Wandle Housing Association Limited (202425702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425702

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 April 2025

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 response to the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. reports of an outstanding repair to her front door.
3. request for a management transfer.
4. request for reasonable adjustments.
5. complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her daughter in a 2-bedroom, second floor flat, which they have occupied since July 2011. The landlord’s records show that both the resident and her daughter have vulnerabilities relating to both physical and mental health.
On 20 April 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour had tried to break into her flat and damaged her front door. She stated that he had been arrested for criminal damage and harassment but had been released back to his address on bail. She told the landlord that she needed her front door to be replaced “as a matter of urgency” as it was “not safe”.
The landlord responded on 23 April 2024 to say that it had called her mobile number and left a message. It stated that it had raised a repair for 15 May 2024 as this was the “earliest date”. The resident wrote back on the same day to enquire why the landlord was not attending to the repair within 24 hours. She also reminded it that she was unable to use the phone due to her disability.
The landlord responded on 24 April 2024. It confirmed it had raised a repair for that evening to make her door safe. The operative attended but was unable to gain access. The landlord tried to repair the door again on 15 May 2024, but the resident told the operative that she wanted a replacement door with a multipoint lock. On 21 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint (Complaint A) through her member of parliament (MP). She stated that:
1. the police had attended her property every day from 14 April to 25 April 2024 due to “verbal abuse, violent behaviour, attempted assault and false imprisonment” by her neighbour.
2. he had been arrested on 20 April 2024 for harassment and criminal damage after threatened her, vandalised her doorbell and attempted to break into her flat.
3. she had been reporting ASB to the landlord since 18 April 2024 and asked to have her door replaced but the landlord had “taken absolutely no action” to assist her.
4. it had taken the landlord from 20 to 24 April 2024 to send an operative to repair her front door, which was “completely unacceptable”.
5. her neighbour had kept both her and her daughter awake, “slamming his front door, shouting abuse” from outside her front door and making threats.
6. she was “scared to go anywhere” in case her neighbour broke in.
On 3 June 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that she and her daughter did not feel safe in their home and wanted an “urgent” management transfer. The landlord replied on the same day. It stated that, since 2019, it did not process internal transfers due to limited housing stock. It issued its stage 1 response to Complaint A on 4 June 2024 and said:
1. as an interim security measure, it would raise a repair to fit additional locks and a fireproof letter box to her existing front door.
2. it had ordered a more robust door through its specialist contractor and this would take between 8 to 12 weeks to be replaced.
3. it had been working with the police and local authority to investigate and tackle her neighbour’s behaviour.
4. its community safety officer would contact her on the week commencing 10 May 2024 to give her an update.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 30 June and 4 July 2024 regarding her request for a management transfer. She referred the landlord to its allocations and lettings policy, which outlined the criteria for agreeing management transfers. The landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone on 15 July 2024 and left a voicemail. The resident responded on the same day to remind it again that she was unable to talk on the phone due to her disability. The landlord therefore wrote to her on 15 July 2024 to reiterate that it did not have an internal transfer policy. It advised her to contact her local authority to ask for emergency accommodation.
On 16 July 2024 the resident raised a further complaint (Complaint B). She said:
1. despite it telling her it had raised a repair for additional locks and a fireproof letterbox it had still not contacted her with an appointment date.
2. given her neighbour’s history of disregarding his bail conditions she was not safe living next door to him and her only option was to move.
3. she and her daughter were both vulnerable which meant there was an even more urgent need to relocate.
4. her housing officer had twice told her that the landlord did not facilitate management transfers. They were not aware of the landlord’s policies because, according to its allocations and lettings policy, her case met the criteria for a management transfer.
5. her neighbour could potentially be released on 19 July 2024 and the landlord had taken no action to support her or ensure her safety.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint B on 31 July 2024. It stated that:
1. its operative attended the property on 24 April 2024 to inspect her front door. However, the resident had not allowed him to complete any repairs without the police being present.
2. her new door was on order and its contractor would contact her shortly with an installation date.
3. it was happy to raise a new ASB case and agree an action plan. However, it appreciated she could not speak over the phone. It could therefore do this either face-to-face or through an advocate.
4. it was happy to discuss the resident’s housing options with her and investigate whether she met its criteria for an internal management transfer.
5. if she felt she required additional security measures to her existing door while waiting for a replacement, it would be “happy to cover this also”.
On 8 August 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to escalate Complaint B. She said:
1. she had told the operative who attended on 24 April 2024 that it was too dangerous to have her front door open. He told her he would go and speak to his supervisor and return but he never came back. Instead, he marked the job as “complete”.
2. she already had an open ASB case and just wanted the landlord to follow its policies and procedures.
3. the landlord was not accommodating her communication needs despite her repeated attempts to clarify them.
4. it had not explained why it had twice incorrectly told her that it did not facilitate management transfers. She was unsure why it would have to investigate whether she met the criteria when she had provided it with 26 crime reference numbers.
5. on 24 May 2024 it said it would raise a repair to fit additional locks and a fireproof letterbox to her front door. It had never actioned this or explained why.
6. it had not carried out any assessments to identify her daughter’s vulnerabilities or any safeguarding issues. It had offered no support at all.
7. she wanted it to provide her with the correct contact details so she could request a management transfer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request on 16 August 2024. It replaced her front door on 16 August 2024 and issued its stage 2 response to Complaint B on 12 September 2024. It stated that:
1. the operative who attended on 24 April 2024 had carried out a visual inspection of her front door and took photographs. The locks and hinges appeared to be in “good working order”.
2. it had previously offered “additional measures to improve the security” of her home and repeated its offer. It added that, if the condition of her door had worsened since its last inspection, it would arrange to inspect it again.
3. it was sorry it had not opened an ASB case to investigate her reports and that it had not followed its ASB policy.
4. it acknowledged that it had not contacted her within the required timeframe or communicated with her via her preferred method.
5. it had raised a new ASB case and would welcome a virtual meeting to agree an action plan. However, it acknowledged her request to only communicate via email.
6. she should provide it with details of the incidents involving her neighbour, including dates and times so it could investigate.
7. it wanted to offer her £550 compensation broken down as:
  1. £400 in recognition of its failure to act on her ASB reports.
  2. £150 for its delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.

