A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202304843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304843

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 September 2024

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. Request for repairs to her:
  1. Rear garden.
  2. Front door.
  3. Electrics.
2. Concerns about her rent arrears.
3. Allegation of theft.
4. Kitchen and bathroom refurbishment.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 1 September 2003.
The resident is vulnerable and suffers from mental health issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. During the period of the complaint the resident expressed her intention to self-harm or complete suicide.
The resident experienced issues with pooling of water in her rear garden as early as 2019, making it impossible to use. The landlord’s investigations as to the cause were inconclusive. In June 2023 the landlord agreed to fund works to the garden to install a new drainage system and outlet for the flood water.
On 2 April 2023 the resident reported that her front door was damaged. She said the repair carried out by the landlord was insufficient and she did not feel safe in the property. The landlord agreed to replace the front door with a completion date of 30 June. It is unclear whether the door was replaced on this date. It also agreed to arrange for an appointment to inspect the electrics in the property. The nature of the electrical fault is unclear.
The landlord was granted a suspended possession order on 5 February 2009. It ordered the resident to pay £100 per calendar month off the rent arrears. The resident applied for a variation order and on 18 November the original order was varied to £3.25 per week off the arrears. The evidence shows that the resident began to fall behind on the order.
In 2021 the landlord made an arrangement with the resident for her to pay rent plus £50 per month off the arrears. On 2 April 2023 the resident advised the landlord that this amount was unaffordable and that she had felt pressured into paying it. She negotiated a new payment plan.
In March 2023 the landlord started works on a kitchen and bathroom refurbishment. However, on day 2 the resident made an allegation that one of the contractors stole £350 from her bedroom. The resident reported the matter to the police who investigated but did not take any further action. The works were postponed and a risk assessment carried out. The contractor advised the landlord that it would only continue works if the resident were decanted from the property. It is unclear when the resident was decanted or when the works were completed.
On 2 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord as follows:
1. She had felt pressurised into paying £50 per month off the arrears which was “killing” her because she could not afford to heat her home. She asked the landlord to confirm how much would have been outstanding if she had paid £3.25 per week through direct deductions from her benefits.
2. She said the police had forced her front door to gain entry in an emergency. The landlord had carried out a repair but it was not robust and the door did not close fully unless she applied the dead bolt. Due to the movement in the door the lock had become damaged. She said she had been advised she needed a new front door and frame.
3. Her mental health had deteriorated because of the situation with her garden.
4. She had hired a ‘man with a van’ to help move appliances from her kitchen ready for works to start on 14 March but no one attended. She had put the appliances back herself and injured herself doing so. She did not know why works had not gone ahead as planned.
On 30 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a further complaint about a number of issues, including:
1. She was waiting for the landlord to provide a written response about her rent arrears.
2. She asked the landlord to provide evidence of Criminal Background Checks (CRB) for its contractors. She also asked that it source a different contractor rather than ask her to move all her belongings into one room.
3. She had disabilities and mental health issues including attempts at completing suicide.
4. The delay with works to the kitchen and bathroom were unreasonable because she had been without a kitchen since14 March. It had made her remove everything knowing it could not start works. This left her with bare walls and brick which caused dust that then impacted on her issues with her lungs.
5. The drainage issue with the garden had been ongoing for years. This had caused her so much distress that she had tried to end her life. She requested a full update.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It was required to carry out an asbestos survey where intrusive works were planned. The asbestos report was not issued prior to the start date hence it was delayed. This is why it offered £50 to reimburse the resident for the money she spent hiring a man with a van.
2. Asbestos removals were planned for the second day of works which was when the resident reported the alleged theft to the landlord and police. It had to postpone works on site as it was a police issue. The asbestos had been removed from the kitchen but the ceiling “scraps” in the hallway, landing, bathroom and toilet were outstanding.
3. The landlord explained to the resident that they could not work in the property until police investigation was concluded.
