Shian Housing Association Limited (202315994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315994

Shian Housing Association Limited

24 March 2026

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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct between January 2023 and February 2024.
2. Response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
3. Handling of restrictions on the resident’s contact between January 2023 and February 2024.
4. Handling of repairs reported by the resident between January 2023 and February 2024.
5. Handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 1-bed flat, since 1995.
The resident has told the landlord that she has disabilities but has not disclosed what they are. She has told this Service that she is dyslexic and finds writing difficult. She has also stated that she had a brain injury, memory issues, difficulty absorbing information, and mobility issues. She has stated that she made the landlord aware of this previously.

Scope of the investigation

This Service is aware that the landlord implemented restrictions on the resident’s contact in early 2022.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
The resident made a formal complaint in August 2023. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from January 2023 onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.
Within her communications with this Service the resident has raised several concerns that have not been raised with the landlord through its complaints process. These concerns include that the landlord:
1. Had discriminated against her.
2. Refused to carry out her repairs unless they were “health and safety jobs”.
3. Had upgraded neighbouring properties but not hers.
4. Had referred her for a mental health assessment without notifying her and without her permission.
5. Had not addressed her experiences of antisocial behaviour from neighbours.
While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord should be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident has also reported that in November 2023 she was assaulted by an operative employed by the landlord’s contractor. This was considered as a stage 1 complaint by the landlord however there is no evidence that the resident sought to escalate her concerns at this time. As this complaint has not been considered at stage 2 of the landlord’s process we would not usually investigate the issue as it has not completed the landlord’s complaints process. In this case, the resident has stated that she attempted to escalate the complaint but that the landlord refused to accept her escalation, we have considered this issue.

Events prior to the period of investigation

In early 2022 the landlord implemented restrictions on the resident’s contact in accordance with its unacceptable actions policy. It stated that the resident could call it for no more than 5 minutes per day.
Between February 2022 and March 2023 the landlord reviewed the contact restriction 6 times. It wrote to the resident on each occasion advising that the restriction would remain in place as she had continued to display unacceptable behaviour.

Summary of events

The landlord’s call logs demonstrate that on 16 January 2023 the resident telephoned to report that her kitchen sink was blocked. The landlord asked if it could inspect her kitchen flooring repair in relation to an outstanding repair report at the same time as inspecting the sink. The resident asked how many operatives would be attending and was advised that 2 operatives would attend. The resident said that she did not want 2 operatives to attend as she was “shielding” due to COVID-19. The landlord advised 2 operatives were required and that as the call had been ongoing for more than 15 minutes it would be ending the call. The notes state that the resident “started ranting and raving” and that the call was ended without an appointment being made.
The evidence shows the resident called the landlord again on 19 January 2023 to request an update on the repair. The landlord reminded her of the call earlier in the week and the resident disputed the events as described.
On 8 February 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord to arrange an appointment to inspect her kitchen flooring. The landlord said that she needed to put her availability in writing due to previous missed appointments. The landlord described the resident’s behaviour as “difficult” and said she would not confirm her availability.
The call logs demonstrate that the resident telephoned the landlord 5 times on 13 February 2023 and 3 March 2023 asking to speak to different staff members. When the landlord advised the staff member was unavailable the resident hung up and called back from a different number and asked to speak to an alternative staff member. The call logs stated the resident began discussing historical complaints and was advised that the landlord would not discuss matters that had been previously resolved.
On 8 March 2023 the resident telephoned to report a repair for the communal lighting. She then asked to book an appointment for her kitchen flooring and sink. The resident said she was available the following day or the day after and was unhappy when the landlord explained that this was too short notice to arrange an appointment. The call log stated the landlord ended the call as the call had lasted 13 minutes and the resident would not let the staff member speak. The resident called back later the same day and provided alternative dates that she was available to provide access for the kitchen repairs. The landlord asked if it could call back later after confirming the appointment with its contractor. The call log indicates the resident became upset and stated it should not take so long to arrange an appointment.
The landlord booked an appointment for 14 March 2023 but its contractor advised it was unable to attend on that day. It therefore wrote to the resident to advise her of this and asked for her availability. Later records indicate that the contractor did in fact attend on 14 March 2023 but that the resident refused access.
Meanwhile, on 10 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that as there had been no change in her behaviour the contact restriction would remain in place.
On 12 April 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord regarding a historical complaint about a contractor. The landlord reminded her that it would not discuss previously resolved issues with her. The resident stated that she no longer wanted one of the contractors to visit her home. The landlord advised that this would delay the repairs and that it may be more practical if the resident find her own contractor and it would pay the contractor directly. The resident said the landlord should do its job and she would not arrange for her own contractor.
The resident called the landlord again on 27 April 2023 and said her blocked kitchen sink needed urgent attention. She also advised that the kitchen door did not shut and the extractor fan was “leaking” and said she wanted an appointment as soon as possible.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord raised an order for repairs to the kitchen extractor fan, door, flooring and sink. The works order stated that 2 operatives should attend the property as the resident could be “problematic”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June 2023 regarding the contact restrictions. It said:
1. The resident had:

a. Contacted the office several times regarding repairs but would not cooperate in providing access.

b. Kept staff on the phone while she “rehashed” issues that had already been dealt with.

c. Made “false allegations” about its contractors.

d. Been “very difficult” and had asked staff to repeat notes verbatim and then disputed the information given.