Events following completion of the complaints process

On 2 October 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint because the landlord had:
1. continued to contact her by telephone despite her telling it repeatedly that she was not able speak on the phone due to her disability.
2. failed to raise a repair to fit additional locks and fireproof letterbox to her front door as it had advised it would.
3. taken 4 months to replace her front door following her neighbour’s attempted break into her property.
4. wanted to open a new ASB case rather than addressing the one that was already open.
5. told her that it did not facilitate internal management transfers.
Between 7 October 2024 and 10 December 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord several times to request details on how she could request a management transfer. The landlord responded on 11 December 2024 to confirm that it had put her forward for a transfer but explained she would be put on a waiting list if approved. It stated that she would need to “engage with the local authority” if she wanted to be housed immediately. On 31 December 2024 the landlord wrote to advise her that it had approved her application for a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated on several occasions that her health and that of her daughter’s had been adversely affected by the ASB she had been reporting. The resident’s comments are noted. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. These matters are more appropriately addressed through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Reports of ASB

When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of this Service to reach a decision on whether the behaviour has occurred as reported. Our role is to consider whether the landlord has responded to the reports in accordance with its policy and in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances. As such, our assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, if it took proportionate action, and followed good practice.
The Ombudsman’s expects landlords to have an ASB policy. This should contain steps for creating the fundamentals of an effective response, including action plans, clear communication, risk assessments, and working with third party agencies.
The landlord has an ASB policy. This states that the landlord will:
1. undertake appropriate assessments of ASB reports from residents to identify risk and vulnerabilities. This is to ensure support can be provided where needed and any safeguarding issues can be identified and addressed.
2. report incidents to the police on behalf of vulnerable victims or support such victims in doing so.
3. consider support to residents at the time of the initial interview and will be agreed as part of the action plan.
The same policy states that, when the landlord receives an ASB report, it will respond promptly by interviewing the resident, investigating and assessing the full circumstances of the report. It will investigate ASB reports through a variety of methods including:
1. collating of diary sheets provided by residents.
2. speaking to neighbours, family or other parties such as social or health workers, as identified in the initial risk assessment.
3. visits by the investigating officer.
The landlord has provided no evidence to show it had opened an ASB case following the resident’s initial reports. There is no indication it attempted to carry out an initial interview or a risk assessment.
It would have been particularly appropriate for it to have completed a risk assessment given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the seriousness of the ASB reports. Furthermore, the resident had repeatedly given it details of how the ASB was affecting her and her daughter, and the concerns she had for their safety.
We note that the resident was receiving support from various sources, including victim support, social services, the community mental health team and a local charity. However, a risk assessment would have been important in identifying the impact of the ASB on the household at an early stage. It would have helped the landlord identify the urgency of the situation, and if there were any immediate risks to the household, or safeguarding issues. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to establish whether there was any other support it could provide or signpost the resident to. That it could not demonstrate it had opened an ASB case, or carried out a risk assessment meant it had disregarded its ASB policy. This would have left the resident feeling unsupported and caused her additional distress and inconvenience as a result.
Furthermore, the landlord’s failure to open an ASB case prevented it from taking the appropriate actions within its policy to support the resident. There is no indication it had asked her to complete diary sheets or that it had taken any meaningful steps toward agreeing an action plan with her. The failure to take any such steps meant it was unable to reasonably monitor and review the situation.
A comprehensive and meaningful action plan would have been an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. It could also have been a way of discussing any reasonable adjustments it could make and to assign a single point of contact for the resident to approach for updates or seek clarification on the actions it was taking. The lack of a clear plan was a missed opportunity for the landlord to maintain regular contact and offer reassurance it was making all reasonable efforts to respond to her reports. This caused the resident avoidable inconvenience in having to continually prompt the landlord for support, updates and for responses to her enquiries.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response to Complaint B that it was “happy to raise a new” ASB case “to listen and agree an action plan”. It acknowledged that she was unable to communicate on the phone and suggested that it could discuss an action plan either face to face or via an advocate. It gave her an email address so she could organise this.