4. It was waiting for its housing officer to arrange for the resident to sign a behaviour agreement and to arrange for her to vacate the property Monday to Friday between 8.00a.m. to 5.00p.m. for works to commence.
5. The police investigation was ongoing. The police could request CRB checks if necessary but they could not be shared with the resident because the information was private and confidential.
6. It would arrange an appointment for follow on electrical works to be carried out.
7. It had ordered a new door and would contact the resident to arrange to fit it in due course. It advised this would be completed by 30 June but this could be subject to change as works progressed.
8. It confirmed the amount of rent arrears as at the date of the response. It acknowledged that the resident was struggling to heat her home. It said it aimed to ensure all rent payment arrangements were affordable and sustainable. It said it would contact the resident within 5 days to discuss reducing the current agreement to an affordable amount.
9. It said that it had reviewed the complaint and recommended better communication between its departments, contractors and customers. It acknowledged the importance of keeping residents updated with repairs and action plans going forwards. It also identified the need to explain to the residents why delays occurred.
On 14 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, the reasons included:
1. The landlord pressured her into paying more than ordered by the court.
2. There were outstanding repairs and some that were carried out were unsatisfactory.
3. She was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint regarding the conduct of its contractors.
4. The delay in resolving the repair to the front door.
5. The delay in addressing the issue with the garden and the impact that it had on her.
6. A lack of communication from the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023, the main points being:
1. The original court order dated 5 February 2009 required the resident to pay rent plus £100 per month off the arrears. The resident applied for a variation order and on 27 October 2009 the order was reduced to £3.25 per week off the arrears. There were times when the resident fell behind on the order therefore it asked her to increase her payments. An arrangement was made for her to pay £50 per month off the arrears.
2. On 14 April the landlord agreed to accept a reduced monthly payment of £35 in response to the resident raising affordability issues. Given that it took account of changes in the resident’s personal circumstances it could not see how she felt pressured into making payments that were less than the court had said she should pay.
3. It did not uphold the complaint regarding these matters.
4. It undertook works to refurbish the kitchen and bathroom, along with works to the garden. However, works were halted when the resident made an allegation of theft which was in line with its procedure.
5. The police investigated the allegation and did not take further action.
6. Due to the seriousness of the allegation and the “need to provide appropriate security and protection for the resident and contractors” it was agreed that works would recommence once she had decanted the property.
7. Works to the garden were to be carried out alongside works to the kitchen and bathroom. Therefore they were also dependent on the resident decanting her home.
8. It set out the attempts made by the landlord to offer the resident temporary accommodation.
9. It concluded it had acted “reasonably and proportionately.” It said the resident obstructed efforts to find alternative temporary accommodation for it to facilitate the work. It did not uphold the complaint.
10. There was no proof of the alleged theft and the absence of any action by the police supported its conclusion. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.
On 28 November 2023 the resident telephone this Service to advise that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy says it will refer residents to specialist support, including external partners and safeguarding. It says that typical interventions and practices might include:
1. Undertaking repairs more swiftly than its standard service.
2. Extra support when a repair cannot be completed within a reasonable timescale, putting the resident at risk.
3. Liaison with family, friends and support providers.
Its decant procedure says it will work with the resident to find the right rehousing option for them.
Its responsive repairs policy says:
1. It will complete planned and packaged repairs within 90 days.
2. It has zero tolerance towards the abuse of any staff or contractors by residents or their visitors. It is an expectation that all residents and their visitors treat all staff with dignity and respect. Aggressive, discriminatory, threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour will not be tolerated. It will take reasonable measures to protect staff and contractors from such behaviour where appropriate. Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. It will also issue its response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Its compensation policy says that it can consider offering residents discretionary payment in circumstances including delays, stress and inconvenience, time and trouble taken by drawing a matter to its attention.