It was therefore reasonable and fair that it communicated with her in writing.
If she chose to continue calling the office staff would terminate the call if she:

a. Raised historical issues that had already been addressed.

b. Directed staff as to how to record information.

c. Kept staff on the call for an “unreasonable amount of time for the issues [she was] reporting”.

On 5 July 2023 the contractor attended and cleared the blocked sink and realigned the door. The report from the contractor stated that the extractor fan was not leaking but that it had grease “dripping” from it so a new fan would need to be ordered.
On 3 August 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident who raised concerns regarding staff conduct, the landlord’s handling of her request for reasonable adjustments due to her disabilities, the contact restrictions, and outstanding repairs. We wrote to the landlord and asked that it respond to the resident’s complaint (Complaint 1) within 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint 1 on 8 August 2023. When doing so, it asked for further information regarding:

a. The resident’s statement that staff had used “explicit language” and had made reports regarding her actions which were false.

b. Occasions during which the resident felt that staff had refused to accept her calls or progress her complaints.

c. The resident’s disabilities so it could assess what reasonable adjustments or support was required.

d. What outstanding repairs she was referring to.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 August 2023 and offered a choice of 3 appointment dates for replacing the extractor fan and the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and investigating the uneven flooring in the hallway. The landlord sent a further letter on 24 August 2023 as the resident had not responded to its previous letter.
On 30 August 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord regarding her repairs. The call log stated that the landlord asked for her availability and the resident refused to provide any dates.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again regarding her repairs. It said it was still waiting for her to confirm her availability.
On the same date it also wrote to the resident regarding a visit she had made to its local office on 29 August 2023. The landlord stated that the resident had reached around a security screen and taken a tablet belonging to the landlord from a desk. It said that while she had returned the tablet her behaviour had been unacceptable. The landlord went on to say that the resident had pushed past staff and cut in front of a vulnerable resident with mobility issues when leaving the office. It banned her from the office until she gave an “undertaking” not to repeat the behaviour.
On 14 September 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s complaint. We advised that the resident had stated that:
1. She was finding it difficult to get hold of the single point of contact (SPOC) that she had been assigned.
2. This was impacting her ability to arrange repairs and progress her complaint.
3. She found providing written information difficult and preferred to talk on the phone.
4. She was unaware of any formal contact restrictions or the reasons that they were in place.
On 18 September 2023 the evidence shows that the resident telephoned the landlord and said she wished to discuss her disability. The call notes state that the landlord asked her to provide dates that she was available for the kitchen repairs but that she replied she would do so once she had discussed her health conditions. The notes stated that the staff member “told her to give [them] dates but she kept on saying about…chemicals”. The notes state that the landlord asked the resident for her availability repeatedly and she refused to provide dates so the landlord terminated the call.

On 20 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 1. It said:
1. It had written to her to request information relating to her complaint on 8 August 2023. It had telephoned her on 15 August 2023 again asking her for the required information.
2. It had telephoned her again on 5 September 2023 to explain that it was having issues with its IT system and was unable to access its records and this had delayed its stage 1 response.
3. The resident had failed to provide information regarding her concerns regarding staff conduct. It had therefore been unable to investigate the concerns and could not uphold the complaint.
4. The resident had refused to share information regarding the nature of her disabilities. It could therefore not assess what reasonable adjustments were required.
5. The resident wanted it to remove the time restriction on calls. It was unwilling to do so for the reasons previously explained.
6. It would be happy to work with a nominated representative and copy the resident into all correspondence.
7. The contact restrictions were in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. It had been implemented because its staff reported that conversations with the resident resulted in:

a. “Lengthy and repetitive discussions” in which the resident “rehashed” the same points. This was “mentally exhausting and frustrating for…staff”.

b. “Resolution challenges” as the resident avoided answering questions that would assist in finding a resolution.

c. The resident insisting that staff take verbatim notes and then read them back to her. She then disputed the information recorded.

d. Staff being kept on calls for “extended periods disproportionate to the issue being reported”.

While it had a duty of care to the resident it also had a duty of care for its staff who felt “harassed” by the resident’s behaviour.
While the resident claimed she had not been made aware of the restrictions formally, they had been explained to her verbally and in writing “on a number of occasions”.
It was regularly reviewing the restrictions based on her behaviour.

The resident had requested:

a. A single point of contact – this was not possible due to how the landlord operated and the size of its team.

b. That repairs resume and that she be given a plan of works – it had been waiting for the resident to confirm her availability for the repairs. It attached a works order which outlined the repairs required.

c. Evidence regarding “allegations” against her by members of staff – it would not share this information due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Staff had shared their concerns with their employer in confidence and did not consent to their personal data being shared.

