Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202007515)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007515

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

25 August 2021

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 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 the resident’s request for the data it held about him.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the heating system in his home.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the operatives visiting his property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Handling of the resident’s request for the data it held about him.
Under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. Complaints about the manner in which a landlord handles its tenants’ private information (including tenants’ requests to access their information) are the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO’s role is to uphold information rights, and is the more appropriate complaint handler for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Because of that, this issue will not be considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s “the way we work for trades and contractors” document confirms that it will:
1. Do it right, do it well and aim to do it first time.
2. Have the right tools and materials to do the job.
3. Let the tenant know if it needs to leave to collect materials, and when it will be back to complete the job.
Section 4.6 of the landlord’s “quick guide – compensation” confirms that it may consider compensation following a failure to provide a service in line with its service standards, where the events have caused exceptional worry or inconvenience, or where the resident has spent a significant amount of time pursuing the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation matrix confirms an award of £250 for complaints resulting in a medium level of distress and inconvenience.
Section 4.5 of the landlord’s “quick guide – compensation” confirms that residents are entitled to request £10 per missed appointment.
Section 4.7 of the landlord’s “quick guide – compensation” confirms that where there is a request for stress or ill health where there has been alleged negligence, this should be sent to its insurance team.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident has experienced historical issues with his heating system. While this has been included for context, this report centres on the events from the resident’s stage one complaint onwards.
The resident had experienced heating problems throughout 2019. The landlord attended and replaced parts including a room thermostat, expansion valve, and flow meter and sensor, and tested it prior to leaving the property. It had assessed that it needed to fit valves to the bathroom radiator to act as a bypass for the system.

Summary of events

On 3 June 2020, the landlord attended to fit the valves. However, it was unable to do so due to the design of the radiator. Although it could have returned to the property to fit the valves the same day, the resident had to go out. Therefore, it returned on 23 June 2020 to complete the work. The system was tested and noted as “all working ok.”
On 29 June 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property due to a leak from the newly fitted valves. This leak was found to be due to operative error. It carried out repairs, and arranged a further appointment on 20 August 2020 to level the valves which were uneven, and fit matching valves.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord visited the resident’s property. It completed the remaining work. However, the new valves were a “slightly different” chrome to the radiator. The landlord’s records state that the resident was unhappy with this, and he refused re-entry to the operative.
On 21 August 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He said that:
1. He was unhappy with the contractor as he felt that despite several appointments, the issues were not resolved. He also raised concerns over the conduct of its operatives, who had been slamming doors when entering and exiting the property.
2. They had unplugged his home automation system, and visited “unprepared” on 3 June 2020.
3. He wanted compensation for the “13 months that he had waited to have the repairs carried out…and [for the] sheer annoyance the operatives [had] caused him.”
On 15 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It explained that:
1. It partially upheld his complaint as the contractor did not meet its expected service levels.
2. It considered that he had suffered “unnecessary levels of distress and inconvenience” associated to his time and effort in getting the issues resolved, as week as “a degree of poor workmanship”.
3. It apologised and offered a goodwill gesture of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he had experienced. It also confirmed that it would be undertaking a further review of the work undertaken by its contractor.
On 21 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, saying that he had obtained the landlord’s records in respect to a visit on 3 June 2020, where it was documented that the resident had been aggressive. He disputed this; he said he had asked the operative to leave as they “[could not] even turn up with the right parts”. The landlord’s operatives had already visited the property “5 or 6 times”, and therefore, should have known which valve was required to complete the work. He wanted “a sensible offer of compensation”.
On 20 October 2020, the resident referred his complaint to this Service.
On 19 January 2021, we wrote to the landlord to request it exhaust its internal complaints procedure.
On 28 January 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that he was seeking the following compensation:
1. £900 for the time he had taken away from work.
2. £250 for “religious discrimination” as a result of the operatives swearing in his property. This offended the resident as his religion precludes swearing.
3. £30 for unplugging his home automation system.
4. £250 for “age discrimination”. The resident felt this was appropriate as an operative had told him that “if he was a little old lady, he would have been prioritised.”
5. £250 for being told by an operative not to call if he had an emergency, as that operative was working that weekend.
6. £500 for “several” failed promises of contact with the resident. The resident felt that this was also discrimination against the resident, as he was from a working-class background, and lived in a council house on low income.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. In addition to repeating its explanations and apologies from its original complaint response of 15 September 2020, it said that:
1. It understood there may have been a number of appointments, however it estimated this to be three or four additional appointments. Its policy allowed for £10 per missed appointment. Although it was a charitable organisation, it wanted to be reasonable; therefore, it could provide a gesture of goodwill payment.
2. In respect to the alleged racial discrimination, it advised that it could not compensate for this as the resident’s claims had been refuted by the contractor. It wanted to continue to support the resident, and it had arranged for an alternative contractor to complete the work.
3. Although it could not guarantee appliances would be faultless, it advised it could offer a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience it caused in unplugging his home automation system.
4. In respect to the alleged age discrimination, it confirmed that it had not discriminated against him, and saw no case of such. It understood the operative had tried to informally explain its timescales.
5. It apologised for the operative having told the resident not to call; it saw this as a “failed attempt of humour” by the contractor. It highlighted that it was “doing [its] best to support [the resident]; this included assigning a different contractor to complete the required work.
6. In respect to the alleged discrimination by social class, it confirmed that it has an equality, diversity and inclusion policy in place to support both its staff and residents.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £250, in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The resident has raised concerns over the effect of the complaint on his health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute his comments regarding his health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused him.

Response to the resident’s concerns over the heating system in his property.

Following the resident’s concerns over his heating system, the landlord was obliged to carry out suitable repairs to provide adequate heating to his property. Although the landlord has evidenced it did attend to seek to improve the heating system, this was not in line with its principle to “do it right” and “do it well” as detailed in paragraph 5. For example, its operative had made an error when fitting the new valves, resulting in a leak in the resident’s property. Furthermore, it arrived at the resident’s property, having attended a number of times previously, with the wrong sized valve. This was not in line with its principle to “have the right tools and materials to do the job” as detailed in paragraph 5. This added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and a failure has been found for needing to revisit the resident’s property to carry out work which should have been completed sooner.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for compensation, and explained in its second complaint response why it accepted some of the shortcomings he was alleging, but not all. It also explained why it did not agree with the scale of compensation he was seeking. It offered him £250 compensation. This offer was reasonable, being the maximum permitted under its compensation policy. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for a service failure such as a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.

Response to the resident’s concerns over the conduct of the operatives visiting his property.

The resident alleged that members of the landlord’s staff of being prejudiced and discriminatory. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
Following the resident’s reported concerns over the conduct of the contractor, the landlord was obliged to carry out an investigation into this and to respond to the resident accordingly. The landlord did this, and the resident was aware of this investigation, as detailed in paragraph 18. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take to try to understand what had happened. In view of the differing versions of events, it was understandable that the landlord was unable to reach an evidence-based conclusion.
To seek to address the resident’s concerns, and in the absence of supporting evidence, it assigned a different contractor to complete the work. In the circumstances, that was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to address the resident’s concerns.
Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, and took action to attempt to address them. It reviewed the available evidence, and provided the resident with reasonable explanations for its actions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reported concerns over his heating system satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over the conduct of its operatives.

Reasons

The landlord did not carry out the repair work efficiently, resulting in return visits which were not necessary. It investigated the resident’s claims over the conduct of its operatives; however, it was unable to reach a conclusion due to the different accounts of what had happened. The landlord offered reasonable compensation in line with its compensation policy, which, along with its apologies and actions, appropriately remedied its failings.