Scope of the investigation

The resident reports that the issue with the rear garden was ongoing for 8 years. Evidence provided by the landlord for the purposes of the investigation shows that it was investigating the issue in 2019. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
In the landlord’s evidence submission to this Service on 18 July 2024 it provided a chronology of action taken by the safeguarding officer which also includes updates about the garden and refurbishment works. The chronology is a dated retrospective account of action taken however, it has not been corroborated by ‘live’ evidence such as file notes from its database. In the absence of any other form of evidence, and given there is no evidence which disputes its account, this investigation has made reference to the document (safeguarding chronology) where it has been appropriate to do so.

Rear garden

On 12 April 2022 the landlord sent an internal email to its legal team to ask what action it could take about the owner of the neighbouring property raising the ground level which was having a “negative effect” on the property. It said the owner was using creosote to treat railway sleepers which were used to retain some of his land. However, the oil was leaching out of the sleepers and the property was becoming waterlogged with oily water. It attached a previous survey carried out by its consultants which suggested potential remedial works. It also highlighted that the resident was vulnerable due to her mental health issues.
The legal team failed to provide a response so a chaser was sent on 24 May 2022. An internal email sent on the same day said that the landlord’s Asset Management Panel (AMP) was reluctant to carry out works to the garden due to the cost which was estimated to be £35,000. A further email stressed that the garden only became waterlogged following the neighbour’s works to their garden. It reiterated that the resident had mental health issues.
The landlord failed to take any further action until almost a year later, when it instructed a survey of the garden. The consultants provided a report on 22 February 2023 which said the ground water tests were inconclusive. It advised that the landlord could contact the water company to see if there were any leaks in the area or if not whether they were prepared to investigate the possibility. It advised this could be a lengthy process and suggested an alternative option was to carry out “remediation in the back garden by draining to the rear and into the land drain.”
It is noted that in an internal email of 14 June 2023 the landlord said it had liaised with 2 water companies as part of its investigation. However, this investigation has not seen evidence to corroborate its assertion which is a record keeping failure.
On 20 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that her dog had been attacked while in the front garden. The resident used this garden because she could not use the one to the rear. The landlord had not fenced off the front garden as promised. She said the rear garden was under water and “completely unusable” by her dogs and children.
While this investigation does not doubt the resident’s account regarding the fencing there is no independent evidence regarding the landlord’s earlier commitment to carry out works. However, it is noted that an entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 29 March 2023 said the landlord should raise a works order for its contractor. It is unclear if the works were carried out which is a record keeping failure.
Attached to the email were photographs of injuries sustained to the resident’s knees however, it was unclear how the injuries were sustained. There is no evidence that the landlord made further enquiries which was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of empathy. This was particularly inappropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the involvement of the safeguarding officer.
The resident later provided a clear explanation of how the injuries occurred in her email to the landlord of 16 October 2023. She said they occurred because the landlord had fenced off her rear garden to keep her dogs off the flooded grass area. It had promised to install a gate to maintain access to her shed but had failed to do so. She had therefore fallen while climbing the fence to get the equipment to maintain her front garden. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. This was inappropriate because it showed a lack of concern for the physical wellbeing of the resident. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its liability insurance should she wish to make a claim for personal injury.
The safeguarding chronology dated 24 March 2023 shows that a water test in the garden should be carried out before works could commence. A further entry dated 17 April showed that the water had been tested and did not contain sewage so it did not pose a health and safety risk. This was an appropriate action however, there is no evidence that this information was communicated to the resident to provide reassurance.
In her email to the landlord of 2 April 2023 the resident said her mental health had deteriorated to the point where she had self-harmed owing to the situation with the garden. She said she was “hanging on by a shoestring.” The safeguarding chronology shows that the housing team was asked to contact the resident by 3 April. There is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it showed a lack of concern for her welfare and a failure to have regard for its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord received a professional’s letter requesting that it consider the impact of the situation on the resident and her daughter’s mental and physical health.
An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 2 June 2023 referred to an internal email asking that an update be provided to the resident. There is no evidence that this was actioned which was a further example of the landlord’s ongoing failure to communicate effectively with the resident.
An entry on the chronology dated 5 June 2023 noted that the local authority had proposed to drain the garden onto an area of waste land to the rear of the property. On 14 June the landlord’s safeguarding team sent an internal “urgent AMP report” requesting approval to undertake “essential garden remediation works.” It noted that the resident had complained about “persistent” flooding which had impacted on her health and wellbeing and her enjoyment of her home.
It also noted that the landlord had carried out investigations in conjunction with its own consultants, the water company and local authority but the results remained inconclusive. However, the consultants had suggested a proposal which would “mitigate ponding.” This involved installing a new drainage system and outlet for flood water to help bring the garden into an “acceptable & decent level.” It referred to the landlord’s overall duty of care and said “do nothing is simply not an option given serious risks involved and tenant’s history of self- harm.”
While this was a positive step it was unreasonably delayed, coming 14 months after the internal email of 12 April 2022. The email had highlighted the impact the situation was having on the resident who was vulnerable owing to her mental health however, the landlord failed to take appropriate action.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s internal email of 14 June 2023 identified what had gone wrong. It also identified a need to adopt a more joined up approach to such complex cases. It said that closer collaboration between its contact centre, safeguarding team, partnering team and asset investment team may have led to the case being prioritised earlier. In terms of what it would do differently, it referred to a new ‘urgent works referral form.’ It also said there was guidance on its intranet for time-sensitive situations like this one where urgent works integral to a resident’s health and safety could be raised and prioritised.
The AMP team replied on the same day, 14 June, to approve the works.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 2 November 2023 the landlord said works to the garden were to follow on from the refurbishment works. As they had been delayed, it followed that works to remedy the garden were also delayed.
While this was an appropriate explanation in the circumstances, it failed to acknowledge the initial delay of 14 months. This was particularly inappropriate because it identified its failings in its internal email of 14 June 2023. That the landlord failed to acknowledge this to the resident in its complaint response demonstrated a lack of transparency. It also meant that the landlord failed to consider redress for the resident in terms of the detriment caused to her by the initial delay which was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to identify and acknowledge its communication failures. This was particularly inappropriate because internal emails had requested that updates be provided. The uncertainty compounded the impact on the resident’s mental health.
The landlord’s failure to address the substantive issue was compounded by its failure to consider the impact it had on the resident’s physical and mental wellbeing at the outset. The landlord failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010. It did not adhere to its vulnerable persons policy because it failed to expedite the repair and there was a delay in its response which increased the resident’s risk of harm.
Considering the duration of the failure and the seriously detrimental impact on the resident, the failures amount to severe maladministration.
This investigation considers that the landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation of £1000 and above should be awarded where there was a failure which had a severe long term impact on the resident. In line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1500 for distress and inconvenience.