It would only consider a stage 2 complaint request if the resident:

a. Identified an area of the original complaint which was not adequately addressed.

b. Identified significant information that was provided at stage 1 but was not fully considered by the landlord.

c. Provided this information in writing.

The records demonstrate that on 21 September 2023 the landlord confirmed an appointment for 10 October 2023 and 11 October 2023 to complete the repairs to the kitchen and the hallway flooring.
On 21 September 2023 this Service wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident. We advised that the resident had asked that the landlord contact her regarding her health conditions and products being used by the contractor. We advised that “the repairs may not go ahead” without these discussions. The records show that the landlord cancelled the appointment the following day and emailed this Service. It said:
1. It could not contact the resident as she had requested it not to contact her.
2. It was unsure why the resident had not mentioned any issues with chemicals used before.
3. It had spoken to the contractor who confirmed it would be using “plywood, nails, vinyl flooring, silicone, and adhesive to stick the vinyl and decorative caulk”.

The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2023 and said it had reviewed the contact restrictions and that it would remain in place. It said this was because the resident had:
1. Contacted the office several times in relation to repair issues but had not cooperated with access.
2. Kept staff on the phone while she “tried to rehash historic issues that [it had] already dealt with”.
3. Made “false allegations” against its contractors.
4. Tended “to be very difficult”, did not respond to staff enquiries, and asked them to repeat their notes verbatim and then disputed the information.
On 4 October 2023 this Service telephoned the landlord who confirmed that it would make an exception to the contact restrictions in order that the resident could call to escalate her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 October 2023 and advised it had cancelled the repairs appointment for 10 October 2023 as requested by this Service. It asked that the resident provide her availability so that the works could be rearranged.
The resident wrote to this Service on 23 October 2023 and stated:
1. She had protected characteristics and the landlord had “weaponised” her disability against her.
2. She had filled in a form in 2015 making the landlord aware of her disabilities but it denied this.
3. The landlord had made false claims about her including that she had been abusive and physically violent to staff.
4. Its call logs were “incorrect” and there were files “missing” from its records.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 10 November 2023 and said she would be available on 14 November 2023 or 15 November 2023 for the repairs to her kitchen extractor and kitchen door. The landlord advised it would need 7 days’ notice to arrange an appointment.
The resident called back on 17 November 2023 and said she was available on 22 November 2023 or 23 November 2023. The contractor confirmed that it would attend on 23 November 2023.
The contractor attended the property on 23 November 2023 and the works invoice stated that it “did not complete [the] works [and] wasted all morning at the property”. It emailed the landlord and said that the appointment had been a “waste of time” as the resident would not let them do any works and was arguing about how the job should be done and in what order.
On the same date the resident contacted this Service and said the contractor had attended and tried to fit the wrong extractor fan. She said the operative damaged the property leaving grease marks on the wall and drilling holes in the door and left having not replaced the extractor.
On 28 November 2023 this Service advised the landlord following contact from the resident that she wanted it to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 of its complaint process. We advised the landlord to provide a stage 2 response by 9 January 2024.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 1 December 2023 and said she wanted to book a repair. The landlord said it would pass her availability on to the repair team who were not available. The resident said she would “keep ringing” until she could talk to the repairs department and hung up the phone.
On 1 December 2023 the resident contacted this Service and said she had been assaulted by the landlord’s contractor on Tuesday that week (28 November 2023). She stated that she had tried to report this to the landlord but it kept hanging up on her and was not allowing her to put in her complaint.
On 4 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise Complaint 2. She said that she had been assaulted by its contractor when it attended to repair her extractor fan on 23 November 2023. The landlord contacted its contractor on the same day and asked for it to provide a report so it could investigate the resident’s concerns.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2023 regarding her request to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 of the complaints process. It stated that it was unable to escalate the complaint unless the criteria set out in the stage 1 response were met. It also stated that the deadline to escalate the complaint was 20 October 2023 which had already passed. The landlord advised that if the resident had “extenuating circumstances” which had prevented her from responding on time or providing the requested additional information she should inform it by 2 January 2023.
On 20 December 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord about escalating Complaint 1 to stage 2 of the complaints process again. The landlord asked if she had any information to support the escalation and to explain the “out of time request”. The resident said she did not have any further information but wanted the landlord to provide its records so she could use this to support the escalation.
The resident telephoned this Service on 20 December 2023 and stated that she had tried to provide the landlord with the requested information over the telephone. She said the landlord had refused to accept the information and the staff member raised her voice and then hung up the phone on her. She said the landlord was refusing her the right to escalate her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 December 2023 and said it had again reviewed the contact restrictions. It said the restrictions would remain in place as the resident’s behaviour had not changed.
Also on 22 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her stage 2 escalation of Complaint 1. It said she had not provided any mitigating reasons for missing the deadline for requesting an escalation and had not provided any relevant information to support the complaint. It reiterated the grounds for escalation and advised her to provide any supporting information by 2 January 2024.
On the same date the landlord provided a ‘pre-decision letter’ in relation to Complaint 2. It said:
1. The resident had failed to provide additional information in relation to her report that on 22 November 2023 she had been assaulted by a contractor’s operative and that he had caused damage to her kitchen blinds and left greasy marks on the kitchen walls.
2. The operative had been interviewed and “strongly refuted the allegation”. It attached a copy of the contractor’s statement.
3. It noted that it had taken her 12 days to bring the incident to its attention.
4. She had made “similar allegations about other contractors” in the past which were “all unfounded”. It said it was therefore likely that the complaint would not be upheld due to the resident’s “previous behaviour against…contractors”.
5. She had complained that the communal door to the block of flats was not shutting properly. The contractor had attended on 8 December 2023 and resolved the issue. This part of the complaint would likely not be upheld as it had addressed the issue promptly when reported.
6. She had also complained that a communal light was not working. This was inspected on 8 December 2023 and equipment needed to resolve the issue had been ordered. There was sufficient lighting from other lights in the interim. This part of the complaint would likely not be upheld as it had addressed the issue promptly when reported.

