East Suffolk Council (202207802)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207802

East Suffolk Council

08 December 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 the landlord’s handling of the appointment to replace the resident’s radiators.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of landlord, residing in a house.
3. The landlord had attended the resident’s property to assess the resident’s radiators, as the radiators were not producing sufficient heat. The landlord determined that two of the resident’s radiators would need to be replaced. Its contractor made an appointment with the resident to attend and replace his radiators the next day, however, the landlord’s contractor then cancelled the appointment, and informed the resident that the cancellation was at the request of the landlord. The resident’s radiators were ultimately replaced by the landlord.
4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, and wanted to know why the landlord had cancelled the appointment to replace his radiators, and why its contractor had been the one to inform him about the cancellation, rather than the landlord. The resident stated that the landlord should have considered the effect that cancelling the appointment to replace his radiators, would have had on his wife’s disability, as he believed that the cancellation had affected her disability. The resident wanted:
   1. an apology from its staff member that had cancelled the appointment to replace his radiators;
   2. for the landlord to answer his questions, and;
   3. for the landlord to improve its communication with him in future.
5. The landlord’s overall response was to apologise for what had happened, and explain that the reason why the appointment to replace his radiators had been cancelled was because its contractor had booked the appointment without authorisation from the landlord. The landlord informed the resident that a separate apology letter from its staff member that had cancelled the appointment to replace the radiators, had also been sent out by its staff member.
6. The resident then contacted this Service, and although he had received the apology from the landlord’s staff member that had cancelled the appointment to replace his radiators, he was not happy with the contents of the apology and wanted his complaint against the landlord to be further investigated, specifically, because he believed that none of the landlord’s responses had mentioned or appeared to have considered his wife’s disability.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. Although the resident has stated that he believed that the landlord’s cancellation of the appointment to replace his radiators, had affected his wife’s disability, this is outside the scope of this investigation to determine. This is because the Ombudsman is unable to make a direct causal link between actions of landlords and any perceived impact on a resident’s health as these matters amount to personal injury claims which need to be addressed through the courts. The Ombudsman’s position here is in line with the Scheme which notes, the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. However, this Service can investigate whether the landlord considered the resident’s wife’s disability, when it cancelled the appointment to replace the resident’s radiators and any distress or inconvenience which would generally have been caused.

The landlord’s handling of the appointment to replace the resident’s radiators

8. The landlord has advised this Service that it was unaware of the resident’s wife’s disability, prior to him making a formal complaint, however it still apologised to him for any distress that its cancelling of the appointment to replace his radiators, may have had on his wife. Based upon the evidence provided, it appears that the first time that the resident informed the landlord about his wife’s disability, was on 26 April 2022, after the appointment to replace his radiators was cancelled. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord, in relation to whether it considered the resident’s wife’s health, when it cancelled the appointment to replace the resident’s radiator, as it could not have taken into consideration, something of which it was unaware.
9. On 1 April 2022, the landlord asked its contractor to assess the resident’s radiators, and its contractor informed it on 6 April 2022, that the resident’s radiators had been assessed, and that they recommended upgrading two radiators. On 11 April 2022, the landlord informed its contractor to “[p]lease go ahead and carry out the recommended work.”. There is no record of what took place between the 11 April 2022, following the email from the landlord to its contactor, and 27 April 2022, at which point the landlord emailed its contractor, informing them that the resident had contacted it, saying that the appointment to replace his radiators had been cancelled. An internal email from the landlord, dated 27 April 2022, stated, that it did tell its contractor to cancel the appointment, because its contractor had only sought approval on 26 April 2022, and so the landlord wanted the appointment cancelled until it had looked over its contractor’s planned works.
10. Based on that evidence, it appears that the landlord’s contractor was either unaware of the correct procedure, or they were aware, and failed to act accordingly. At first instance, the landlord explicitly asked its contractor on 11 April 2022 to carry out the recommended work, however, it appears that this authorisation was actually part of a two-step process, as the landlord’s internal email on 27 April 2022, stated that its contractor should not have raised a job without approval from the landlord’s relevant staff member. This appears to be supported by the fact that the landlord’s internal email of 27 April 2022, also stated that its contractor did seek approval from its relevant staff member, but only after making the appointment with the resident, to replace his radiators, at which point the landlord told its contractor to cancel the appointment. This appears to show that the landlord’s contractor was aware of what the correct procedure was, but failed to follow it.
11. However, the landlord also advised the resident in its final stage complaints response, that it had “recently updated its policy”, so it is also possible that the contractor was unaware, prior to making the appointment, that there had been a change to the landlord’s policy and procedures about how its contractor would gain authorisation to carry out repairs or replacements. This appears to be supported by the landlord stating in its final stage response that its contractor was “now fully aware” of its policy and of the process that had to be followed in order  to get authorisation to carry out works. It should be noted that the landlord has not specified which policy it is referring to, or provided a copy to this Service.
12. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord, that led to the appointment to replace the resident’s radiators being cancelled. This is because, either the landlord failed to appropriately inform its contractor about the changes in its policy and procedures, or, its contractor was aware of the changes, but failed to act in line with the landlord’s policy and procedures. However, the landlord did redress the service failure, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
13. The main reason for this finding is that the landlord’s repairs charter states that routine repairs are to be carried out within 30 working days. The landlord’s repair logs show that the job to replace the resident’s radiators was prioritised to be completed within 30 working days. Therefore, according to the landlord’s repair charter, the job would be classified as a routine repair. The landlord’s contractor reported its recommendations to replace the resident’s radiators, to the landlord on 6 April 2022, and the landlord advised this Service, that the job was completed on 19 May 2022, 29 working days later. This means that the job was carried out within the agreed timeframe, even though the job had initially been cancelled.
14. Secondly, the resident had requested an apology from the landlord’s staff member that had cancelled the appointment to replace his radiators, and this was provided by its staff member, along with a separate apology from the landlord itself. The landlord had also explained its policy and procedures, about how to get authorisation for works to be carried out, to its contractor, and explained to them that their actions had been a breach of its procedure, which had been set up to minimise any disturbance faced by residents during works, and to make sure that there was no overspending of the landlord’s budget. The landlord advised the resident that its contractor had now been fully informed of its procedure, in order to make sure that the mistake would not be repeated.
15. These factors combined together, sufficiently redressed the landlord’s service failure. This is because, the resident’s radiators were replaced within the agreed timescale; there was no significant impact on the resident; he received the apology that he had requested from the landlord’s staff member, and the landlord had taken steps to make sure that its contractor was fully aware of its obligations so that the mistake was not repeated in future.
16. It should be noted that the landlord’s repair logs do not record any job at all, being carried out on 19 May 2022. The date of 19 May 2022, was provided directly by the landlord to this Service, following a request for information, and this date is not disputed by the resident. The landlord’s repair logs do include an entry for 9 June 2022, under which date, a job to replace the resident’s radiators, and reposition a thermostat is mentioned. Therefore, it would be helpful if the landlord kept accurate, fully detailed and up to date records and logs in future.

Determination

17. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the resident’s complaint about its handling of the appointment to replace the resident’s radiators, satisfactorily.

Recommendation

18. It is recommended that the landlord keep fully detailed and up to date records and repair logs in future.