Front door

In an email to this Service dated 16 September 2024 the landlord advised that a works order was raised on 25 March 2022 because the police had forced entry for a safeguarding issue. It attended that day to repair the lock and assess the door. A follow on repair was carried out on 4 May 2022. This was in line with its repairs policy.
It also advised that on 25 March 2023 it raised an order because the lock was broken and the resident locked out. It attended the same day and noted that the frame was damaged. The frame could not be repaired so a new door and frame were ordered. Its response was in line with its repairs policy.
On 2 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say her door had been damaged because the police had needed to force entry through no fault of her own. She said the landlord had carried out a repair that meant the door would not close fully unless the deadbolt was engaged. Without it, there was movement in the door which had damaged the lock. This had resulted in her being locked in the property and the landlord had to break her out. This forced the landlord to resolve the issue but the situation had impacted on her mental health, PTSD and anxiety.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 the landlord said a new door was on order and that it would contact the resident to arrange to fit it by 30 June.
The landlord’s email to this Service of 16 September 2024 said that the new door was fitted on 25 April 2023. Given that this predates the landlord’s complaint response this cannot be accurate. Therefore, its is unclear when the door was fitted, if at all.
The landlord has failed to provide repair logs containing ‘live’ records from the time of the complaint which is a record keeping failure. This has created an inaccuracy in the landlord’s evidence submission to this Service which is inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because it failed to provide a response to the resident’s email. Furthermore, it provided conflicting information regarding its replacement of the front door owing to a record keeping failure. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Electrics

In its email to this Service of 16 September 2024 the landlord said that it raised an order for the electrics tripping 24 March 2023. It attended the same day and identified that 2 additional sockets installed on the kitchen circuit were causing the issue. The sockets were removed. Its response was in line with its repairs policy.
It raised a further works order on 17 April 2023. Its contractors attended on 9 May and the job was closed on 12 May. The landlord has been unable to confirm what works were carried out and/or why the job was closed. This is a record keeping failure.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 the landlord said it would arrange an appointment to carry out works to the electrics. The landlord has not demonstrated that it has done so which is a failure. The landlord failed to provide ‘live’ repair records from the time of the complaint which is a record keeping failure.
The failures amount to maladministration because, owing to record keeping failures, the landlord cannot demonstrate that it resolved the electrical issue on 9 May 2023. Furthermore, it cannot demonstrate that it actioned its commitment to make a further appointment as set out in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 May.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Rent arrears