The contractor’s statement said:
1. The operative had, prior to the interview, requested not to be sent back to the property and he was the third operative to make this request.
2. He had denied the resident’s reports and had said that the resident had asked constant questions during the appointment, rushed him and wanted the work completed “in a sequence to her liking”.
3. He said he had left the property to buy a fan and when he returned the resident was not there.
4. When she returned, she had advised she no longer wanted the extractor fan replacing and asked the operative to block up the hole and leave her the new extractor he had purchased. He had refused.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 January 2024 in relation to Complaint 1. It stated that she had failed to respond to its previous letter and had not provided any further information in support of her complaint. It therefore would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process.
Also on 5 January 2024, the landlord also provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. It said:
1. The resident had delayed in reporting the incident and had previously made similar “unfounded” allegations about other contractors.
2. “Taking into account [her] history of making unfounded complaints against [its] contractors and [the] lack of evidence to substantiate the current complaint, [it did] not find that the events that [she] complained about [were likely] on the balance of probability to have taken place”.
3. The complaint regarding the repairs to the communal door and lighting was not upheld as the issues were resolved promptly and in line with its repairs obligations.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 15 January 2024 and said it had not heard from her following its previous letters regarding her repairs. It advised that in order to allow it to comply with its repair obligations the resident could either:
1. Appoint contractor of her choice and it would liaise with them and pay for the repairs directly; or
2. Appoint a representative to manage her housing management issues and it would liaise with them directly.
On 16 January 2024 the resident telephoned the landlord and asked to arrange her repairs. The landlord reiterated the options it had outlined in its letter.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2024 and said that the landlord was refusing to take her statement in relation to Complaint 2, had closed the complaint and was no longer taking her calls.
On 2 February 2024 this Service advised the landlord to issue a formal response to the resident in relation to Complaint 1 detailing why it would not escalate her complaint. It did so on 12 February 2024 and said:
1. While the resident had contacted it several times, she had not provided additional information to support the complaint.
2. It understood that she may have “vulnerabilities”, but she had not provided further information about this.
3. It requested that she advise what her support needs were so it could signpost her to support and make reasonable adjustments.
4. The complaint would not be escalated to stage 2.
5. It suggested she appoint a representative.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.

