Midland Heart Limited (202002033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002033

Midland Heart Limited

16 April 2021

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his address to be amended.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is a flat, situated in a building with similar properties. The resident’s property number coincides with the number of the building in his and his neighbours’ tenancy agreements, with the postal service and with the local authority instead of the different numbers for the building that are registered with the Land Registry. This has led to the resident repeatedly receiving other occupiers’ various deliveries and visitors by mistake, which he reports has been detrimental to his ill-health.
The complaint has been raised by both the resident and his representative. For clarity purposes, this report will refer to both the resident and his representative as ‘the resident’.

Summary of events

On 29 March 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to query when his property’s building’s address would be amended, and it advised that his “request will be actioned”. He then chased this matter up with it on 3 April 2019. The landlord’s records showed that, on 16 May 2019, the resident contacted it to request for his property’s number to be reverted to the initial one on the building’s intercom after it had previously changed this for a different number on the communal door intercom system. This was because he could no longer be reached via the intercom system, which led to him “missing visitors, deliveries, etc”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 July 2019 further to an apparent stage one complaint from him, advising that it was still looking into whether there was anything further that it could do about the address issue at the building. Furthermore, it noted that he had mentioned that he would like to move into another property. In respect of this, the landlord advised that it could not facilitate a “direct transfer” and informed the resident that he could bid on other properties or look into a mutual exchange.
On 11 July 2019, the landlord informed the resident that it could not amend the building’s address as that would change its postcode as well, and so it could not change the building’s door numbers and advised him to contact the postal service to report that incorrect post was being delivered to his address.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 17 September 2019 to express his dissatisfaction with the inconvenience caused by the address issue at the building. He stated that this was at the second and final stage of its complaints procedure and was due to it reportedly using his property’s address as the address for the whole building, so that he was being caused stress by people using his intercom and him receiving post, deliveries and visits for the whole building. The resident also requested for a transfer to another property to be arranged, to which the landlord responded on 26 September 2019.
On 28 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord once more to advise that he had an ongoing address complaint with it and that he was not happy with its previous response, stating that it could not amend his address, as he was continuing to get “everybody ringing his buzzer because of the way the address is listed”. He then contacted it again on 12 December 2019 to request an update on the amendment of his address, as he was awoken by one of its contractors who was looking for a different property. Furthermore, the resident advised that the impact of the inconvenience caused by this issue was worsened due to a recent diagnosis that he had received for his physical ill-health, in addition to his mental ill-health.
The landlord’s internal records, between 21 January and 6 February 2020, showed that it corresponded with the local authority in an attempt to amend the resident’s property’s building’s address. However, the local authority advised that “changing the official address to suit what Land Registry have advised is not as simplistic as it may appear” as this would “affect all occupiers of the building” because:
1. The change of address would “likely” be processed as a home move, “rather than the building being re-addressed”.
2. All occupiers would need to change their “banking details, utility contracts, broadband contracts, personal contacts etc”. The local authority mentioned that there might be further inconveniences because most of the above would need to validate the address prior to entering into a contract, but any amendments to the address may mean that suppliers would not be able to validate it.
3. The credit scores of the occupiers who had been in the property’s building for less than three years would be affected.
4. In order for the local authority to be able to process a change of address they would “require evidence that 2/3 of the affected parties, commercial and residential, owners, tenants and any other legal interests, are in favour”.
In light of the local authority’s above response, between 6 February to 12 June 2020, the landlord discussed adding a letter to the resident’s property number on the intercom system, and amended the building’s address on its system, to diminish the inconvenience caused to him by its contractors incorrectly buzzing him. Additionally, the landlord wrote to the resident on 2 June 2020 and advised that, once Government Covid-19 restrictions eased, it would “start looking for a solution again”, as amending the address of the building was not a viable option due to the costs of around £100 per change for over 100 flats and disruption incurred.
On 23 June 2020, the resident wrote to this Service regarding the landlord’s handling of his request to amend his address to avoid further confusion, as he reported that it had taken no action for this despite admitting that there was an issue that was continuing to impact his ill-health and that he sought a new address and moving costs for. We therefore forwarded his complaint to it on the same date and asked it to respond to the complaint by 10 August 2020.
On 6 August 2020, the landlord issued a complaint investigation form and a stage one complaint response to the resident, in which it:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. Identified service failure due to “lack of communication”, with it having to be chased for responses on several occasions, and “full action not taken when customer first contacted [it] in March 2019”.
3. Identified that the resident’s desired outcome was to either have his “address changed” or “help to move to another property” and for the landlord to “cover the expenses”.
4. Confirmed that it would not be able to make any address amendments and advised that the resident was informed of this from the beginning, but it still explored “every avenue”.
5. Advised the resident to use the handset that would allow him to silence the intercom buzzer and help to reduce the number of calls coming through.
6. Confirmed that it had changed its internal systems to prevent its contractors from incorrectly calling the resident when attending the building to carry out repairs.
7. Offered compensation of £70 to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the above service failure, for which it also apologised to him.
The resident then contacted this Service again on 8 and 23 September 2020 to advise that he was unhappy with the landlord’s above stage one complaint response, that he had been having issues with his internet connection, and that his internet provider had advised that these were related to the address confusion. He therefore agreed to await a response to his final stage two complaint to the landlord and we confirmed that we had suggested to it on 8 September 2020 that it try and resolve his address issue with signage.
The landlord issued a stage two final complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2020, comprised of the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that it would not be able to “change the address of the block, due to the huge impact” that this would have on the resident and on the other occupiers of the property’s building.
2. The landlord confirmed that it would place signs by the resident’s door and all intercoms, at the Ombudsman’s previous advice, that would raise awareness of the numbering issue, requesting that people not ring his buzzer or knock on his door if they were looking for the building and not his property.
3. The landlord confirmed that it would advise the postal service “to instruct the postman not to post letters or flyers” that were not intended for the resident through his door, in an attempt to diminish the disruption caused to him.
4. The landlord requested the resident’s banking information, so that it could pay him the compensation of £70, offered in its stage one complaint response, for the service failure identified for the lack of communication and initial action in his case.
On 16 November 2020, the resident contacted this Service to advise that he was unhappy with the landlord’s above final complaint response and that he wished for it to either re-number the building’s properties or to facilitate a transfer for him to another property. He also sought for it to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience that this had caused him, and for it to pay for any redecorations needed to bring the new property to the standard of the current one, as the resident invested significant amounts of money for this by adding carpeting, painting and furniture.
The landlord subsequently confirmed to this Service that it had “completed the signage” for the resident on 17 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

