Town and Country Housing (202204916)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204916

Town and Country Housing

4 November 2022

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:
   1. The suitability of the support offered to the resident during the repair works to the lift. 
   2. The landlord’s handling of the gas safety check.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. The resident has complained to this Service that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check. However, there is no evidence that these concerns have been raised with the landlord. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. Therefore, we are unable to consider this element of the complaint as there is no evidence to suggest that it has been raised to the landlord as part of the complaint. If the resident has any further concerns with the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check, it is recommended that he raises a new complaint with the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his new complaint, he may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman at that point, as a separate complaint.

Background

5. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
6. The landlord advised the resident on 11 March 2022 that planned works to the lift would take place between 2 May and 24 June 2022. On 19 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and asked if he would be impacted by the lift repair, as it would be out of use. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and offered assistance from a support worker or to decant (temporarily move) the resident.
7. The resident raised a complaint on 13 May 2022, due to the impact of the lift repairs. He said he was experiencing issues with shopping, collecting prescriptions, completing laundry and leaving the building in case of an emergency. He was also concerned about the impact on his mental health, due to lack of human contact while the works were ongoing. He stated that being decanted would cause additional inconvenience, and he requested compensation due to the inconvenience caused. 
8. In the landlord’s final response, it said it had given the resident sufficient notice of the works and offered several different types of support, including support work assistance, several offers of temporary accommodation and a fire safety assessment to ensure the resident would be able to evacuate safely. It stated that the resident had declined all its offers of support. The landlord declined the resident’s request for compensation.
9. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as the landlord did not offer support until the work started and he wanted compensation. He stated that the issues had caused him stress and anxiety and he had been unable to wash his clothes, so had needed to replace them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In his complaint, the resident has raised that the impact of the lift repairs has caused him stress and anxiety. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint; however, consideration will be given to the general distress caused.

The suitability of the support offered to the resident during the repair works to the lift

11. The landlord notes that it does not have a procedure for supporting vulnerable residents during planned works, but it offers support on a case by case basis.
12. As the landlord is responsible for communal repairs, it was reasonable that it scheduled maintenance works to the lift. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one response, that the lift repairs were being undertaken due to the age of the lift to prevent future repair issues.
13. The resident advised this Service that the landlord did not offer appropriate support until the works had started. However, the landlord has provided evidence that it informed the resident of the works on 11 March 2022, and it asked the resident on 19 April 2022 about the impact the lift repairs would have on him. As such, the landlord demonstrated that it took the appropriate steps to ensure the resident had the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the additional support he would require, prior to the start of the works.
14. The landlord is expected to assess residents’ requirements and vulnerabilities to establish whether repair works may have a greater impact on certain individuals.  The landlord should subsequently offer appropriate interim solutions if necessary. In this case, the resident initially advised the landlord that the lift repair would cause him issues in completing weekly tasks, such as shopping and going to the laundrette. The landlord promptly made arrangements for an independent support service to attend to provide the resident with the required assistance, however, the resident ultimately declined the offer.
15. Once the works commenced, the resident raised additional concerns, regarding the noise caused by the works, and his inability to leave the building due to the lift being unavailable. As a result, the landlord offered for him to be decanted. While it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered to decant the resident at an earlier stage, ultimately, the landlord had offered sufficient support directly relating to the concerns raised by the resident. As the resident had not provided specific reasons for declining the landlord’s initial offer of a support worker, it would not be expected to offer additional solutions.
16. The landlord promptly addressed all concerns the resident raised about the proposed decant, and as such reasonably managed the resident’s expectations regarding the options available to him. It also offered the resident the option of temporary accommodation or a hotel. However, the resident rejected the landlord’s offer to be decanted on numerous occasions, as he thought it would cause additional inconvenience. As a result, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take, as it had exhausted numerous options in terms of the support it could provide. It was appropriate that the landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s safety, due to his decision not to be decanted, by scheduling an appointment for a fire consultant to arrange an emergency evacuation plan. However, the resident also declined this recommendation. 
17. Following completion of the complaints process, on 7 June 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he wanted to accept the offer to be decanted. The landlord checked the availability of the closest hotels as requested by the resident, however, there was intermittent availability, so the landlord offered alternative options, which the resident was dissatisfied with. The resident subsequently advised the landlord he no longer wanted to be decanted on 8 June 2022. Although the resident thought the options offered by the landlord were unsuitable, the landlord ultimately had a limited timeframe and it was constrained by the availability of the hotels in the local area. It was appropriate that the landlord advised the offer would be available for the rest of the duration of the works. 
18. In his complaint, the resident requested compensation for the inconvenience caused by the repair works. The landlord would only be obliged to offer compensation if there was evidence of service failure in its handling of the repairs and the level of support offered. As the landlord took appropriate steps to offer numerous different types of support, it would not be required to award compensation. The landlord stated in its stage two response that it would not award compensation as it would not resolve the difficulties the resident was incurring and he had not declared any financial loss, which were both appropriate reasons. The resident had raised to this Service that he had to replace clothing, due to the inability to attend the laundrette. As the landlord had offered direct support with the task, which the resident declined, the landlord would not be liable for any financial costs incurred.
19. Ultimately, the landlord acted reasonably as it provided the resident with sufficient notice of the works and offered various types of support. As there was no evidence of service failure, the landlord would not be obliged to offer compensation.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the suitability of the support offered to the resident during the repair works to the lift.
21. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the gas safety check is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.