Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (201915731)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 201915731

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

13 November 2020

 


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 refers to the Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s request to install Sky TV in her property.

 

Background

 

The Resident is a leaseholder of a flat within the building which is maintained by the Landlord.

.

Summary of events

 

  1. On19 February 2020 the Resident had a Sky contractor visit the property; they were unable to install her Sky box as they needed access to the communal box serving the building. The Landlord advised that she needed to provide Sky with its email address in order for them to request permission directly. The Resident asked the Landlord to set up the meeting with the Sky engineer.

 

  1. On 4 March 2020 the Resident received an email from Sky which stated that they would be unable to contact her building management and she would need permission from her building management for the installation to be completed. The Resident forwarded this email to the Landlord the same day and requested it provide access to the building at a convenient time so that she could arrange an appointment.

 

  1. The Resident called the landlord on 4 March 2020 and raised a complaint. The call notes state that she had been told that Sky would need to send an email to the Landlord with the time and date of the appointment in order to arrange access to the building. She had spoken to several Sky operatives who had stated that they would not send an email. The Landlord had advised that this had always been its policy in order to ensure the request was genuine.

 

  1. In the Landlord’s stage one response on 6 March 2020, the Landlord stated that it understood that the Resident was unhappy with the response she had received in relation to Sky gaining access to the building for an installation. Its policy had stated that the third-party engineer would need to email the Landlord to arrange access, however, this had recently changed. It was not currently granting permission for external contractors to access its flats for installation; this was due it finding that some external contractors were not carrying out works to its specifications and requirements, which resulted in  damage to the integrity of the building fabric. It stated that this workmanship may lead to safety concerns for its tenants and therefore it would be stopping works whilst it reviewed its procedure. It confirmed that it had now closed her complaint and if she was dissatisfied, she could escalate this to its investigation stage.

 

  1. On 16 March 2020 the Resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the Landlord’s investigation stage. She had not been told that its policy had changed when she spoke to the Landlord’s contact centre over the phone. She expressed dissatisfaction that the Landlord was refusing access to the building and was not satisfied with the Landlord’s previous response. She advised that Sky were happy to organise a convenient time.

 

  1. On 26 March 2020 the Landlord wrote to the Resident and issued its investigation stage complaint which stated the following: 

 

  1. It apologised that the Resident was frustrated with its temporary suspension of third-party contractor works on its communal buildings. This had been put in place to ensure that its tenants were safe as some external contractors had not worked to the necessary standards needed to keep its building safety compliant.

 

  1. It would be working to introduce a new procedure for external contractors to follow in order to allow works to go ahead safely; this may take longer than expected due to the current circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. For now, the temporary suspension would remain in place, and it would contact the Resident in future when it had implemented the new procedure.

 

  1. It explained that the Resident may progress her complaint to its review stage should she be dissatisfied with its response and explained how she could do this.

 

  1. The Resident responded on 15 April 2020 and requested her complaint be escalated to the Landlord’s review stage. She stated that she had not been given any information about when her issue may be resolved; she requested that it tell her when the new procedure would be in place so that she could change the Sky appointment date.

 

  1. On 16 April 2020 the Landlord sent an acknowledgement letter to the Resident and stated she would receive a written response within 15 working days.

 

  1. On 12 May 2020 the Landlord wrote to the Resident regarding her complaint, in which it advised her complaint was still under review and apologised for the delay in its response. It advised she would receive a response by 26 May 2020.

 

  1. On 21 May 2020 the Landlord issued its final response. It stated that following its review of the previous information, the complaint had not been upheld. It did not have a timeline for its new procedure to be implemented and therefore could not provide a date so that the Resident could change her appointment for the Sky TV installation. It was currently working on ensuring that third-party contractors would not breach any fire compartmentation in its properties, and it could not approve the Resident’s request as this could lead to the safety of the building and its residents being compromised.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

The Landlord’s handling of the Resident’s request to install Sky TV in her property.

 

  1. The Resident remains dissatisfied about the length of time the process has taken and feels she has wasted time asking Sky to email her Landlord when the Landlord had suspended third-party contractors from carrying out works. This Service cannot reasonably order the Landlord to change its procedure as the Landlord has stated that this had been implemented to ensure the safety of its residents and the structural integrity of the building which is appropriate as the Landlord is obliged to ensure the safety of its residents. Instead, we will investigate how the Landlord responded to the Resident’s dissatisfaction regarding its handling of her request to have Sky TV installed and whether this response was reasonable.

 

  1. The Landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a specific policy for telecoms installation; however, the Resident’s lease states that she would need written consent from the Landlord to install a television aerial or sending/receiving apparatus. The Landlord has stated that it would previously ask for confirmation from the external supplier to ensure the request was genuine, before granting permission. It is reasonable that the Landlord requested this to ensure the external contractors working on site were legitimate for the safety and security of all residents. The Landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it temporarily suspended works going ahead; it has provided an interim statement that says the external contractors had not been following its specifications and requirements, or working to a certain standard, which had resulted in damage to the integrity of the building. This could lead to the safety of its tenants to be put at risk. 

