Yorkshire Housing Limited (202229983)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229983

Yorkshire Housing Limited

26 February 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 the resident’s:
   1. Reports of defects and an incident with the resident’s partner that occurred on 7 January 2022.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a new build house. This began on 8 December 2021.
3. The landlord is a housing association.
4. The property was constructed by a third-party developer and was in its 12–month defect liability period (DLP) when the resident moved in. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the DLP ended.
5. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord was aware of.
6. The developer’s contractor attended the resident’s house on 7 January 2022 following a report of a blocked toilet. The resident’s partner threatened the operative with a knife.
7. On 19 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that the  contractor would not carry out any repairs until safe arrangements had been put in place. The landlord applied for an injunction to prevent the resident’s partner from being present at repair appointments. 
8. Between January and September 2022, the resident reported several property defects to the landlord.
9. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 August 2022. She said:
   1. Operatives keep turning up unannounced and did not wear uniforms. This was causing her stress and anxiety and was impacting her mental health.
   2. None of the defects she had reported had been fixed.
   3. She felt like the landlord had treated her like a criminal when it had investigated the incident in January 2022 and applied for the injunction against her partner.
10. The landlord was granted a court injunction on 29 August 2022. The injunction prohibited the resident’s partner from being present during any visits by the landlord or it’s contractor.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 September 2022. It said:
    1. It had asked its staff and the contractor to only visit the resident’s home with an agreed appointment and they must carry identification (ID). 
    2. The contractor sometimes uses subcontractors who will not always have a uniform or ID.
    3. It was sorry the investigation into the incident and the injunction caused her distress. It never intended to make her feel like she was being treated as a criminal. 
    4. It would use the resident’s feedback to improve its service.
12. The resident asked to escalate the complaint as she was unhappy that subcontractors could attend her home without any uniform or ID. The landlord did not record the date the complaint was escalated.
13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 November 2022. It said:
    1. It was reasonable to expect its main contractors to wear unions and carry ID. However, the sub-contractors were often from small organisations without corporate uniforms or ID.
    2. The resident will be notified of all appointments and told which firm was attending. She could call the landlord if she wanted to verify the operative.
    3. It did not have the facilities to offer an automated reminder of its appointments. The resident would need take note and remember the appointments.
    4. The resident had asked it to look at 2 repair appointments where she said she was not notified in advance. It said its records show it had arranged both appointments by text message.
    5. The resident had said she was suffering with poor mental health at the time of the injunction. This had not been recognised by its staff at the time and it apologised for not supporting the resident.
    6. The resident had complained about the delay in its stage 1 response. It apologised for not meeting her expectations, however, it did discuss this with her and agreed an extension.
14. The resident approached this service as she said some of the defects were outstanding. She felt she should be financially compensated by the landlord for the issues she raised in her complaint.
15. On 7 August 2024 the landlord asked the resident if there were any outstanding defects. The resident said there was an issue with her carpet, bath panel and shower rail. The landlord said some if these issues were new and asked for photos. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to contact the resident to arrange appointments and asked for further information. It said the resident had not responded.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

16. In her complaint the resident said the landlord’s actions had affected her health. We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we are unable to establish whether the resident’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects and an incident with the resident’s partner that occurred on 7 January 2022