It is unclear why it took the landlord over 3 months from the resident’s first ASB report in April 2024 for it to suggest an action plan. In line with its ASB policy, it should have done this as part of its initial ASB handling actions, along with an initial interview and risk assessment. Furthermore, it should not have been necessary for the resident to have raised a complaint before the landlord offered to discuss an action plan with her. She would have been left feeling that the landlord was not taking her reports seriously.
We note that, in its complaint response, the landlord put the onus on the resident to contact it and organise the means of agreeing an action plan with it. This was unreasonable given the seriousness of the resident’s reports and the landlord’s obligations in responding to her ASB reports.
The records show that, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, she is unable to communicate via the telephone. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision or practice that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
There is no evidence the landlord took further steps to explore with the resident any adjustments it could make to facilitate discussing an action plan. In its complaint response it suggested alternatives to a telephone discussion. However, there is no indication it made any further contact with the resident to take these forward. That she was unable to communicate via the phone should not have been a barrier to agreeing an action plan.
As previously mentioned, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. In its response to Complaint A on 4 June 2024, it said that it had been working with the police and local authority to investigate her neighbour’s behaviour. It told her that it would contact her on the week commencing 10 May 2024 to give her an update. There is no evidence it had tried to meet this commitment or that it had made reasonable efforts to provide updates.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that where the primary duty and power to investigate sits with another party, such as the police and the local authority, the landlord will support these investigations. It will do this by providing a point of contact, where necessary, and undertaking necessary supporting actions.
On 23 May 2024, and later in its response to Complaint A, the landlord told the resident it had been liaising with her daughter’s social worker and the police. However, it has not provided any records of communication with those parties. It is unknown whether this evidence does exist, and if the landlord has failed to provide it, or if the landlord failed to keep appropriate records. Nevertheless, it has been difficult for us to establish what steps the landlord took to work with the police or social worker, and how it supported them in their investigations. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord. That the landlord could not demonstrate effective joint working with partner agencies is a further departure from its ASB policy.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. conduct an initial interview with the resident.
2. carry out a risk assessment.
3. agree an action plan with the resident
4. demonstrate it was working effectively with partner agencies
5. take steps to gather evidence such as offering the resident diary sheets to complete
6. maintain regular and clear communication with the resident about the actions it was taking in response to her ASB reports.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
In its stage 2 response to Complaint B, the landlord acknowledged its failure to open an ASB or follow its ASB policy. Furthermore, it offered £400 compensation, as part of its overall offer of £550, in recognition of its failure to act on her ASB reports.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s attempts to put things right, this was not proportionate to address the failings we have found. This is because the landlord failed to recognise the seriousness of the resident’s reports or its failure to properly consider her vulnerabilities. This left her feeling in fear for her safety for a significant period of time without any reasonable support from the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to give any reasons why it had not followed its ASB policy or any details on how it had learnt from this. Its response does not provide any suggestion it would take any action to prevent the same thing happening again.
Although it offered a virtual meeting to agree an action plan in its stage 2 response it also asked the resident to provide details of incidents she had already reported. This was inappropriate and disregards the fact the resident had already provided details of the ASB over the previous 5 months. We have therefore found that there was maladministration by the landlord. We will order that the landlord pays a further £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the risks of the ASB to the household. This is in addition to the £400 already offered by the landlord. It brings the total compensation for distress and inconvenience by its failings in dealing with the resident’s ASB reports to £600. It must also carry out a case review to identify learning from the complaint, and provide training to ASB handling staff.