 

  1. It is understandable that this temporary pause of third-party works to the building was inconvenient for the Resident as it lengthened the amount of time taken to have her Sky TV installed. The Landlord is obliged to ensure that the structure and fire compartmentation of the building remain safe and in line with its specifications. This was reasonable as the Resident’s lease states that the Landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior/structure of the building.

 

 

  1. The Landlord acted reasonably by temporarily suspending third-party contractor works until it could ensure that any repair or installation work was carried out safely. It was therefore reasonable for the Landlord to refuse permission for the Resident’s installation until it had implemented a new procedure. It is noted that this temporary suspension was for all third-party contractor work and the Landlord did not single out the Resident’s request for Sky TV installation. It also stated that it would contact the Resident when this suspension was lifted. The Landlord managed her expectations that permission would not be given whilst the temporary suspension of works was in place.

 

  1. However, in its complaint responses the Landlord has not acknowledged that the information given by its contact centre staff may have inconvenienced the Resident. She has stated that she needed to contact Sky on multiple occasions to request that they email her Landlord to gain permission to carry out the installation at the Landlord’s request. It is noted that she remains dissatisfied that she had ‘wasted’ time contacting the Landlord and Sky to then have the permission refused.

 

  1. The Landlord’s internal emails show that the contact centre staff were made aware of the temporary suspension on 6 March 2020, the same day that the Landlord wrote to the Resident and made her aware of the change in policy. Whilst we are unaware of the date that the policy regarding installations of TV changed, it was reasonable for the contact centre to advise the Resident to ask Sky to email the Landlord as this had previously been the procedure. The Landlord made the Resident aware on the same day as its contact centre staff of the temporary suspension and therefore any time spent contacting Sky by the Resident would have been valid in line with its previous procedure.

 

  1. Since the permission for the Sky installation had not been approved at the time, it was reasonable for the Landlord to inform the Resident that it would not be granting permission for third-party contractors to carry out installations until it had implemented its new procedure. It did not, for example, grant permission then later refuse this, therefore the Resident was not treated unfairly or significantly impacted by any error by the Landlord. It may have been helpful for the Landlord’s contact centre staff to be aware that a change may be taking place in order to inform the Resident of this at an earlier date. However, since we cannot determine when the temporary suspension was put in place, we can reasonably assume that they were unaware of this change until 6 March 2020 and had given the correct information to the best of their knowledge, to the Resident when she called.

 

  1. It would have been helpful for the Landlord to provide the Resident with an estimated date that its new procedure would be implemented in order to manage her expectations of when she would be likely to pursue her Sky TV installation further. The Landlord has acted reasonably by advising the Resident that it may take longer for the procedure to be decided due to the current coronavirus pandemic; this is reasonable as the Landlord may have limited staff or resources during this time but may have managed her expectations further by providing an estimated date. This Service understands that the Resident has now gained permission for her Sky TV to be installed.

 

  1. Whilst we appreciate the length of time taken to receive this permission may be frustrating for the Resident, she was not significantly disadvantaged by this as this has now been rectified and the lack of Sky TV did not cause a threat to the Resident’s safety or security. It was reasonable for the Landlord to make her aware of the process change at the earliest opportunity and to work with her to move the process forward when it reasonably could. It was also reasonable that the Landlord put the safety of its residents as a priority before allowing third–party contractors to complete work to the building without clear guidance on its specifications and requirements.

 

  1. There has been no maladministration by the Landlord in respect to its handling of the Resident’s complaint or its decision to temporarily suspend third-party contractor work pending completion of a new procedure to ensure contractors adhere to its guidance. It let the Resident know at the earliest opportunity that its policy had recently changed, and that permission would not be granted for the installation of her Sky TV at the time. It also established that the new procedure may take longer to implement than expected due to the impact of the current Covid-19 pandemic, which managed her expectations reasonably.

 

Determination (decision)

 

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s request to install Sky TV.

 

Reasons

 

The Landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation of why it would be temporarily suspending work by external contractors in its buildings. It let the Resident know at the earliest opportunity that its policy had recently changed, and that permission would not be granted for the installation of her Sky TV at the time. It also managed her expectations by letting her know that the new procedure may take longer to implement than usual, due to the impact of the current Covid-19 pandemic. Whilst it would have been helpful for the Landlord to provide an estimated date of when this temporary suspension would be likely to end, this did not have a significant impact on the Resident as she has now received permission for her Sky TV to be installed.

 

Recommendations

 

  • Where possible, The Landlord should provide timescales for how long it expects to take when implementing new procedures to manage its residents’ expectations.