The resident has stated that he considers that the address issue has exacerbated his medical conditions. However, it is beyond the expertise and not within the authority of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of his request for an address amendment and his medical condition, which is therefore outside the scope of this investigation.

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the property’s structure, exterior, installations and communal areas in repair and proper working order and that the resident is responsible for decorating the property’s interior.
The tenancy agreement allows the resident to “swap” properties with another tenant of the landlord or another social housing provider or local authority, as long as the necessary consent is obtained from both of their landlords.

The landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy

The landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy states that “where an immediate solution can be agreed this will be dealt with as a First Stage Resolution”, which will aim to resolve concerns at the first point of contact.
If the resident is unhappy with the outcome offered at the first stage resolution then the complaint would be escalated for investigation as a formal complaint, where a timescale for a final response would be agreed but the landlord’s target to respond to the complaint is ten working days.
If the resident provides “evidence” that the landlord’s “complaints process has not been followed” or if “there are elements of the complaint that have not been addressed” then the complaint would be escalated to the formal review stage at the final stage of its complaints procedure, where its target to respond is 20 working days. If any service failure is identified at this stage, then the landlord would reinvestigate the complaint.

The landlord’s compensation matrix

In instances where the landlord identifies a “failure of service as a result of delay/quality/admin error”, its compensation matrix allows for a goodwill payment of between £35 to £70 to be made, based on the impact that the service failure had on the resident. This also gives it discretion to consider making goodwill payments to residents for their upset/inconvenience of up to a maximum of £100 based on the impact on them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his address to be amended