It is recognised that the resident has been distressed by what she perceived to be unfair treatment by the landlord.
Our role is not to establish whether the staff behaviour the resident has reported should be considered unacceptable. Instead, the purpose of the Ombudsman’s investigation is to consider whether the landlord responded reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s reports of poor contractor behaviour.
In Complaint 1 the resident referred to the conduct of the landlord’s staff. This conduct related to its communication with her and has therefore been assessed within the assessment of the contact restrictions.
In Complaint 2 the resident stated that she had been assaulted by an operative during a repairs appointment on 23 November 2023. She stated:
1. The contractor initially refused to complete the extractor fan replacement or remedial works on the door.
2. The contractor pushed past her and their elbow went into her breast.
3. The contractor did not apologise.
4. The contractor was very aggressive.
5. The contractor damaged the fan and blinds.
6. The contractor left a mess and marks on the walls.
7. A clock with sentimental value was damaged.
8. A personal item went missing.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised complaint 2 on 1 and 4 December 2023. The landlord referred the matter to the contracting company who conducted an interview with the contractor. The contracting company reported that the contractor denied the resident’s version of events. It stated that the contractor had asked not to attend the property again. The contracting company stated that any further appointments should only go ahead with housing management present.
The available evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. It approached the contracting company and obtained the contractor’s version of events. The landlord also provided the resident with a copy of the contractor’s statement. However, it is not clear that the landlord undertook any other investigative steps. For example, attending the property to assess the damage or unfinished jobs the resident reported. The landlord could also have spoken to the resident face-to-face to obtain a more detailed explanation of the incident from her.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 5 January 2024 stated that “you have made similar allegations against other contractors in the past. Each complaint we found was unfounded after we investigated… Taking into account your history of making unfounded complaints against our contractors and your lack of evidence to substantiate the current complaint, we do not find that the events that you complained about are unlikely [sic] on the balance of probability to have taken place”.
We have not assessed the relevant evidence from the previous allegations. However. ‘unfounded’ indicates that the landlord was certain that the resident’s previous claims had no foundation or basis in fact. Unless there is proven evidence that an allegation was fabricated, landlords should avoid definitive language such as ‘unfounded’ in complaint responses. The landlord’s conclusion that, due to the resident’s previous allegations, it had not upheld her current complaint suggests that the landlord had prejudged the outcome and she was not given a fair opportunity for her complaint to be heard impartially.
The landlord should have taken more steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It is possible that the landlord may have come to the same outcome, but the landlord should have done more. In cases such as this, where there are differing recollections and no independent way to verify what occurred, it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion. However, on this occasion, the landlord has decided, on limited evidence, that the events the resident complained about did not occur. The landlord also presented its findings to the resident in an unhelpful and divisive manner, further impacting her relationship with the landlord and reinforcing an ‘us and them’ mentality.
It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to confirm that it was unable to determine what occurred. That is, that there was insufficient evidence to confirm what happened during the appointment on 23 November 2023. The landlord’s response should not have indicated that it was already minded to distrust the resident’s version of events due to previous allegations. This was inappropriate and unfair.
The landlord took some investigative steps to look into the resident’s allegations. However, it could have done more to gather additional evidence. I agree that the landlord had insufficient evidence to uphold the resident’s complaint, but that does not mean that the landlord should have concluded that her version of events did not occur. The landlord acted unfairly by basing its decision on previous events.
There was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it has not appropriately acknowledged this. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with an apology and a compensation payment of £50 for the inconvenience and distress experienced.
This Service notes that within internal communications and direct communications with the resident language used by the landlord has not been entirely appropriate or professional. While staff should be able to record how a resident has behaved it is important that they remain professional and indicate when they are expressing an opinion. It is accepted that the language was likely not intentionally used to cause upset. Referring to the resident using emotive terms such as “difficult” and “problematic” and referring to her behaviour as “ranting and raving”, “rehashing” past events, or making “false allegations” was not professional. Nor was it conducive to improving the landlord-resident relationship. Orders have been made for the landlord to review its communication with residents.

Response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

The landlord operates a ‘vulnerable tenant policy’. This states:
1. It will not make assumptions about a resident’s requirements.
2. It will make reasonable adjustments to its services where it is notified of a “condition or situation disadvantaging a customer”.
The landlord’s policy contains sufficient flexibility to allow a wide range of residents to obtain the reasonable adjustments required to ensure they are able to fully access services. It does not limit its definition and provision only to those with diagnosed disabilities and this is positive.
The resident has disclosed several disabilities and support needs to this Service. We have not however seen evidence that the resident has disclosed these issues to the landlord.
The resident has referred to having provided this information to the landlord in 2015. While we have not seen evidence to corroborate this, this is outside of the timeframe considered by this investigation.
The evidence shows that on several occasions the landlord has specifically asked the resident for information relating to any disabilities or support needs. We have not seen evidence that the resident has responded. As the resident has not provided details of her requirements the landlord is unable to make reasonable adjustments as it would be inappropriate for it to make assumptions about her needs.
It is noted that on one occasion however in September 2023 the evidence demonstrates that the resident said she wanted to discuss her disability requirements. The call notes indicate that the staff member “repeatedly” asked the resident for her availability for repairs appointments despite her saying she would discuss this after speaking about her health issues. On this occasion the landlord missed an opportunity to gather the resident’s disability information. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to make a further attempt to gather information on the resident’s disability requirements.
Overall, the resident has not provided the landlord with details of her disabilities or support needs and therefore it has been unable to assess what reasonable adjustments are required. While the landlord missed an opportunity to gather the information it has given the resident the opportunity to provide the information on several occasions. There has therefore been no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