The landlord’s records show that on 12 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask to increase her payments to £50 per month off the arrears which was agreed. An internal email dated 16 March 2023 set out a call from the resident to the landlord. She had advised that her court order required her to pay £3 per week off her arrears. She felt she was being “bullied” into the current payment amount of £50 per month which was “killing her”. She said she could not afford to put the heating on.
There is no evidence that the resident’s original offer to pay £50 per month was made under duress from the landlord. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 16 March 2023 which was inappropriate. This was because it created uncertainty, compounding the resident’s distress about her financial situation.
Furthermore this caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 2 April 2023 to chase. She asked the landlord to set out what the balance on her account would be if the landlord had obtained deductions through her benefit. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s file note dated 14 April 2023 said that during a phone call to the resident the landlord advised that the court order was still valid because the rent account was still in arrears. The resident said she was struggling to pay £50 per month and offered £35 instead which the landlord accepted.
In her email to the landlord of 30 April 2023 the resident confirmed that the landlord had addressed the matter of her rent arrears. However, she asked for confirmation in writing that the arrangement plan had been reduced to £35 per month and whether she was in breach of the court order.
The landlord failed to comply with the Code’s requirement that landlords must address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint. This is because its stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 failed to provide confirmation as requested by the resident in her complaint of 30 April.
The Code says that good complaint handling promotes a positive landlord and resident relationship. Therefore landlords should ensure actions arising from the complaint process are carefully monitored and do not give rise to further dissatisfaction. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it would contact the resident within 5 working days to ensure the payment was affordable. However, there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 November 2023 appropriately set out the background to the rent arrears and associated court order. It referred to the conversation which took place on 14 April. It said that because it took account of changes in the resident’s circumstances it could not see how she felt pressured into making payments that were less than the court order. This response was inaccurate because the arrangement for the resident to pay £35 per month off the arrears was less then the original 2009 court order but considerably more than the varied order of £3.25 per week off the arrears.
The findings identified above amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s emails on 2 occasions. It failed to provide a response as requested in its stage 1 complaint response and there was no evidence that it contacted the resident as it said it would. Its stage 2 complaint response was inaccurate.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 for the failures in its communication with the resident. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Allegation of theft

In her email to the landlord of 2 April 2023 the resident said that during the refurbishment works a contractor had entered her locked bedroom and stolen £350 which was stored in a tin. She asked the landlord to change the front door lock in case the contractor had copied the key. She also asked the landlord to urgently change the back door locks as she did not feel safe. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s requests to change the locks which was inappropriate.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 30 April 2023 she said that she intended to report the alleged theft to the police. She asked the landlord to provide copies of the contractors CRB checks. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response which was inappropriate.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 the landlord confirmed that the police investigation was ongoing. It also confirmed that it could not share details of CRB checks with the resident. Given the landlord’s obligations under data protection legislation its response was reasonable however, its response time of 21 days was not.
The allegation of theft was appropriately reported to the police as a crime because they have the necessary expertise to carry out an appropriate investigation. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord would rely on the outcome of their investigation. The police investigated and closed the case without any further action. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord would follow suit.
The landlord did not respond to the resident in a timely manner on 2 occasions. This amounts to service failure because the failures were of a minor nature given the circumstances of the complaint. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Kitchen and bathroom refurbishment

