Connect Housing Association Limited (202012071)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012071

Connect Housing Association Limited

8 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A gas leak that impacted the residents health.
2. The length of time it took to repair the heating and hot water system.
3. Damp issues.
4. The conduct of the Landlord’s contractors.
5. Resident’s request to have her daughter or son present for all visits.
6. The Landlord’s investigation of reports concerning noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
7. The condition of the property and the Landlord’s handling of various repair requests.
8. Enquiries about the resident’s rent account.
9. Resident’s request for downsizing to a bungalow.
10. The landlords complaint handling.

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.
The resident’s daughter states she had spoken to the landlord about downsizing her mother to a bungalow and concerns about rent payments for bedroom tax. She expressed that the landlord was aware her mother was struggling but had made no efforts to assist. In the landlord’s response it had stated that its records showed the resident had specifically requested a 2-bedroom bungalow ideally on the ground floor in three specific areas. It explained that it did not cover all the areas listed and that few properties became available in the areas listed. It explained the resident was on the list to be notified should anything suitable become available. The landlord confirmed the residents request had been received and correctly logged. The resident is seeking to be transferred.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(R) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Resident’s request for downsizing to a bungalow.
Paragraph 39(R) of the scheme state that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman considers complaints about how a local authority manages and assesses housing applications, if the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she will need to refer it to that organisation.
The resident had raised a complaint to the landlord that a gas leak which occurred in the property around 20 years ago had impacted her health. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and stated that observing its records there is no mention of a gas leak or carbon monoxide incident. Given the length of time past, the landlord was unable to attain any information regarding this.

The resident had complained that she was left without heating and hot water for over a period of six months in 2019. In addition she had complained that contractors had taken money from her during visits. The landlord had investigated the residents concerns during 2019 and provided her with a written response on 20 February 2019.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(D) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. A gas leak that impacted residents health.
2. The length of time it took to repair the heating and hot water system.
3. The conduct of the Landlord’s contractors.
Paragraph 39(D) of the scheme state that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters that were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. Therefore this service will not be able to comment further on these issues.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a three-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 15 January 1996.
The resident has stated in her recent complaint that in the beginning of the tenancy there was a gas leak which has impacted her health.
Throughout the tenancy agreement between 2006 until present there have been several allegations of anti-social behaviour from the residents. There have also been allegations of anti-social behaviour raised about the resident and members within her household. These allegations have varied from noise disturbances, dog disturbance, parking issues, aggressive behaviour and harassment.
During 2019 the landlord issued a tenancy warning letter to the resident in relation to the behaviour of a member from her household. It explained that it had received information that a member of the household had been behaving aggressively to a neighbour. There was police involvement and a witness statement. Therefore, after investigation it issued the resident with a tenancy warning. Due to no evidence the landlord was unable to pursue the complaint further but stated it would continue to monitor the issue.
A complaint was also raised in 2019 about various issues which the landlord had responded to on 20 February 2019. This complaint was about the following issues:
1. The resident not feeling as though she had been treated fairly.
2. The resident was left without hot water or heating for six months.
3. Cash payment being demanded for repair jobs from contractors.
4. Numerous repairs.
5. Downsizing the property.
In its response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and explained that it had not found the resident was left without water for a period of six months. It also had been unable to trace any evidence of cash payments and asked the resident to provide additional information such as dates, times of any attempt of contractors demanding cash, including the nature of repairs and details of the tradesman. It explained if the resident was unable to substantiate this it would be unable to investigate the matter further. In relation to any outstanding repair jobs the landlord had stated it had reviewed its database and did not have a record of any outstanding repairs. In regard to downsizing the landlord had explained that if anything was to become available that was suitable to the resident requirements it would contact her.
In its response the landlord had also addressed recent issues raised about anti-social behaviour and noted that a member of the resident’s household had flagged this but did not want it to be taken further.
On 6 November 2020 the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord stating that as a result of not having heating for six months in the previous year, damp issues had resulted within the property. In response the landlord contacted its repairs team. She also wanted to discuss her mothers rent account, however the landlord said she did not have the correct authority to discuss this and wanted her to completed a permissions request form. The resident’s daughter expressed upset as this has happened on a few occasions despite her having already provided the correct permission.
The resident had experience repeat issues with blockages with the drain, and during March 2021 had contacted the landlord to complain about this. On 16 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord stating that the drains were blocked as a result of food from the neighbours, she had also requested a drain cover. The landlord responded on 18 March 2021, stating that blockages are resident’s responsibility, however if she has already attempted to remove blockage and is unable to, it would get contractor to attend. It explained that in incidents of misuse such as food being put down the drain, this would incur a charge. The resident’s daughter stated that the drain was shared with the neighbour and expressed that that it was the neighbour who was putting food waste down the drain and therefore felt it was not her responsibility to clean. Subsequently the resident had asked if the drains could be separated to prevent issues in the future.
On 25 March 2021, the resident’s daughter complained stating that the landlord needed to ensure it contacted her instead of her mother as this caused her mother stress when visits were made without her being present.
The landlord responded to this the same day apologising for any inconvenience or distress caused. It explained that the work being completed at that time was in relation to the outside drain cover. It explained these issues are usually not booked directly with residents/family unless there might be an access issue.
On 11 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it had liaised with her housing officer to make contact to discuss ongoing problems she was having with the waste and her neighbour. It confirmed that issues pertaining to the drain cover had been resolved on 25 March 2021. The landlord explained that the drain was for joint use and as a result, issues with the drain should be directed to her water supplier. Regarding the resident’s request for a fence to be put in place the landlord enclosed a form to be completed and explained upon receiving this a decision would take place. It explained funding was not guaranteed.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged receipt of a complaint received on 4 May 2021 and explained it would aim to respond to the resident within 28 working days. Subsequently on 23 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response to the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint was about the following:
1. Her request for shared sewer pipes to be split.
2. Delays in receiving responses to enquiries.
3. Her application for funding for a fence to the property.
4. Gas leak which had impacted the resident’s health.
5. Contractors taking money for jobs.
6. The resident’s son or daughter needing to be present during visits.
7. In 2019 the resident having been left without heating.
8. Anti-social behaviour issues with neighbours for over 20 years not having been addressed.
9. Transfer request to a smaller property.
In addition, the landlord also updated the resident on matters that were not raised in the initial complaint. These were for, repairs to a fallen roof tile, a works order to clean guttering and the surrounding area and the resident’s enquiry about the right to buy scheme.
In the landlord’s response it explained that some of the issues above had previously been addressed in its response to the resident’s previous complaint dated 20 February 2019. Regarding failing to respond to enquiries to the resident’s satisfaction, the landlord apologised and explained that the COVID pandemic had impacted the way it managed its enquiries; it also explained that the housing team which deals with tenancy related issues had experienced a significant staff turnover which had disrupted service delivery.

