St Albans City and District Council (202429798)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord has recorded the resident as having physical health conditions and disabilities. While completing repairs in the property, the landlord used latex which the resident was allergic to. To put matters right, the landlord said it needed to inventory and store the resident’s belongings for it to complete further repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs in the resident’s property.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the use of latex in his property’s flooring.
   3. The storage of the resident’s belongings.
   4. The replacement of the resident’s blinds.
   5. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property is outside jurisdiction.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the use of latex in his property’s flooring.
5. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the storage of the resident’s belongings.
6. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s blinds.
7. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs in the resident’s property

8. The landlord did not re-start property repairs until after it sent its final complaint response. We investigated the landlord’s earlier handling of repairs under complaint reference 202409459. We do not consider matters that we have already decided or that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure yet.

The landlord’s use of latex in the resident’s property’s flooring

9. The landlord did not keep records of the resident’s latex allergy or keep its promise not to use latex in the property. It did not sufficiently consider the potential risks to the resident and did not offer compensation for its failings and the negative effects this caused to the resident.

The resident’s belongings

10. The landlord offered to store the resident’s belongings while it completed repairs in the property. If offered to handle this for him and responded to his preference to do so himself. It did not offer compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience this caused the resident.

The replacement of the blinds

11. The landlord agreed to refund the resident for the blinds in the property in its final complaint response. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances to resolve the matter but it did not then do so.

The resident’s complaint

12. The landlord did not recognise or provide compensation for the complaint handling failings we have found, so its resolution was not proportionate to the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. We previously investigated the resident’s earlier complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property between June 2023 and June 2024 in a separate investigation. We considered its handling of repairs, temporary rehousing, and its compensation offer.
14. The resident has raised another complaint with us about the landlord’s previous handling of repairs in the property and compensation. We cannot reinvestigate matters we have already decided.
15. The resident told us he is also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs since October 2024 and the final compensation offer it made since its stage 2 complaint response of 12 September 2024. The landlord has not addressed these matters as a formal complaint yet. We cannot investigate complaints made before they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. If the resident is still unhappy, he should raise this with the landlord as a new stage 1 complaint and then, if necessary, with us.
16. We have therefore found the resident’s complaint about repairs in the property to be outside jurisdiction for the above reasons. We have recommended the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint about its handling of the resident’s repairs and compensation since September 2024.

What we did not investigate

17. The resident told us the use of latex in his property’s flooring had a negative effect on his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts can deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

18. The resident reported his latex allergy in 2022 and 2023 before the landlord repaired the property. The landlord’s contractor acknowledged this and agreed not to use latex in the property. We expect landlords to keep records about such vulnerability and health information where these may have an effect on its housing services. There is no evidence the landlord did so, even though it recorded the resident had health physical health conditions and disabilities, which was unreasonable.
19. In June 2024, the landlord reviewed the flooring repairs it completed, after the resident accessed the property and became unwell. The landlord found it used latex, which was not in keeping with its promise to use vinyl in response to the resident’s allergy. The landlord’s decision to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the resident’s health concerns was right. However, it did not keep its promise, which was inappropriate.
20. The landlord apologised to the resident for its use of latex and said it would put matter right by completing more repairs than it originally planned. It was appropriate for the landlord to remove all latex in recognition of its poor repair handling and the resident’s health needs.
21. The landlord said it had no records the resident reported his allergy. This caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble resending earlier correspondence and providing evidence from his GP. It also damaged his trust in the landlord.
22. The landlord did not address the matter in its final complaint response, which was unreasonable given the risk and distress the matter caused the resident. It agreed to consider compensation when it completed the repairs, but it did not offer compensation for its handling of his concerns about its use of latex as it should have to put matters right. This was not fair. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its use of latex. We have ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused him. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range for such failures that have adversely affected the resident. As the landlord removed the latex after the final complaint response, we have not ordered further repairs.