In an email to this Service dated 16 September 2024 the landlord stated that the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were refurbished as part of its planned works programme.
In her email to the landlord of 2 April 2023 the resident said that the surveyor had attended the property on 10 March to carry out an asbestos check. She said she had been advised that works would commence on 14 March and she spent the day before “trying to find out what was going on.” She had a message from the landlord via her friend that they were on their way so she moved everything from the kitchen.
The resident confirmed that she paid £50 for a ‘man with a van’ to help her move her appliances so that works could commence. However, no one turned up on the day so she contacted the landlord for an update and was told it may take a further 10 days. She had to move the appliances back herself because she could not afford to pay for any more help. In doing so she injured her back.
The safeguarding chronology states that on 15 March 2023 its safeguarding officer made a welfare call to the resident due to a disclosure of self-harm and suicidal ideation. It said they would contact her again on 17 March however, there is no evidence that they did so. This was particularly inappropriate given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the uncertainty she was facing regarding the works.
It states that the safeguarding officer spoke to the resident on 21 March 2023 after the contact centre raised concerns. She confirmed she did not have plans to self-harm. They spoke to the resident again on 23 March who said she would come to the landlord’s offices to self-harm if she did not get an outcome. The officer asked that an urgent update be provided to the resident regarding the status of her repairs. The landlord’s failure to proactively communicate with the resident regarding the status of works was unreasonable because it impacted on her mental health.
An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 24 March 2023 said that the resident had been advised the day before, on 23 March, that the asbestos report was delayed. It was noted that this caused distress to the resident. The note confirmed the landlord made contact with the mental health team.
An action was created to for the landlord to confirm the timeframe and date of works to the resident. However, there is no evidence that this was actioned which was inappropriate because the uncertainty was causing significant distress. The landlord also referred the resident to the local authority’s safeguarding adults’ team.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 confirmed that an asbestos check must be carried out before intrusive works could begin. However, it advised that in this case it was not arranged prior to the start date which then had to be rearranged. It said this was why it had agreed to refund the £50 cost for the man with a van.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. It was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse this out of pocket expense. However, there is no evidence that it considered the distress caused to the resident by the delay or lack of communication which was inappropriate.
Its response lacked empathy because it failed to demonstrate an understanding of the impact on the resident and showed a lack of regard for her vulnerabilities which were well documented in its records. It also failed to provide a response to her report that she had injured herself while moving the appliances back herself. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its liability insurance so that she could make a personal injury claim if she wished.
It appropriately demonstrated some learning from the complaint, including improved communication. However, it failed to set out what it would do differently to prevent a reoccurrence which was a failure.
The exact start date for works is unclear however, the safeguarding chronology suggests it was on or around 30 March 2023. When works commenced the kitchen and bathroom were stripped out straight away at the same time. The chronology shows that on 31 March the landlord postponed works because of the resident’s allegation of theft.
A further entry dated 3 April 2023 states that the resident had called to say her kitchen had been ripped out and that the contractors refused to return due to her mental health. It noted its housing team had been asked to arrange for the resident to sign a behaviour agreement for works to commence. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. However, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed this request.
It notes that the safeguarding team asked for the housing team to contact the resident however, there is no evidence it did so which was inappropriate.
An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 11 April 2023 contains copies of emails from the resident where she set out the distress caused to her by the ongoing situation, including the impact on her mental health. The landlord contacted the mental health team to seek an update. The notes say the safeguarding officer received emails from the senior social worker at the multi- agency safeguarding hub (MASH). However, this investigation has not had sight of the emails themselves which is a record keeping failure.
The chronology states that on 12 April 2023 an internal discussion took place about the resident being left without a cooker. A request was also made for the repairs team to contact the resident to discuss the works. It was inappropriate that this had not already been actioned.
The contact centre advised that the resident had said again during a call that she would come to the offices and self-harm if the situation was not resolved. This investigation acknowledges that the situation was complex. However, the uncertainty created by the ongoing lack of communication compounded the resident’s significant distress. The landlord continued to fail to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
The entry also set out discussions about whether the resident could be decanted while works took place. It was communicated that works would not take place with the resident in situ due to “aggressive and threatening behaviour” however, the neigbourhood team had declined to arrange a decant.
The safeguarding chronology states that on 13 April 2023 the resident offered to stay upstairs while works were being carried out. After further discussions took place about which department would fund the decant the landlord agreed to source suitable accommodation for the duration of the works. It confirmed it would attend the property that day to ensure the sink was working. While this was a positive step it came late in the process.