Assessment and findings

This service recognises that part of the resident’s complaint issues are in regards to historical issues, and has explained above why we are unable to look into these matters further. This investigation has consider more recent issues which were investigated in the landlord stage two response letter dated 23 June 2021.

Its handling of requests that it remedies damp.

On 6 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to say as a result of failure with the heating system for six months during 2019, this resulted in damp in the property.
On reviewing the information, this service has seen no evidence to substantiate the residents claim that there was a direct link to the damp in the property.
The evidence shows that when the landlord was informed of this, it contacted its repairs team that same day to investigate the matter further.
This service has reviewed the landlord’s repairs report from 2019 to 2021, and there is no record to show that any visits or repairs were made in regard to damp issues. In the complaint file the landlord has also not commented on this further.
Whilst this service acknowledges that this issue was not raised in the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord was informed of the issue in 2020 and again in 2021 by the resident’s daughter.
The resident’s daughter has since confirmed the issue has been resolved, though concerns about the smell of damp have remained. Therefore this service will be making a recommendation that the landlord make contact to discuss the ongoing concerns.

The resident’s request to have her daughter or son present for all visits.

The resident has requested that her son or daughter is present whenever a contractor or tradesman is visiting the property. However, has stated there have been issues in the past.
The evidence shows on 23 June 2021, the landlord informed the resident’s daughter that appointments are agreed with the resident in advance, and this should enable her to arrange visits for times when her son or daughter is present. It explained that it had a facility to send reminders via text message or phone call before visits and if the resident preferred, it could replace the number with her daughter or son’s number to ensure they are informed. It had ensured there was a note on the system advising of the resident’s preference for alternative contact but could not guarantee this is done.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the resident’s vulnerability and issues with contractor’s in the past, her request to have her children present is not unreasonable. Whilst this service understands the landlord cannot guarantee that alternative contact is made prior to visits, it should explore the options further with the resident to discuss if she would wish to replace her contact details with her children.

The Landlord’s investigation of reports concerning noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

