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

Watford Community Housing Trust (202124705)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124705

Watford Community Housing Trust

22 May 2023

 

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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request to remove a ramp from the front of her property due to safety concerns.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 26 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested a ramp located at the front of her property to be removed. She requested for the ramp to be removed as she stated it was dangerous. Also, her son fell over and grazed his knee on the ramp.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on multiple occasions between May and September 2021 for an update on the removal of the ramp. The landlord responded and stated that it was chasing the repair team for an update and waiting for the contractor to provide a quote for the works.
  4. On 12 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated that it had logged a complaint about the removal of the ramp. It stated it would provide a response within ten working days.
  5. On 18 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It explained that the member of staff in the repair team who agreed to remove the ramp, no longer works for the landlord. Therefore, it was unable to find out the reason why the ramp removal was authorised. The landlord also stated that the ramp was already in situ at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange and the resident agreed to take over responsibility for any non-standard alterations, including the ramp. It stated that it would not remove the ramp located at the front of the property as this does not fall under its remit of responsibility.
  6. On 2 December 2021, the landlord provided its final response. It declined to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaint process. It stated that the evidence the resident submitted was not sufficient for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. It also explained to the resident that it would carry out any necessary repairs to make the ramp safe, although it would not pay for it to be removed.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome is for the ramp to be removed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a ramp to be removed

  1. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that non-standard fixtures and fittings which are the resident’s responsibility to maintain under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy can remain in situ, provided that the incoming resident is prepared to take the property subject to them.
  2. The mutual exchange application form signed by the resident states that the resident accepted the property including the front and rear gardens in the condition which they found it. They also accepted responsibility for any non-landlord housing fittings including any that may not have been noted as part of the property inspection.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021, she requested for it to remove the ramp located at the front of her garden. She requested the ramp to be removed due to safety concerns, as her son fell over and injured himself on the ramp. Initially, a member of staff from the landlord’s repairs team agreed to remove the ramp and the landlord stated that they were waiting for a quote for the works from its contractor. However, when the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, it confirmed that it would not be removing the ramp as it was not its responsibility.
  4. The resident acknowledges that she did not raise concerns about the ramp with the landlord prior to agreeing to the mutual exchange and signing the mutual exchange application form.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident must be very concerned about the ramp, particularly as her son experienced an injury on it. However, the resident did not raise any concerns about the ramp before agreeing to the mutual exchange in August 2020. In addition, the resident signed the mutual exchange application form and agreed to accept responsibility for the non-standard fixtures which would have included the ramp. Therefore, considering this, it would not be the landlord’s responsibility to remove the ramp.
  6. It is evident that the landlord initially provided the resident with inaccurate and misleading information. The landlord’s member of staff initially agreed to remove the ramp following an inspection. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions over a six-month period for an update on the removal of the ramp. At this point, the landlord stated that it was waiting for a quote from its contractor and an update from the repairs team. The resident was not told that the landlord would not be removing the ramp until it issued its complaint response.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises that this could have caused a considerable amount of distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident was under the impression that the ramp would be removed by the landlord meaning that she would not have known to make her own arrangements to remove it during this time. There has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to remove a ramp. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress caused by its errors. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will provide a stage one complaint response within a maximum of ten working days from its initial acknowledgement. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days of the complaint. It also states if the landlord is unable to meet the ten working day timeframe, it should provide an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received by the resident. It states this should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
  2. The Code also states that a landlord should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a resident’s complaint through all the stages of its complaint procedures. It explains that a landlord must have a clear or valid reason for refusing to escalate the complaint.
  3. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 12 October 2021 confirming that it had logged her complaint. It stated it would provide a response within ten working days. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 November 2021 and 18 November 2021 to ask for an update on her complaint. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response 18 November 2021, on the same date that it had apologised for the delay. This response was approximately 27 working days after the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the delay was not excessive. However, the response time was still slightly delayed and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy and The Code.
  4. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. On 27 November 2021, she emailed the landlord with the reasons why she would like her complaint escalated. She stated that her main concern was safety and adding a rail to the ramp would pose more danger, as it would be possible that her young children could swing from the rail. In addition, she explained that she had been calling and emailing regularly and was not once told that the works to remove the ramp were no longer going ahead.
  5. On 2 December 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response. It explained that it would not be escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two of its internal process. It stated that the evidence submitted by the resident was not sufficient to escalate the complaint. The Ombudsman believes this was unreasonable. The resident provided valid reasons for her complaint to be escalated. Therefore, this Service would have expected the landlord to consider the points raised by the resident and issue a stage two complaint response in this instance.
  6. Given that the landlord declined to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two and there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage one complaint response. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove the ramp.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its handling of the resident’s request to remove the ramp.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling.
  3. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training to ensure that accurate information is provided to the residents in the future, regarding repairs or the removal of non-standard fixtures.