues the resident had raised.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s perspective that he made the landlord aware of his concerns during July 2022. While the landlord’s explanation in its formal complaint response is understood, it would have been reasonable to have communicated this to the resident at the time. This would have ensured that the resident was aware that while he had discussed his concerns with landlord staff, it had not been formally logged as a repair. That such clarification was not provided at the time, was a missed opportunity.
The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its contacts with residents about repairs. Therefore, it ought to have made some record of the interaction that it had with the resident in July 2022. This was a record keeping failure because it did not capture the resident’s report. As there is no evidence about what the resident had reported at this time, the Ombudsman has been unable to draw a meaningful conclusion about whether the resident was reporting difficulty receiving a signal for all services or just the services he preferred. As such it is unclear what had been discussed at the time.
The evidence indicates the landlord assessed the property on 20 September 2022. The landlord did not provide evidence of its findings, or any further work required at the property. It also failed to provide information about any action it agreed to take as a result of the visit. This was further evidence of poor record keeping.
The resident reported on 15 November 2022 that his electricity was blowing. He said he thought it was related to the TV box. There is no evidence the landlord attended in response to the resident’s report. The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 24 December 2022, that it had investigated the cost of moving the TV box, but it would initially cost £500. It said it was likely there would be further costs levied for the work once it had started. It said it could not undertake this work during the existing financial year due to budget constraints. No reference was made to the electrics at the property or the resident’s concerns that the TV box was interfering with these.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of 15 November 2022 appropriately and in accordance with its obligations. Further, the landlord has failed to provide evidence of its investigations into the cost of relocating the TV box including the quotes for works it had raised and received.
On 23 January 2023, the resident reported that he thought the TV box was causing outages to himself and other residents because the signal was intermittent and was being lost for days. He also explained this impacted him significantly during a time he was receiving cancer treatment and required access to satellite television. The resident said that his property had been “blacklisted” by Sky because it felt the TV box was inaccessible. He said Sky was concerned about the health and safety of its staff members, and therefore declined to access the TV box.
There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s report in January 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s report in January 2023 and its findings. As the landlord did not provide this, it failed to demonstrate it responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns or in line with its repairs policy. This was a failing and we have found maladministration accordingly.
In its stage 2 response on 15 February 2023, the landlord said it would discuss moving the TV box in the new financial year or splitting the cost with the resident. It offered to pay for 2 months of Sky Stream as a “reasonable alternative” to repositioning the box. The resident said that he investigated the cost of this, but it was not something he could afford to maintain in the long term. While the resident could not afford to pay for the ongoing subscription, the landlord also offered to split the cost of moving the TV box. If the TV box was not deemed to be in disrepair but relocating it would facilitate access to more channels, then this was a reasonable offer in the circumstances. However, the landlord should have taken steps to ascertain whether the box was functioning correctly before its full offer of redress.
The resident explained that between July 2022 and February 2023, the landlord did not communicate with him in a timely manner. He said his requests for updates were ignored. The resident said this left him frustrated because he did not know how the landlord intended to action his reports. The landlord did not dispute this. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it acknowledged that it had not communicated effectively with the resident, apologised, and offered £50 to recognise its failure. The Ombudsman considers the landlord tried to put things right for its communication failures and this was reasonable redress for this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident told the Ombudsman he currently has access to Sky Q. However, due to the position of the TV box, Sky will not attend the property if his television service is disrupted. The resident has a contract for his television services directly with Sky.
The landlord is not responsible for the resident’s contract for services with Sky or any decisions it makes concerning the health and safety of its colleagues in the maintenance of its services.
However, the landlord is responsible for repairing its equipment if it finds fault with it. As the landlord has failed to demonstrate it conducted an adequate assessment to determine if any faults were present and if any remediation to the TV box was required, it will be ordered to do this. This is to ensure that it identifies any disrepair with its equipment and whether remediation work is required.
It is clear the resident would like the landlord to relocate the TV box. However, it is for the landlord to investigate the matter and conclude how it intends to remedy the resident’s reports in line with the findings and recommendations of its specialist contractors and its repair policy. While the landlord is entitled to consider any financial constraints when coordinating repairs, it is unreasonable for the landlord to leave any required repairs open-ended. It must use its best endeavours to deliver any necessary repairs it is responsible for in line with the timeframes in its repair policy or explain its delays and complete them within a reasonable time.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his TV box because:
1. it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about the resident’s report in July 2022 being considered as informal.
2. it failed to demonstrate its findings from its inspection in September 2022.
3. it missed an opportunity to set out its obligations regarding the relocation of the TV box in response to the resident’s report in July 2022 with reference to its policy and any contractual obligations.
4. it failed to demonstrate it acted reasonably or in accordance with its repairs policy to the resident’s report in November 2022 and January 2023 about the outages he was experiencing.