The resident’s daughter had expressed that the landlord failed to resolve ongoing anti-social behaviour that has been experience from neighbours throughout the years.
This service has reviewed the landlord’s records of reports to anti-social behaviour, and it shows there are a number of complaints from the resident and about the resident dating back to 2007. This service recognises that a substantial amount of time has passed since these reports were made, and it is expected that complaints are brought to us within a reasonable period of time. Given the circumstances, this service has only reviewed the most recent allegations which are noted by the landlord in the stage two response and in its file submission.
The landlord has reviewed records for the resident’s reports made in February 2020. It found that at this point it had made contact to arrange a meeting to discuss the matter further, however the resident did not respond and the file was closed.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted in accordance with its guidelines by contacting the resident to discuss matters further. It was also proactive in providing the resident with contact details to further report any issues experienced. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to close the complaint following no contact from the resident.
Since this complaint has been with this service, there was an additional report made regarding anti-social behaviour in November 2021. The landlord explained that the issue had been discussed with the resident’s daughter and it was agreed that at the time the parking issues were not serious. The landlord proceeded to email the residents daughter to confirm the conversation and subsequently issued a letter to all housing residents to remind them that parking on the street was unallocated.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was proactive in discussing the matter with the resident and then following up with a suitable action in an attempt to resolve the matter. This service has not been provided with evidence to show that further issues have occurred or that the landlord has not acted in accordance to its guidelines. However, considering the long standing and reoccurring issues between neighbours, and the residents vulnerabilities this service is recommending the landlord contact the resident to ensure all matters are resolved.

The condition of the property and the Landlord’s handling of various repair requests.

Blocked Sewers.

In the initial complaint the resident had raised concerns about repeat blockages in the shared sewer pipe. In response to this, the landlord had stated this had been cleared and fitted a new gully grate.
On reviewing the information, this service can see that the resident had requested for the drains to be split due to the reoccurring issues of it being flooded by neighbours. The landlord explained in its letter dated 23 June 2021 that the maintenance would be the water company’s responsibility as this is shared with a property which is not its responsibility.
This service has reviewed the residents water company’s policy and it states that it is responsible for drains shared between more than one property which flow into a public sewer if the home was built before 2011. In this instance, the property was built prior to that date.
In the ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was proactive in attempting to make repairs however it is not obliged to do so and therefore there has been no service failings.

Fencing

There was an issue in the landlord receiving an application for funding for the fence of the resident’s property. However, it is understood that funding was agreed, and the fence has been replaced. As this issue has been resolved and this service has seen no evidence to suggest service failings by the landlord, we will not comment on the matter further.

Enquiries about the resident’s rent account.

It is understood that the resident’s daughter has authority to deal with her affairs and can discuss the account with the landlord. However, there was an incident during October 2020 where the resident’s daughter had emailed the landlord to discuss her mother’s account and was refused due to the landlord not thinking she had the correct authority. She had stated this had happened in the past.
This service can see that at the time the landlord had requested the resident’s daughter complete a permission form, but later apologised and informed her it had located the previous permission form which was received during September 2019.
Whilst this service understands the frustration this would have caused, the landlord apologised to the resident’s daughter and then dealt with her enquiry into the account. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is good practice for the landlord to ensure its records are up to date, however the apology it provided was sufficient.

The landlords complaint handling

It is clear that there has been several issues raised by the resident throughout the years. Some issues raised were new complaints, and others had previously been addressed in the past. This service has reviewed the landlord’s complaint handling to see if it was in line with its guidelines.
Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlord’s when responding to resident’s complaints. It explains that a two stage complaint procedure is ideal, however recognises that some landlord’s have three stages.
This service has reviewed the landlord’s complaint handling policy to get an understanding of what its procedures are. It is stated that the landlord has a two stage complaint process.
The evidence shows that the landlord had chosen to bring the complaint to a close and do a full response on all matters raised in its stage two response dated 23 June 2021. However, there is no evidence to show it reviewed the complaint at stage one and provided the response to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is a detriment to the resident as it doesn’t give the resident the opportunity to have the complaint progressed and reviewed internally. Therefore, in recognition of this service failure the Ombudsman is recommending the landlord compensate the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp issues.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have her daughter or son present for all visits.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of enquires about the rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 54of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident’s daughter had informed this service that the damp had been removed. There is little information on the case file regarding damp, therefore it is not possible to suggest a service failing. Although it is recommended the landlord look further into this.
The landlord responded to the resident appropriately and has provided options to put measures in place for the residents children to be informed before visits.
The landlord has followed its procedures when dealing with issues regarding anti-social behaviour. There is no evidence to suggest service failings in the most recent reports.
There are no outstanding repairs and these were resolved prior to this investigation. In regard to sewer related issues, the landlord’s response to the resident was appropriate, it is not the responsibility of the landlord to maintains the drains.
It is evident that there has been confusion when the resident’s children have attempted to speak with the landlord about the account. However, the apology and explanation provided by the landlord is sufficient. This service understands it would have caused inconvenience, but after locating the permission form, the landlord has been able to discuss the account details with the daughter and ensured this is noted clearly on its system. The apology provided is sufficient and the incident does not indicate service failure.
The landlord did not follow the correct complaint procedures as set out in its guidelines and the complaint handling code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for complaint handling failure.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns regarding the damp.
The landlord to discuss options of replacing the resident’s contact details with her children, so they are informed via text or phone call before visits.
The landlord to contact the resident to ensure reports of anti-social behaviour are resolved.
The landlord to ensure that it is clearly notes on the residents file that her children have authority to discuss the account on her behalf.