The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies and procedures do not stipulate what its responsibilities are and the steps that it should follow in instances where an address amendment is required.
Nevertheless, this Service was provided with records dating back to 29 March 2019, when the resident contacted the landlord to query when his property’s address would be amended, which indicates that the address issues were brought to its attention prior to this date. It is noted that, before 16 May 2019, the landlord had amended the resident’s property number on the property’s building’s communal door intercom system, at his request. This was reasonable of the landlord because it complied with the resident’s wishes and attempted to put things right and diminish the inconvenience caused to him by the property/building numbering confusion.
Despite amending the numbering on the resident’s property at his request, the landlord then agreed to revert this back to the initial number on 16 May 2019, when he advised it that he could not allow access to his own visitors/deliveries because of this, which was also reasonable of it to do.
Between 16 May 2019 and 6 February 2020, the landlord liaised with the postal service and local authority, to explore all possible avenues and find whether it could amend the resident’s property’s or the building’s address. However, the landlord was advised by the local authority during this period that amending the building’s address would be a complicated and costly process that would impact the resident and all the other occupiers of the building. In light of this information, the landlord decided to not amend the building’s address, which was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
This Service appreciates the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident due to the address issue. However, it is important to acknowledge that the landlord has a responsibility toward all its residents, to act in a fair and impartial manner, and its decision reflected this. This is particularly because it was advised by the local authority that changing the building’s address could affect its occupiers’ banking, utilities, personal contacts, contracts and credit scores, would require the consent of two-thirds of those affected, and was likely to cost around £100 per change for over 100 flats.
Between 6 February and 12 June 2020, the landlord discussed this issue internally and assessed whether it would be possible to add a letter, on the intercom systems, for the resident’s property to resolve the address issue. This was also reasonable and indicative of the fact that it tried to exhaust all avenues to put things right for him. As the above was not a viable option, the landlord complied with this Service’s advice to place explanatory signs in key points of the building, which it confirmed were completed on 17 December 2020.
The landlord additionally advised the resident on 11 July 2019 to contact the postal service to report that incorrect post was being delivered to his address. It then confirmed to him on 6 August 2020 that he should use the handset that would allow him to silence the intercom buzzer and help to reduce the number of calls coming through and that it had changed its internal systems to prevent its contractors from incorrectly calling him when attending the building to carry out repairs. The landlord went on to tell the resident on 21 September 2020 that it would advise the postal service “to instruct the postman not to post letters or flyers” that were not intended him through his door to attempt to diminish the disruption caused to him, which was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken practical steps to do so in the absence of the ability to change his address.
The resident also requested for the landlord to facilitate a transfer to another property and to cover his redecoration costs, intended to bring the new property to the standard of the current one, as alternative outcomes to his address change complaint. It did not accommodate the above requests, in line with the tenancy agreement’s terms above at paragraphs 19 and 20. This stated that the resident could “swap” properties with another tenant of the landlord or another social housing provider or local authority through a mutual exchange, as the landlord advised him to do or to bid on another property on 10 July 2019, and that the resident was responsible for decorating the property’s interior.
To conclude, despite not being obliged to do so by a tenancy agreement, policy or procedure, the landlord attempted to put things right and diminish the inconvenience experienced by the resident by liaising with third parties and its various departments to explore all of the options available and find a satisfactory solution to his address complaint. Furthermore, it acted in line with the terms set in the tenancy agreement, in respect of his request for a property transfer and redecoration costs instead of an address change, by providing him with advice on how to bid on other properties or arrange a mutual exchange.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident had been expressing his dissatisfaction with the confusion caused by the numbering of his property prior to 29 March 2019 and mentioned having an ongoing complaint on 28 October 2019. Despite this, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 6 August 2020, when it identified service failure due to lack of communication and offered him compensation of £70, in line with its compensation matrix above at paragraph 24.
As above at paragraphs 21 to 23, the landlord’s complaints, comments and compliments policy has set response timeframes of the first point of contact, ten and 20 working days for the three stages of its complaints procedure. However, considering the events detailed in this report, the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to issue a formal response to his complaint from prior to 29 March 2019 at each stage of the procedure by only responding to this on 6 August and 21 September 2020 at the first and final stages, respectively. This is particularly because the landlord only did so following a request from this Service on 23 June 2020, which was not appropriate.
The landlord then acknowledged its above service failure, apologised for the inconvenience and delays, and offered the resident compensation for the failure of £70 from 6 August 2020. This was in line with the amounts set in its compensation matrix for such a failure, detailed above at paragraph 24, which therefore partly put this right.
Nevertheless, the resident repeatedly informed the landlord, from at least 17 September 2019 onwards, that he was in ill-health that was being exacerbated by the address issue. There is also no evidence that it took steps to prevent a recurrence of its extremely excessive delay of approximately at least 16 months from 29 March 2019 and 6 August 2020 to begin responding to his address change complaint after being contacted by this Service, and so it has been recommended to do so below. Moreover, there is no indication that the landlord considered exercising the discretion available to it under its compensation matrix to compensate the resident for his upset/inconvenience as a result of these failings with up to £100, which it has therefore been ordered to do below.

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 for his address to be amended.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord liaised with all necessary third parties, exhausted all options available, and complied with the Ombudsman’s advice, when unable to find another solution to the resident’s address complaint. Furthermore, it attempted to find a satisfactory resolution and take into account his requests in the absence of a set policy/procedure for this type of issue.
The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to issue a formal complaint response. However, it then acknowledged its failure, apologised, and offered compensation, in line with its compensation matrix, which partly put things right. Although the landlord failed to do so fully in light of the resident’s vulnerability, the duration of its complaints handling delays, its lack of steps to prevent a recurrence of its failings, and the discretion available to it to further compensate him upset/inconvenience from this.

Order

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £100 within four weeks in recognition of any upset, distress or inconvenience that he may have experienced as a result of its complaints handling delays in his case in light of his vulnerability.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £70 compensation that it previously awarded him for its failure of service, if he has not received this already.
2. Offer further complaints handling training to its staff to ensure that future complaints are acknowledged in an accurate and timely manner in accordance with its complaints, comments and compliments policy’s timescales. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently, together with consideration of The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.