Redress

As part of its complaint responses the landlord offered the following redress:
1. it apologised for:
  1. not communicating to the resident that it could not relocate the box in the then current financial year.
  2. its lack of communication “throughout.”
2. it offered the resident:
  1. £50 as a gesture of goodwill for its delays in responding and poor communications.
  2. 2 months’ worth of the Sky Stream service, if it could be supplied.
The Ombudsman has considered the failures detailed in paragraph 34. The resident’s current position is that he reported his initial concerns about the outages in January 2023. However, the landlord has yet to demonstrate it has conducted a reasonable investigation into the concerns about its equipment.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and, if required, remedy the resident’s concerns raised in November 2022. The landlord failed to demonstrate it investigated the resident’s concerns for a period of 3 months between the report and its stage 2 response. The resident explained this was an ongoing issue at the time of writing this report, which is 2 years later.
The landlord’s failures have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident because he believes the TV box is adversely impacting his access to television services. It has also caused time and trouble for the resident in reporting his concerns to the landlord and uncertainty about what the landlord’s obligations are towards this issue.
The Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance and considers the landlord’s offer of redress does not address the detriment to the resident. The landlord must pay the resident £300, which is in line with the level of compensation that may be awarded for a finding of maladministration.

The blockages to the front external drain

The resident explained that the front external drain to his property is located under the same external stairs previously mentioned in this report. The resident said he feels he needs to monitor the drain during periods of heavy rain to ensure it does not overflow. He explained that this causes him such distress that during the night if there is heavy rainfall he has to get out of bed and check it to allay his concerns.
The resident said he reported this concern to the landlord in July 2022. The landlord and the resident are not in dispute that he raised concerns about his drainage at this time. However, the landlord did not provide a record of the resident’s report. As a result, further details about the interaction at this time are unknown.
The landlord arranged to visit the property on 20 September 2022 to assess the resident’s concerns.
The records do not contain any information about the landlord’s investigations and subsequent findings. Given the lack of information about the landlord’s findings, it is unclear what, if any, action the landlord needed to take. Therefore, the Ombudsman has been unable to conclude the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances based on the resident’s report in July 2022.
On 15 November 2022, the resident reported that he felt vulnerable because his drain kept blocking. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report in November 2022. This was inappropriate.
When the resident made a formal complaint on 13 December 2022, he said that during the visit on 20 September 2022, the landlord had agreed to “look into” the access to the drains. This was because the resident was unable to keep the area clean from debris. The landlord said during its complaint responses that it had looked into “works” for the “drainage issues.” It said the costs were too high (£500 plus VAT) and could not commit to them during the current financial year.
As already stated, there is no evidence of what the landlord had committed to following its inspection in September 2022. There is also no evidence it carried out further investigations in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the drain in December 2022.
Further, the landlord was ambiguous about which “works” it had looked into for the drainage issue, including what the associated costs were because it had referred to a figure of £500 plus VAT to action both the drainage issues and the TV box. This was inappropriate because the landlord was not transparent or clear about which works it had quoted for or a breakdown of its calculations. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been clear about its findings at its inspection in September 2022, any faults it found, and how it intended to remedy them.
On 23 January 2023, the resident said there had been several downpour torrents which almost compromised the threshold of his property, but the landlord had not investigated this. Further, he was in constant fear of flooding and could only poke sticks in the drain to unblock the debris when it became overwhelmed. In its stage 2 response, the landlord asked the resident to continue to sweep the leaves and report any concerns to the repairs line.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord was unclear about its position on the resident’s reports about the front drain. Its failure to act indicated that it thought it was not responsible for the investigations/work. The landlord ought to have ensured its complaint responses were resolution-based and included what it found during its inspection in September 2022. This should have included its obligations to the drain based on its legal repairing obligations. In addition, it should have been clear about whether or not the drains required further work. If the landlord considered there was no further action to take it should have explained this to the resident at the earliest opportunity so it could manage his expectations about what it could do and the reasons behind its decision.
Following the complaints procedure, and for context only, the resident reported his drains had backed up in or around April 2023. He explained that he reported this to the landlord, but it did not take further action. The landlord investigated this in November 2023 and carried out a high-pressure jet wash to clear the blocked gully. The contractor also recommended the landlord conduct a CCTV survey of the drains to install ACO drainage (a long linear drain) to prevent future flooding. The resident said the landlord had not taken the recommendations of its contractor further. The landlord said it undertook another drainage survey on 8 April 2024 and would discuss the outcome with the resident. The resident said that he has not received further communication from the landlord about this matter.
The resident said he preferred ACO drainage to be installed at the front of the property. The resident’s comments are noted. However, it is for the landlord to decide on which actions it takes. This means the landlord is entitled to come to a reasoned conclusion, based on the recommendations of its specialist contractors and with consideration of any financial constraints, about how to remedy any disrepair to the drainage.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to be clear about any actions they intend to take to resolve repair reports made by residents. As the resident’s concerns with his front drain appear to be ongoing, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to investigate whether the resident’s front drain is in working order and fit for purpose. It must also write to the resident to explain whether it intends to fit ACO drainage and the reasons for its decision.