Outstanding repair to the front door

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy operates the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – within 24 hours to make safe. These are any repairs that are necessary to avoid danger to residents. This includes insecure external doors or windows.
2. Urgent repairs – within 7 days.
3. Routine repairs – within 28 days.
The same policy states that the landlord will ensure it takes steps to recognise any additional support requirements its residents may have. Where necessary, it will make reasonable adjustments to its approach to support these and ensure residents have equitable access to its services.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain doors. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The resident reported on 20 April 2024 that her neighbour had damaged her front door and one of her locks. She told the landlord that the door was not safe. The landlord did not acknowledge her report until 23 April 2024, 3 days later. Despite acknowledging it was an emergency repair, the landlord told the resident it had raised a repair for 15 May 2024. It was only after the resident reminded the landlord of its timescale for emergency repairs that it sent an operative on 24 April 2024 to “make safe the door”. That the landlord failed to attend to the repair within 24 hours was a departure from its responsive repairs policy, and a failing.
When the operative attended on 24 April 2024 to inspect the door the resident did not allow them access. She stated that she was unable to leave her door open without the police being present as it was too dangerous. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of her responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why a resident would not allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner. We note that the landlord carried out a visual inspection of the door and found the hinges and locks to be in working order. This was reasonable in the absence of being able to complete a proper inspection.
However the landlord could reasonably have done more to consider the resident’s unique circumstances. It could have asked her if there were any reasonable adjustments it could make, or support it could provide to facilitate access. This would have enabled it to carry out a more thorough inspection of the door and carry out any necessary repairs. We acknowledge that, even if the landlord had adopted a different approach, there is no guarantee that the inspection could have taken place as intended. However, it would have demonstrated that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the difficulties contributing to the delays. That it did not do so was a shortcoming..
The records show that the landlord made a further attempt to inspect and repair the resident’s front door on 15 May 2024. However, the resident declined any works, preferring instead for the landlord to replace her door.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s decision to apply its repairs policy instead of replacing the door would have been disappointing to the resident. However, the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. The installation of a new door, unless the existing door was deemed beyond repair, would be an improvement. There is no obligation on the landlord to carry out improvements. In addition, social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage them responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items where it is more economical to do so rather than replacing them. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to investigate possible repairs in the first instance.
On 23 May 2024 the landlord told the resident that, given the circumstances, it would replace her front door but that this would take around 8-12 weeks. The landlord acted appropriately by properly considering the resident’s request and then exercising its discretion. It was also appropriate that it tried to manage her expectations in terms of how long it would take to obtain the new door. It is positive to note that it replaced the resident’s front door within 12 weeks, as it had initially advised.
The landlord’ ASB policy states that it will assess the security of the resident’s home where necessary and, where appropriate, improve security by, for example, providing fireproof letterboxes and additional door-locks.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident it would fit additional locks and a fireproof letterbox to her existing front door as an interim security measure. It reiterated this in its response to Complaint A, on 4 June 2024. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion.
There is no evidence the landlord had taken any steps to progress this repair. The resident reminded it in her complaint (Complaint B) of 16 July 2024, of its commitment to fit additional locks and a fireproof letterbox. Despite this, it made no mention of this in its complaint response or provided an update. Instead, it told her it would “cover” any additional security to her existing door if she required it. This demonstrates poor coordination and internal communication between teams. That the landlord failed to carry out the action it had agreed to take in its complaint response was a departure from the Code. This obligates landlords to monitor and complete outstanding actions after it formally responds.
Furthermore, it also departed from its ASB policy by failing to make reasonable efforts to improve the security of her door while waiting for the new door to arrive. This would have left the resident feeling unsafe in her property for longer than necessary.
In summary, the landlord made efforts to inspect and repair the resident’s front door. It also exercised its discretion and agreed to replace her door with one that was more secure. However, it failed to attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours or to follow up on its commitment to fit additional locks and a fireproof letterbox to her existing door. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. To put things right, we will order the landlord to pay the resident £200 in recognition of its failure to follow its repairs and ASB policies, and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Request for a management transfer