Handling of restrictions on the resident’s contact

All landlords should have a policy in place to help manage residents who present unacceptable behaviours. These residents can be challenging for landlord staff to deal with and can take up an unreasonable amount of time and resources.
The policy should reflect that all residents should be dealt with fairly, honestly, consistently and appropriately including those whose actions are considered unacceptable. The landlord has to balance the right for residents to be heard, understood and respected with the landlord’s duty to protect employees.
The landlord’s unacceptable actions policy details the following types of unacceptable behaviour:
1. Aggressive or abusive behaviour (both physical and verbal);
2. Unreasonable demands (for example, frequency and length of telephone calls);
3. Unreasonable persistence (for example, refusing to accept the answer that has been provided or continuing to raise the same subject matter without providing any new evidence).
The policy states that if the resident’s action adversely or disproportionately affects the landlord’s ability to carry out its work and provide a service to others, it will manage the unacceptable behaviour by restricting its contact with the resident.
As such, the landlord’s policy makes it clear that behaviour is not unacceptable simply because a resident is assertive or determined. Behaviour can become unacceptable if it is so demanding or persistent that it places unreasonable demands on the landlord and impacts the level of service that can be offered to others.
The policy confirms that restrictions will usually be for a minimum of 6 months. The resident has the right to appeal and the landlord will review a decision to restrict contact if the resident demonstrates modified behaviour.
The landlord’s policy confirms that its staff will end telephone calls if the caller is considered aggressive, unreasonable, abusive or offensive. The staff member will give the caller 2 verbal warnings and tell the caller their behaviour is unacceptable or unreasonable and end the call if the behaviour does not stop or where the caller refuses to modify their behaviour.
On this occasion, the landlord imposed contact restrictions in 2022. The available evidence shows that the landlord reviewed its decision regularly. It wrote to the resident to explain that the communication restriction remained in place and its reasons for this decision. These were noted as:
1. Not allowing access to the property for repairs;
2. Discussing historical issues at length with staff;
3. False allegations against contractors;
4. Being ‘very difficult’ and not responding to staff enquiries.
The landlord stated that the resident (or her representative) should communicate in writing. It explained that the resident was permitted to call and speak to staff, but only for a maximum of 5 minutes a day.
The landlord’s written record of the calls show that when the resident spoke with staff the calls were frequently long and the focus was often related to historic matters. It is acknowledged that some of this contact was challenging for the landlord to respond to and manage. In line with the landlord’s policy, these behaviours could be considered unreasonable demands or persistence. As such, the landlord was entitled to consider restricting the resident’s contact. However, it was required to ensure this was done reasonably.
The reference to the resident being ‘very difficult’ was a poor choice of language from the landlord. This type of language is patronising and counter productive to finding a solution that works for all parties.
Following the resident’s visit to the landlord’s office on 29 August 2023, the landlord wrote to her on 8 September 2023. It confirmed that she was banned from the office until she gave an undertaking not to repeat the behaviour from 29 August 2023. The landlord stated that the resident had reached around a security screen and taken a tablet belonging to the landlord from a desk. Although she returned the tablet, the landlord considered the resident’s behaviour unacceptable. The landlord also highlighted that when the resident left the office she ‘pushed past’ a member of staff and cut in front of a vulnerable resident.
We have reviewed the video footage from the office on 29 August 2023. There are 2 video angles provided. One inside the office in the reception area and another showing the street and entrance door. The footage of the resident’s exit shows that she was a little impatient and did not wait for those with mobility issues to exit first. I would not ordinarily expect a landlord to consider it worthy of comment. However, the resident picked up the tablet from a restricted area and this was inappropriate behaviour. It is understandable that the landlord asked the resident not to repeat this conduct in future. In line with the landlord’s policy, this behaviour could be considered unreasonable. As such, it was entitled to consider restricting the resident’s visits to the office.
Any restriction on contact should reflect the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010 and show due regard for an individual’s medical condition and vulnerability. Accordingly, any restrictions imposed on a resident’s contact should recognise and be appropriate to their individual circumstances.
The resident has explained that reading and writing is not easy for her. As such, her preferred contact method is telephone. This means that the landlord’s restriction of contact by telephone to only 5 minutes per day was unreasonable. This contact restriction was heavy handed and unlikely to work – leading to a further deterioration of the landlord/tenant relationship rather than a resolution.
The landlord has indicated that it was not fully aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities due to the limited information provided by her. Landlords cannot rely on residents to self-refer. Landlord staff should be able to recognise signs of possible resident vulnerability when dealing with routine appointments or interactions. If further information is required to properly determine if a resident is vulnerable, landlords should ask residents for this (in a non-intrusive manner). As a minimum, we would expect the landlord’s contact restriction letters to have asked the resident if she had any communication needs that might affect its decision to restrict her contact.
When considering its approach to vulnerabilities and individual circumstances, meeting legal requirements should be the baseline, not the aspiration. Landlords should consider creative, person-centred and bespoke responses to the individual needs of their residents. Where landlords feel there are barriers to effective service delivery, they should consider what needs to be put in place to assist the resident and show a willingness to do things differently.
We have therefore ordered the landlord to review its contact restriction, communication preferences and arrangements for repairs appointments for the resident. Ultimately, these matters are decisions for the landlord to make on its own. However, we have ordered the landlord to reconsider its position and to take on board our proposed solutions.
As set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and our more recent report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, recording vulnerabilities is the first step in a landlord providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately.
From the information provided by the landlord, it is not clear that it is fully aware of the resident’s health issues. We have ordered the landlord to update its records with regard to her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s lack of knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities has led to it implementing contact restrictions which were unsuitable for her needs. Er have reached a finding of service failure is correct and ordered compensation of £75 for the inconvenience, distress and detriment caused due to its shortfalls in handling this matter.
We have also ordered that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights. It should consider implementing the recommendations in that report, in particular, testing its vulnerability and reasonable adjustments strategy and policy against the ‘3Rs’ on vulnerable residents – recognise, respond and record. The landlord should also consider the recommendation from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights regarding ensuring its communications are underpinned with a baseline of empathy and respect.