Overall, there was maladministration with this element of the resident’s complaint because:
1. the landlord failed to record the resident’s report in July 2022.
2. the landlord failed to share the findings of its investigation in September 2022.
3. the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by clearly explaining its position on any necessary works required for the front drain.
4. the landlord failed to demonstrate it acted reasonably in response to the resident’s reports in July 2022, November 2022, December 2022, and January 2023.
The Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance and considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £350 for its failures. This is to address the distress and inconvenience of the resident because the landlord failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy. This is also to recognise the avoidable time and trouble of the resident chasing the landlord to progress its investigations and repairs.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 2 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 December 2022. This was 16 working days later. There is no evidence the landlord explained its delay to the resident. This was inappropriate because:
1. it responded outside of the timeframes set out in the Code.
2. it failed to demonstrate it communicated any delays and set out when the resident would receive a response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 February 2023, which was 34 working days later, and 14 working days outside the relevant timeframe. Further, there is evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for its response on 6 February 2023. In response, the landlord had advised that it would issue its reply on 10 February 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a revised deadline, it failed to meet this. There is no evidence that it updated the resident when it became apparent that the deadline of 10 February would not be met. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that it had sent the stage 1 response at 00:28 on Christmas Eve, which was unfair. The resident made representations to the Ombudsman that this was a seasonal time, and because of this, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have issued its response when it did.
The landlord did not specifically address its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint procedure. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged that it had not adhered to the timeframes in the Code as well as acted appropriately to communicate its delays. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it was appropriate to offer the resident any redress for the inconvenience that had been caused by its complaint handling. This was a missed opportunity.
Based on the complaint handling failures identified during this investigation, it would be appropriate for relevant staff to undergo refresher training, with particular reference to the Code.
The landlord also apologised for its “lack of communication throughout” in its stage 2 response. It was unclear if this related to the communications about the resident’s complaint or its handling of the substantive issues. This was a failure because the Code sets out that landlords must be clear in their complaint responses about the details of any remedy offered to put things right. The landlord ought to have discerned between the failures it had found in its handling of the substantive issues and its handling of the complaint and any associated remedy. As stated in this report in paragraph 29, the Ombudsman considers the £50 redress offered at stage 2 related to its communications during the substantive complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. the landlord failed to issue its complaint responses within the timeframes set out in the Code.
2. the landlord failed to explain its delays accurately during the stage 1 response and failed to keep to its revised issue date for its stage 2 response.
3. the landlord failed to be clear about which remedies were for which failings.
The Ombudsman has considered the extent of the landlord’s failures and their impact on the resident. We have also considered our Remedies Guidance and concluded the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £100 to put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the communal television box needed to be relocated.
In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the blockages to the front external drain.
In accordance with 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failure found in paragraphs 34, 53 and 62 of this report.
2. pay the resident £800 in compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failures relating to its handling of the resident’s reports of the communal television box.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failures relating to the blockages of the front drain.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failures relating to its complaint handling.
  4. £50 already offered to the resident during the complaints process if it has not already done so.
3. the landlord must arrange for complaint handling refresher training to address any gaps in the knowledge of its staff members about its obligations under the Code. This must include training the timeframes that complaint responses should be issued within and what to do if there are delays.
4. the landlord must arrange training for relevant colleagues about its expectations around record keeping relating to repairs reported by residents and the investigations it conducts. The landlord may wish to consult the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report in doing so.
5. the landlord must arrange to assess the TV box to investigate whether it is causing any outages to the resident’s property. It must share its findings with the Ombudsman and the resident, including if it intends to carry out any work and the reasons behind this.
6. the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must contact the resident to mutually agree on a convenient time for an independent survey of the front drain to be completed.
1. the survey must result in a report which sets out:
  1. any disrepair found.
  2. the structural integrity of the drain.
  3. photographs of the condition of the drain.
  4. comments about the location of the drain and if this presents any issues with the working order of the drain.
  5. if applicable, a scope of works and indicative costs and timescales.
  6. the surveyor must be encouraged to produce a report within 5 working days of the inspection.
2. the report must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt.
Within 56 days of the date of the survey, the landlord must:
1. use its best endeavours to ensure any required works to the front drain are completed.
2. where it cannot meet this deadline, the landlord must set out its reasons to the Ombudsman together with evidence of why it cannot make this deadline.
3. write to the resident to explain whether it intends to fit an ACO drainage system and the reasons behind any decision it makes. This decision must also be shared with the Ombudsman.
4. the landlord must provide evidence of completing this order to the Ombudsman.