An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 17 April 2023 shows that an outcome of an internal meeting was that a multi-agency should be arranged. While this was a positive step, given the complexity of the situation it came late in the process.
The safeguarding chronology entry dated 20 April 2023 refers to an email from the resident in which she confirmed she had cooking facilities with running water. On 25 April the landlord confirmed it would have a plan in place for works by the end of the week. On 28 April a risk assessment was carried out and the contractor declined to carry out works while the resident was in the property due to the level of risk. A note dated 2 May confirmed that the resident agreed to the decant as long as her dogs could go with her.
The evidence shows that the landlord delayed in making a decision on whether to decant the resident for a month. There is no evidence that it checked that the resident had access to basic facilities in the bathroom and kitchen in the meantime which was inappropriate.
The safeguarding chronology contains notes from a professionals meeting held on 2 May 2023. They confirmed that the resident was engaging well with the mental health team and had been prescribed medication. It confirmed the landlord was looking for a nearby hotel that could also accommodate the resident’s dogs.
The chronology said that on 4 May 2023 it offered the resident a move to 2 different hotels which she declined. The landlord sought assistance from the mental health team to resolve the matter. However, the resident then declined to be decanted from the property. An entry on the chronology dated 9 May notes that the resident was “very abusive” to the landlord.
The landlord intended to seek legal advice on how best to proceed. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider how best to resolve the situation to ensure the resident was not occupying a property that may be unfit for habitation.
The landlord’s records note that on 12 May 2023 the resident requested a gas cooker connection. Its contractor confirmed the resident had access to a “basic cooking facility” and a specialist would need to attend to connect the gas. An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 19 May referred to the resident being advised of legal requirements why a cooker could not be installed. A further entry dated 25 May read that a member of staff “sent copy of asbestos paperwork and disclaimer that was signed to accept temporary cooker.” It is unclear how this situation was resolved.
The safeguarding chronology dated 12 May 2023 noted that the resident sent an “abusive email” to the landlord and threatened to complete suicide. It also set out advice from its legal team that a capacity assessment should be completed by the mental health team. A further entry dated 25 May noted that the landlord appropriately asked the mental health team to carry out a capacity assessment. On the same date the landlord appropriately considered if it should apply for an injunction for works to proceed.
The safeguarding chronology said that on 26 May 2023 the resident agreed to the decant. It notes that the landlord agreed to look for suitable properties however, a further note dated 15 June 2023 said that nothing was available. On 16 August it proposed an ‘Airbnb’ property which was declined by the resident.
An entry on the safeguarding chronology dated 21 August 2023 refers to an email from the resident in which she said she had declined the Airbnb because it was out of the area. The landlord was advised by social services that the resident had been hospitalised after taking an overdose. On 24 August the social worker advised the resident’s “breakdown” had been due to a lack of response from the housing team. They advised that the resident needed a property in the local area in order for her daughter to attend school.
A note on the chronology dated 23 August 2023 said the landlord continued to look for properties in the local area but nothing was available. While this was a positive step there is no evidence that the landlord followed its decant procedure by working with the resident to find the right option.
The resident was vulnerable and the issues with the condition of her garden and the refurbishment works were having a seriously detrimental impact on her mental health. Moving her out of the local area would have compounded the distress already caused. There is no evidence that the landlord took this into account when it offered properties in the early stages which was inappropriate.
A note on the safeguarding chronology dated 14 September 2023 said that works could commence 16 October 2023. The landlord offered another Airbnb property but this could not be progressed due to administrative difficulties. On 11 October the landlord offered 2 serviced apartments which were declined by the resident. It is unclear why these properties were declined.
Notes from a multi-agency professionals meeting held on 25 October 2023 set out the landlord’s assertion that it had been trying to find a suitable decant property since May. It said the resident had declined properties. It had found others and had been trying to arrange dates for the resident to view them, in line with her request, but she had not come back with any dates.
The landlord was asked to provide further evidence in relation to the decant for the purposes of this investigation but it has not done so. Therefore, this Service has not had sight of evidence such as emails and/or ‘live’ file notes of conversations with the resident which has hampered our ability to assess the landlord’s response. This is a record keeping failure.
The notes said that the landlord planned for works to commence 16 October 2023 but the resident had declined to move and wished to disengage from communication with the landlord. It said it could not allow the resident to continue to occupy a property which was unfit for occupation. It had made enquiries with the mental health team regarding the resident’s capacity but had not received a response so it was proceeding on the basis that she did indeed have capacity. It therefore intended to contact its legal team to discuss an application for an injunction in order to complete works. It also agreed to carry out a joint visit to the resident to discuss any other available properties.

