Oh, Trivallis …

The PSOW has issued two public interest reports on Trivallis which have found broader systemic issues in their record keeping and repairs service, failure to follow their policies, breach of the Welsh Housing Quality Standard and Renting Homes, failure to maintain accurate records, poor complaints practice.

There are two specific complaints.

• In Complaint 1, Mr and Mrs B were left with a leaking roof for seven years (2016-23), causing damp in the home; and failure to deal with a broken boiler for three months from January 2023 (when it should have been completed within 24 hrs).  Mr B reported a disability in 2022 (not recrded by Trivallis).  The couple were pretty shockingly treated and the record of the complaints team would be what might be described most charitably as “disappointing”.  At para 65 of the report, it is said:

I also consider that the failings identified in this case are ones from which other organisations can learn. This investigation has highlighted the importance of keeping full and accurate records. There were many missed opportunities to identify the repeated repair requests made by Mr B and failures to address these. I have seen no evidence that the Association considered Mr B’s needs in relation to his disability, or that it had a policy regarding repair requests from households containing vulnerable people. It is for these reasons that I consider this report to be of wider public interest.

• Complaint 2 concerned a Mrs C who lived also with her disabled granddaughters.  It took a year before what Trivallis regarded as the cause of damp and mould was addressed but in fact that didn’t rectify the issue.  Ms C had to get her own surveyor in to examine the issue (finding the same as the original technical surveyor abut the retaining wall and gutters).  There is the following classic comment which, anybody who does this work will recognise and is now deprecated: “The Association also suggests that Mrs C may be contributing to the high humidity levels by not opening windows and drying washing indoors. The Second Manager recommended that Mrs C be offered an app that would allow her to see how the way she used her home impacted humidity levels” ([45]).  When sensors were put in the home, Trivallis didn’t analyse the data!  (for those that don’t know me, I don’t use exclamation marks except when really needed).  Radiators assessed as being undersized weren’t replaced for for four months after a technical surveyor raised concerns.  The issues are ongoing.  Shockingly (I think, given the concerns raised about this issue):

In Mrs C’s case, despite her reporting a worsening of her granddaughter’s asthma, no independent survey was carried out until the intervention of my office. 

I have been arguing for some time that the PSOW compensation rate is far too – ridiculously – low, and would remark here that it is unreasoned.  These were cases were the PSOW says the complainants suffered “serious distress”, where the law on the state and condition of the homewas broken, and where there was a breach of the Human Rights Act, Article 8 and the Equality Act 2010, as well as the PSOW guidance.  So, please explain the recommended award: Mr and Mrs B were awarded £1k; Mrs C £840 (but that included £500 for a mattress, clothes and toys, £40 for a survey, so that actually the award was £300).

It leaves me with the feeling that, had Mr and Mrs B begun litigation, they would have received far greater compensation, and just possibly Trivallis would have dealt with the issues after the letter before claim came in.  And, the Housing Ombudsman Service would have (a) taken a much dimmer view of what went on, (b) made stronger recomendations (see below), and (c) recommended greater compensation.  My recommendation to the PSOW (which I have made before, but perhaps not in these terms): Review the level of compensation you recommend.  Incentivise (sorry about that word) complainants to come to you rather than engage formal legal processes (look away my lawyer brethren).

My recommendation for the Welsh Government is to look again at implementing Awaab’s law in Wales.  Not all social housing tenants are as happy as those in Coastal 2 and not all social landlords reach the same high standards.

However, the real power of the PSOW is to make recommendations to services that affect all contract holders.  That is in furtherance of the administrative justice value of getting things right first time.  That is really important, given that we know that (generally) the people that complain are often those with sufficient social capital, and the people who (in academic language) “lump” their issues and do nothing about them are often those who are the most marginalised.  So, the recommendations have the ability to make a ripple effect, which is excellent.  My only complaint here is that the recommendations are a bit weak:

On Mr and Mrs B’s case

c) Ensure that all relevant staff receive training to identify and respond appropriately to vulnerable customers.

d) Provide evidence that the Association has developed and implemented a damp and mould procedure.

e) Ensure that a scenario based training programme is delivered to all relevant staff to ensure that lessons are learned from this case and staff take account of individual circumstances where prioritising repairs.

f) Provide evidence that the Association has developed and implemented a process to ensure that repeated repair requests are identified, recorded and escalated for further investigation.

g) Review its records management process and make necessary changes to ensure it complies with the principles of “Good Records Management Matters”.

h) Share a copy of this report with the Association’s Assurance Committee which should oversee and monitor the Association’s compliance with these recommendations.

On Mrs C’s case

d) Carry out any works determined as necessary as a result of the inspection of the wall.

e) Ensure all relevant staff receive training to identify and respond appropriately to vulnerable customers.

f) Ensure that a scenario based training programme is delivered to all relevant staff to ensure that lessons are learned from this case and staff take account of individual circumstances where prioritising repairs.

g) Develop a process to ensure that when a complaint of damp and mould is received, information gathered from sensors in properties belonging to the Association is regularly, analysed and reported accurately.

h) Share a copy of this report with the Association’s Assurance Committee which should oversee and monitor the Association’s compliance with these recommendations.

I guess that the other thing that is different from court proceedings is that there is publicity for the findings and recommendations of the PSOW in local press.  I wonder about the value of that in terms of local press – the really important and powerful thing for an Ombud imho is to go on radio and TV and cause a publicity splash which encourages more people to complain.

One quibble I have is about the use by the PSOW of Article 8, ECHR, in their reports which gives the right to respect for the home and family life.  It is suggested that “Respect can include ensuring homes are maintained in a good state of repair and listening and taking appropriate action when issues arise” (Mrs C, [54]).  I just wonder if there is the kind of positive obligation suggested here, but that is something we can debate.  There can be little doubt that the Equality Act 2010 was in issue, as the PSOW found.

One other little slightly snide comment, which I can’t resist, is that the regulatory judgment on Trivallis in 2023 (when this was going on) is that they were compliant for “Governance and Tenant Services”: “The Association meets the regulatory standards and will receive routine regulatory oversight”.  I mean, really.