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy approves management transfers where residents are at serious risk by remaining in their current home and need an immediate move. The criteria for consideration of a management transfer include:
1. victims of harassment, where police are investigating, and support a move.
2. households who need to move urgently at the request of social services, for child protection reasons.
3. other urgent moves based on safety as approved by the landlord’s lettings panel.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that management transfers can be considered in exceptional circumstances where there is an immediate risk. This is to allow a resident who is a victim to transfer outside the landlord’s normal allocations or transfer process.
The records show that the resident first asked the landlord for a management transfer on 3 June 2024. The landlord responded on the same day and told the her that, since 2019, it did had not process internal housing transfers and that all its empty properties were relet though the local authority. The resident referred the landlord on 30 June 2024 to its allocations and lettings policy, which contradicted what the landlord had advised her. She told it that her situation met the criteria for a management transfer. On 15 July 2024 the landlord reiterated that it did not have an internal transfer policy.
It is unclear why the landlord had not referred to the relevant policies when responding to the resident’s request. Given the serious nature of the ASB she was reporting, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a management move application at an early stage. Instead, it failed to properly check its allocations or ASB policies and provided the resident with incorrect and misleading information. This caused unnecessary confusion and made the resident feel she was being unfairly treated.
It is acknowledged that management transfers are discretionary. However, the resident’s neighbour had been charged with a criminal offence. Furthermore, it was evident the resident was at risk from her neighbour’s behaviour, with regular police attendances. Given these factors, it would have been fair and proportionate for the landlord to have considered whether the resident’s circumstances met its criteria for a managed move at the outset.
It is also noted that the resident had asked the landlord, as part of her complaint escalation request on 8 August 2024, for the contact details of the team that dealt with management transfer applications. The landlord failed to provide this information in its stage 2 response and repeatedly failed to respond to her after she had chased it for this information several times. It was only until 11 December 2024, over 4 months later, and following advice from the police, that the landlord put the resident forward for a management transfer. The landlord acted appropriately by correctly applying its criteria and approving the resident’s transfer application on 31 December 2024. However, this was nearly 7 months after her initial request and the evidence does not demonstrate that this delay was unavoidable.
In summary, the landlord failed to properly consult its policies regarding management transfers and gave the resident incorrect information on 2 occasions. In addition, it failed to respond to her repeated requests for information on how to apply for a managed move. This resulted in an excessive delay by the landlord in considering the resident’s request, during which time she was afraid to remain at the property.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the seriousness of the ASB she had been reporting, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration in recognition of its failing. This is because there was a disregard by the landlord for its policies and for good practice. To put things right we will order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unavoidable delays in considering her management transfer request.