23. For the landlord to put right its use of latex in the property, it said from before June 2024 onwards that it needed to remove and store the resident’s belongings. The landlord offered to photograph, record, and store the items so they were safe. Alternatively, it said he could sign to waive responsibility from the landlord and its contractors for any lost or damaged items. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide options to the resident to protect its own interests and the resident’s belongings. The resident said he wished to handle the storage of his belongings himself, as he did not trust the landlord to do so and felt this breached his privacy.
24. The parties looked for solutions to inventory the resident’s belongings from June 2024. They investigated the use of PPE to do so. However, when the landlord recognised it did not have the specialist PPE knowledge needed to use this to address his vulnerabilities in July 2024, it passed decisions on PPE to the resident. This was unreasonable. The landlord installed latex in the property and, while the decision to access the property was the resident’s own, it should have made sure this was safe for him in light of his vulnerabilities. It was not possible for him or it to confirm that the chosen PPE would protect the resident. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to get specialist or professional medical advice about the resident’s exposure to known allergens and what if any PPE could protect him from them.
25. The parties came to an agreement about the removal and storage of the items in September 2024 using a structure in the resident’s garden and help from his friends. The agreed solution allowed the resident to clear the property for repairs to start, which was positive. However, it would also have been right for the landlord to complete a risk assessment with the resident for this at that time, given his vulnerabilities, the likelihood of his exposure to allergens, and his reliance on medication for this.
26. The landlord said it would be liable for the resident’s stored belongings in its final complaint response in September 2024, which was appropriate to manage his expectations. It also said it would refund his costs for providing PPE, packing materials, and labour, which was reasonable. It refunded his costs and agreed to provide compensation when it completed the repairs, which was positive. It did not, however, give him compensation to recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience the removal of his belongings caused him. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents belongings and we have ordered it to apologise and pay him £250 compensation for this. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range for such failures that have adversely affected the resident.

27. The resident said his blinds went missing when the landlord accessed and repaired his property. We have not seen how the landlord investigated his allegation. However, it agreed to replace the blinds in its final complaint response in September 2024. This was reasonable under the circumstances to recognise its acceptance of liability for resident’s property while completing repairs. The landlord has not kept this promise to replace the blinds, however, which caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the matter. We have therefore found service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation for its delays and £130 for the costs of the blinds in keeping with its stage 2 promise. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range for such delays in getting matters resolved, which also permits us to order the payment of actual costs if we have found such failures.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints and it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It can extend these timescales by 10 and 20 working days, respectively, by explaining why to the resident and agreeing when a full response will be sent. Its response timescales for the resident’s 2 August 2024 stage 1 and 21 August 2024 stage 2 complaints were in line with these requirements. It extended the stage 1 complaint response target on 14 August 2024 and responded within a further 10 working days on 21 August 2024, which was reasonable. It would have been better, however, if it agreed this with the resident, in line with its policy, instead of telling him about it.
29. The landlord nevertheless did not fully address the resident’s stage 1 complaint, such as his concerns about the use of latex. This was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and caused the resident time and trouble escalating the complaint.
30. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s 21 August 2024 stage 2 complaint within its policy’s 20-working-day response timescale on 12 September 2024. It reviewed its complaint handling in its final complaint response and it apologised for the time taken to address his concerns. It explained why it felt it was right for a named staff member to respond, which was reasonable under the circumstances. However, it did not show how it learnt from the complaint. It also did not provide an expected timescale for the outstanding repairs, or when it would offer further compensation payments, to manage the resident’s expectations.
31. The landlord did not say if it upheld the complaint in line with the Code’s requirement for it to do so. It also did not recognise or offer him compensation for the complaint handling failings we have found. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have therefore ordered it to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation for its minor failings to put things right, in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range to do so for this.

Learning

32. The landlord delayed paying the compensation it promised in an earlier stage 2 complaint response, which caused inconvenience to the resident.
33. The landlord told the resident it extended his stage 2 complaint response, instead of agreeing this with him in line with the Code.
34. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment or get advice from a specialist when arranging for the resident to handle his belongings that he reported could expose him to an allergen.
35. The landlord did not replace or pay for new blinds as it promised, which caused the resident time and trouble chasing this agreement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not record the resident’s latex allergy on its housing databases after the resident shared this information with it. Given the potential health effects of the allergy, and the likelihood the landlord might complete repairs using latex, this was unreasonable. We have therefore ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his health concerns and update its housing records where relevant to make sure they are correct and up to date.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication was of a good standard. It emailed or spoke to the resident when there was new information about the matters. Its complaint responses were clear, detailed, and offered solutions that balanced its tenancy responsibilities with the resident’s preferences. It also committed to review its compensation offers after it completed repairs.