17. We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects and an incident with the resident’s partner that occurred on 7 January 2022. The reasons for my findings are below.
18. During the initial 12-month DLP, defects raised are for the developer of the building to repair under the terms of their warranty. After the DLP, the landlord takes responsibility for maintenance of rented properties.
19. The resident told the landlord her toilet was blocked on 4 January 2022. The contractor attended her property on 7 January 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which states it will attend urgent repairs within 7 calendar days.
20. The landlord reacted to the incident with the resident’s partner in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) and health and safety policy. It liaised with the police, put a flag on its system, and raised a safeguarding alert. This was reasonable considering the seriousness of the incident.
21. The landlord updated the resident on 11 January 2022, 2 working days later. It told the resident it had put an alert on its systems and its staff would visit in pairs. It’s ASB team called the resident the same day to arrange an appointment with the contractor to inspect the drains. It told the resident her partner could not be present for the appointment. The resident’s drains were fixed on 14 January 2022, a date the resident had asked the landlord to attend. The landlord communicated well with the resident and managed her expectations well.
22. On 19 January 2022 the landlord told the resident it was applying for an injunction against her partner. The evidence shows the landlord sought legal advice and was advised to apply for the injunction. The resident told the landlord she felt she was being treated like a criminal. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the way it made the resident feel and for any distress caused. However, it felt its actions were reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a full investigation into the incident and seeking legal advice. It needed to do this to understand the risks and what action it needed to take to ensure the safety of the resident, its staff and contractor.
23. Although the landlord applied for the injunction in January 2023, the court did not grant the injunction until August 2023. The evidence shows the resident’s partner asked the court to adjourn the hearing in April 2023, which was the reason there was a delay in the landlord getting the injunction. This delay was outside the landlord’s control
24. In the resident’s complaint dated 18 August 2022 she said there were outstanding defects. The landlord withdrew its normal repairs service between January and August 2022 until the injunction was in place. This was in line with its repairs policy. The evidence showed the landlord considered whether each defect reported was an emergency or whether it could wait until the injunction was finalised. It notified the resident on each occasion that the contractor would not attend her property. It tried to assist the resident by posting her a shower hose and a shelf so she could fit these herself. When the resident told the landlord she could not fit them herself, it sent its own staff to assist her. This was proactive and customer focused.
25. After the injunction was in place the landlord told the contractor about the outstanding defects and asked if there was any support it needed to arrange appointments. It reminded the contractor that it must only visit the resident with pre-arranged appointments. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 8 September 2022 to confirm that its list of outstanding repairs was correct. The resident did not respond. There was no evidence the landlord attempted to contact the resident again until 7 August 2024 when it was gathering evidence for this investigation. This was almost 2 years later. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to ensure the developer completed the defects within a reasonable time. 
26. In her complaint the resident said she was not told about appointments and operatives had attended with no uniform or ID. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had spoken to its staff and contractors and said they could only visit her on agreed appointments and should always carry ID. However, it said some sub-contractors may not have a uniform or ID. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it was her responsibility to remember appointments and take note of which company was attending. However, the landlord is responsible for anyone attending the resident’s property on its behalf and should ensure they have photo ID. It should not be left down to the resident to contact the landlord or contractor to verify an operative. 
27. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident told the landlord that operatives turning up with no uniform or ID was causing her stress and anxiety, which was impacting her mental health. There was no evidence the landlord asked the resident if she needed any support or that it signposted her to support organisations. The landlord failed to consider what arrangements it could make with the contactor to ensure all subcontractors had ID. If this was not possible it could have looked at alternative measures so that the resident could immediately verify the operative, such as providing a password. This would have helped the resident to feel safer in her home.
28. In summary the landlord responded to the incident with the resident’s partner in line with its ASB and health and safety policy. It acted appropriately by carrying out an investigation into the incident and applying for an injunction. The landlord was proactive and customer focused in the action it took to assist the resident with the defects while it waited for the injunction. The delays were outside the landlord’s control. However, after its complaints procedure it failed to ensure the contactor completed the defects. Although the landlord apologised for the way it made the resident feel and for any distress its actions caused. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and did not offer her appropriate support. It also did not consider what measures it could put in place to enable the resident to verify sub-contractors who have no ID.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

29. We find that the apology issued to the resident was reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaints handling. The reasons for my findings are below.
30. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
31. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 August 2022, this was outside the 2 working days. However, there was no evidence this caused any detriment to the resident. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 September 2022 to discuss her complaint. Both parties agreed that the landlord would respond to the complaint by 16 September 2022.
32. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 September 2022 as promised. The landlord’s response covered all the complaint issues and was empathetic to the resident. It apologised for how its actions made the resident feel, and it was clear on what steps it was taking to put things right.
33. The landlord did not record the date the resident escalated her complaint. It acknowledged the escalation on 8 November 2022. It was therefore unclear if this was within its target timescale. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 21 November 2022 before issuing its response.
34. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2022, which was within its 20-working day timescale. The landlord reviewed its stage 1 response and covered the issues the resident raised in her escalation.
35. In summary there was a short delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint and issuing its stage 1 response and the landlord did not record the date the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord communicated well with the resident throughout the complaint. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response. Although the resident has asked for compensation, we consider that an apology was reasonable redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

36. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects and an incident with the resident’s partner that occurred on 7 January 2022 (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
37. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 53.b of the Scheme).

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its handling of the resident’s reports of defects and an incident with the resident’s partner that occurred on 7 January 2022.
    3. Contact the resident to confirm her preferred method of communication. This may assist her in recording visits and appointments from the landlord and contractors.
    4. Consider how it can ensure that all operatives visiting its residents, including contractors and sub-contractors, have ID. The landlord should consider this in line with its repairs policy and safeguarding procedure. If contractors cannot ensure its subcontractors will have ID, then the landlord must consider what measures it can put in place to ensure the safety of its residents.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should review its record keeping practices and staff training to ensure that all staff are accurately recording communication with its residents. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.