Request for reasonable adjustments

The resident had raised a separate complaint about the landlord’s failure to contact her via her preferred method of communication. The matter was referred to us, and we determined the case in December 2024 (202321331).
In its stage 2 response to that complaint, dated 2 February 2024, the landlord “sincerely apologised” for contacting her by telephone and said that it had “asked its neighbourhood team to amend her details on its system” to show she should only be contacted via email.
Despite this, the evidence shows the landlord tried to phone the resident on 3 occasions between 23 April and 15 July 2024 (the period covered by this complaint). This was even after she had repeatedly reminded it that she was unable to speak on the phone.
In our previous determination we recommended that the landlord consider reviewing its system for recording reasonable adjustments. We stated that it should ensure all information relating to residents’ individual circumstances and agreed adjustments are stored centrally to minimise the risk of teams and service areas failing adhere to the agreed adjustments. Since we issued 202321331 we have not been made aware of any further attempts by the landlord to phone the resident.
However, the landlord should have put appropriate measures in place following the assurances it made in February 2024.This would have avoided repeated attempts by staff to phone the resident. The telephone calls would have caused the resident ongoing frustration and the avoidable inconvenience of having to continually remind the landlord about her preferred communication method. That the landlord failed to take adequate steps to ensure the resident was properly contacted was service failure. The Ombudsman will order it to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its repeated failure to make a reasonable adjustment.

Complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy stated that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where it has to extend a response beyond a further 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 for stage 2, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address the concerns the resident raised about why it had provided her with incorrect information about management transfers. Furthermore, it omitted to address her concern that it told her it had raised a repair for additional locks and a fireproof letterbox, but had not followed this up or given her any further information about the repair. Its failure to respond to those aspects of her complaint resulted in the landlord issuing an inadequate response. Its failure to properly consider her complaint meant the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to try and resolve it.
Our recent investigations into the landlord have identified that this is a recurring theme. We have made an order in a previous determination (202329059). This was for the landlord to consider further complaint training, which included emphasising the importance of properly addressing all aspects of a complaint. relating to training for complaint handling staff, which should ensure they address all concerns raised by residents in their complaints. We will therefore not make a further order but will continue to monitor this aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
It took the landlord 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The delay was not excessive. However, there is no evidence it sent any holding replies or contacted her to apologise and explain the reasons for the delays. There is no indication the landlord made any attempts to agree to any new timescales or keep the resident updated on the progress of its investigation. This was a failing, and a departure from its complaints policy and the Code.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its delay and offered her £150 (as part of its overall offer of £550) in recognition of this. The landlord’s offer is in line with what we would award for similar failings. For this reason, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an outstanding repair to her front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident in line with the our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £1,300 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused, calculated as:
  1. £600 for its failure to follow its ASB policy, and reasonably consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and risks to her household,
  2. £200 for failing to follow its responsive repairs policy.
  3. £400 for the avoidable delay in considering her management transfer request.
  4. £100 for its failure to contact her by her preferred method of communication.
3. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £550 that it made in its stage 2 response. If it has already paid this to the resident, it can deduct this from the total the Ombudsman has ordered.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. carry out a review of the case to establish the cause of the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy. The review must:
  1. be undertaken by an area independent of the service that was the subject of the complaint.
  2. take any learning from this review and develop an action plan with measures it proposes to take to help avoid reoccurrence of the same failings.
  3. be shared with its governing body.

The landlord must provide us with details of the outcome of its review and a copy of its action plan.

review its training to all staff dealing with ASB to ensure that it understands the importance of carrying out risk assessments to help it consider any risks and so that it is able to offer further support vulnerable residents. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases. The landlord must also remind staff of the importance of agreeing action plans with the resident at an early stage. The landlord to report back to us to confirm it has done this.
ensure all relevant staff are fully aware of its allocations and lettings, and ASB policies with regard to management transfers. Within the timescale as set out above, it must tell the Ombudsman what action it has taken to assure us it has done this.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of receiving this report, the landlord should pay the resident £150 it had offered her in its stage 2 response for its delayed response.
The landlord should consider developing a policy or protocol for instances where it experiences delays meeting its repair obligations due to difficulties gaining access. This should outline the measures it will consider in order to ensure it can complete repairs. It should also set out any support it can provide to vulnerable residents in order to help them allow access to its operatives and contractors. This should include making reasonable adjustments, and consideration of residents’ individual circumstances.