Handling of repairs reported by the resident.

The landlord’s repair policy states it will make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours and arrange for a permanent repair the next working day. It aims to resolve urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days.
The evidence demonstrates that the resident first reported issues with her kitchen sink in January 2023 and with her kitchen extractor fan and door in April 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident first reported issues with the flooring in the kitchen and hallway.
The call logs demonstrate that the resident telephoned the landlord on many occasions between January 2023 and December 2023 in relation to her kitchen repairs. On each occasion the landlord asked the resident to provide her availability so appointments could be booked but she refused. The landlord also wrote to the resident on several occasions asking that she provide her availability for the repairs. We have not seen evidence that she responded.
Having reviewed the call logs and correspondence between the resident and the landlord, the landlord took reasonable steps during 2023 to try to arrange repairs. The problem in arranging appointments instead appears to be the product of the resident’s fractured relationship with the landlord.
To resolve the repairs issues the landlord asked the resident to either appoint a representative to communicate on her behalf or to appoint her own contractor who it would pay directly. These were reasonable solutions in the circumstances of the case and the resident is encouraged to consider these options.
Nevertheless, 2 years later, the repairs are still unaddressed. As such, it is clear that the landlord’s alternative solutions, although reasonable, have not been successful. We have ordered the landlord to review its arrangements for repairs appointments.
The resident is concerned that further appointments may lead to further allegations against her from contractors. We have therefore ordered the landlord to consider arranging appointments with a landlord member of staff (such as her single point of contact [SPOC] or a housing officer) in attendance as well as a contractor. The landlord is required to confirm that both landlord staff and contractors that attend will have valid ID with them. The landlord should also confirm appointment times and dates with the resident by telephone.
Given the number of repairs the resident has reported that are outstanding, it is appropriate for the landlord to complete a full inspection of the property. This should include an assessment of whether the kitchen and bathroom are due an upgrade. The surveyor will assess each room and identify repairs required. Their recommendations for further work will be fed back to the landlord who will then arrange appointments for the remedial work to be completed. We have also recommended that the landlord inspects the lighting in the car park.
The resident has also indicated that she no longer considers the property to be suitable for her due to her health conditions. We have therefore recommended that the landlord assesses the suitability of the resident’s home and determines her options for adaptations, housing support or specialist housing. This should be completed in collaboration with an occupational therapist and the resident’s support worker (if applicable) from the council.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps during 2023 to try to arrange repairs. The problem in arranging appointments was a product of the resident’s fractured relationship with the landlord. To the landlord’s credit, it offered alternatives, such as communicating via a representative or allowing the resident to arrange her own contractor to complete the works and the landlord covering the cost. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident.

Handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
The complaints policy specifies that it will only consider stage 2 complaints if:
1. An area of the complaint was not adequately addressed.
2. Significant information provided at stage 1 was not “fully or substantially considered”.

The policy states that this information must be provided in writing within 28 calendar days of the stage 1 response.

It is noted that in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) we would expect the landlord to escalate the complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The landlord should therefore reasonably consider the merits of each escalation request it receives. In doing so, it may consider whether there are reasonable grounds for it not to escalate the complaint. It should exercise care and ensure that it is being fair and consistent when making such decisions.
We do not consider that it is reasonable or appropriate for the landlord to specify that escalations to stage 2 of the complaints process must be made in writing. This policy may limit access to the full process for those for whom written communication is difficult or not possible. An order has been made for the landlord to review this policy.
It took the landlord 34 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 1.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did contact the resident several times within this period. This was to request further information regarding her complaint and to advise that it was experiencing IT issues which was preventing it from fully accessing its records. While this goes some way towards explaining the delay, the landlord did not mention the IT issues until 5 September 2023 at which time the response was already overdue. It is therefore not clear how the IT issues prevented the landlord from issuing its response in time and consequently this was a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1 addressed each of the issues raised in the stage 1 complaint. It explained that as the resident has not provided additional information as it requested there was insufficient evidence to uphold her complaint.
The stage 1 response to Complaint 1 detailed why the contact restrictions had been put in place. This was appropriate. It is noted however that, as outlined earlier in the report, the language used by the landlord within this section of the response could reasonable be described as emotive.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 via this Service on 28 November 2023.
The landlord requested several times that the resident provide reasons why she had been unable to request the escalation within the policy timeframe. It also asked that she provide further evidence to support the complaint. We have not seen evidence that she responded. The landlord therefore refused to escalate the complaint on 5 January 2024 and reiterated this on 12 February 2024 at the request of this Service.
In relation to Complaint 2 the landlord provided a ‘pre decision letter’ 14 days after the complaint. This is outside the timeframe outlined in its policy. The pre decision letter included a copy of the contractor’s statement and gave the resident an opportunity to respond and provide further evidence.
We have not seen any evidence that the resident provided further information or responded to the landlord’s pre decision letter and it therefore issued its formal stage 1 complaint response 21 days after the complaint was raised. While this was slightly outside the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy and the Code, considering the severity of the report it was reasonable that the landlord took the time to fully investigate and give both parties the opportunity to provide an account of events.
The landlord did not uphold Complaint 2 due to a lack of evidence. It also cited previous “unfounded allegations”. While it is accepted that the landlord may have considered that there was a pattern of repeated reports by the resident it was not appropriate that this was cited as a fundamental reason for it not upholding the complaint. It would however have been fair and reasonable for the landlord not to uphold the complaint on the basis of a lack of corroborative evidence. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, the landlord must deal with complaints “on their merits, act independently, and have an open mind”.
Overall, the landlord’s response to Complaint 1 was slow and, while it sufficiently addressed all the issues raised by the resident, the language used was confrontational. In respect of Complaint 2, while it was reasonable that the landlord did not uphold the complaint, its reasoning for doing so was flawed. In addition, there have been occasions when the landlord’s tone and language has appeared patronising or biased. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have awarded £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to this matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct between January 2023 and February 2024.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of restrictions on the resident’s contact between January 2023 and February 2024.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident between January 2023 and February 2024.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the report. The landlord must ensure the apology:

(i) is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

(ii) has due regard to our apologies guidance.

Pay the resident £175 in compensation. This is made up as follows:

(i) £50 for its shortfalls in handling concerns about staff conduct between January 2023 and February 2024.

(ii) £75 for its shortfalls in handling contact restrictions between January 2023 and February 2024.

(iii) £50 for its shortfalls in complaint handling.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any compensation awards it has already paid to the resident in relation to the above failings.

Offer the resident support in identifying an advocate or representative (if required).
Offer a face-to-face meeting with the resident (and representative if appropriate). The landlord should consider a neutral location if possible.
Update its records with the resident’s vulnerabilities and support needs.

Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review its contact restriction, communication preferences and arrangements for repairs appointments for the resident. The landlord should consider the following proposed solutions:

(i) Review the restriction in relation to communication by telephone (if still applicable).

(ii) Review the restriction in relation to attending the landlord’s office (if still applicable).

(iii) Avoid asking the resident to communicate in writing.

(iv) Appoint a member of landlord staff to act as a single point of contact (SPOC) for the resident.

(v) Arrange a set day and time (limited to a maximum of 30 minutes) for the resident to call the SPOC on a fortnightly basis [some flexibility with the frequency of calls may be required when arranging appointments]. During this call, the resident agrees not to raise historic matters, but can report current repairs and other current matters relevant to her tenancy. The landlord agrees to read important letters to her that it has recently sent to her.

(vi) Confirm that the resident can call to report emergency/urgent repairs at any time. If the landlord identifies that the repair is not an emergency/urgent, the landlord is permitted to end the call and direct the resident to their regular call with their SPOC.

(vii) Confirm that all repairs appointments will be communicated to the resident by telephone via the SPOC.

(viii) Consider booking repairs appointments with a member of staff (this could be the SPOC or other housing officer) in attendance as well as a contractor.

(ix) Confirm that all contractors and landlord staff that attend repairs appointments will have valid ID with them.

(x) Consider the option of mediation through an independent third party.

Inform the resident of the outcome of its review at the face-to-face meeting or via a telephone call with the SPOC. Explain how the resident can appeal the outcome of the landlord’s review.
Take steps to consider any reasonable adjustments it can make to support communication with the resident.
Review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights. Consider implementing the recommendations in that report from pages 62, 63 and 64 – in particular, ensuring its communications are underpinned with a baseline of empathy and respect and testing its vulnerability and reasonable adjustments strategy and policy against the ‘3Rs’ on vulnerable residents – recognise, respond and record.

Final Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Arrange a surveyor’s appointment to complete a full inspection of the property and identify repairs. This should include an assessment of whether the kitchen and bathroom are due an upgrade. The surveyor should attend with another member of staff (this could be the SPOC or other housing officer) present.
2. Following the surveyor’s appointment, inform the resident (at the face-to-face meeting or via a telephone call with the SPOC) what repairs it intends to complete and provide a realistic timeframe of when they will be completed.
3. In collaboration with the council, assess the suitability of the resident’s home and determine the options for adaptations, housing support or specialist housing.
4. Discuss with the resident the option of moving to another landlord and offer any support it can in helping them to identify a suitable new property.
5. Discuss with the resident who she is comfortable with contacting her by telephone. Following this discussion, the landlord should update its records to ensure her contact preferences are followed by landlord staff and those working on its behalf.
6. Inspect the lighting in the car park.