Events post internal complaints process

During an internal email dated 6 February 2024 the landlord committed to finishing the works by 16 February. However, owing to a delay regarding delivery of kitchen units this was pushed back to 22 February.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 February 2024 to advise that the decant would be extended to 14 March to ensure it had enough time to complete the outstanding works.
The landlord emailed a further update to the resident on 29 February 2024 to say that it aimed to complete the works before 14 March subject to unforeseen circumstances beyond its control.

Summary

The landlord’s records show that it generally complied with its vulnerable persons policy by referring the resident to its safeguarding officer and liaising with external agencies. However, the safeguarding officer was responding to the resident’s increased distress caused by the landlord’s failure to deliver a service. Had the landlord proactively managed the process the distress is likely to have reduced.
At the outset the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the postponed start date for works due to the delayed asbestos test. It then failed to keep her updated as to the status of the works in respect of whether she would remain in situ or be required to decant. This was due in part to the time it took the landlord to agree to the decant. Generally, there was a lack of proactive communication to keep the resident informed of progress. Furthermore, the landlord should have decanted the resident earlier given her vulnerabilities and the impact of the situation on her behaviour.
There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident and/or her support network to ensure that the properties it offered as a decant were the right option for her. There was a record keeping failure in relation to the repairs and decant process.
The landlord failed to make checks that the property was fit for habitation and therefore, did not take robust action in respect of an injunction application as a means of a timely resolution. This was particularly inappropriate given the landlord’s note of 25 October 2023 which made reference to the property being unfit for habitation. This was 7 months after works in the property ceased and the delay was therefore inappropriate.
The records show that the refurbishment works did finally progress a year later. However, it is unclear what steps were taken in order to achieve this.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 May 2023 said that it had reviewed the complaint and recommended better communication between its departments, contractors and customers. It acknowledged the importance of keeping residents updated with repairs and action plans going forwards. It also identified the need to explain to the residents why delays occurred.
The landlord’s learning reflects some of the findings of this investigation. It is positive that it identified learning from the complaint. However, there is no evidence that it identified what it would do differently or that it tried to put things right for the resident which was inappropriate.
The failings identified amount to severe maladministration because there were a series of significant failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation of £1000 and above should be awarded where there was a failure which had a severe long term impact on the resident. In line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £2500 for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 April 2023. However, she did not receive a response from the landlord. This caused her inconvenience, time and effort when she contacted this Service to request assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 15 May to request that it provide a response by 22 May.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May which was 13 working days later and 3 working days out of time. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy because it failed to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and only provided a stage 1 complaint response following our intervention.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 August 2023. The landlord issued an automatic acknowledgement however, there was no further communication with the resident which caused distress. Furthermore, she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 15 October to raise her complaint for a second time.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. On 24 October it sent a further email to say it would reply by 10 November. The landlord provided its complaint response on 2 November which was 58 working days after the original stage 2 complaint and 38 working days out of time.
The landlord failed to adhere to the dispute resolution principles because at both stages it failed to acknowledge the delay and the efforts made by the resident to resolve her complaint. This meant it did not provide an explanation as to what had gone wrong and failed to put things right for the resident which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint responses failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerability owing to her deteriorating mental health which was inappropriate. It failed to acknowledge the impact the situation had on her and her school age daughter. It did not make any reference to the involvement of the safeguarding officer or to its liaison with partner agencies while it attempted to resolve the substantive issue. As a result its responses lacked empathy and failed to recognise the resident’s individual circumstances. Furthermore, this was a further example that it failed to have regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
The failures set amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Previous determination

Following a recent determination in case reference 202122223 the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This includes the landlord’s response to repairs, safeguarding and the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it has not been necessary to duplicate the order below.

Determination (decision)

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 repair to her rear garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom refurbishment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her electrics.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation of theft.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £4650 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her rear garden.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her front door.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to her electrics.
  4. £150 for the distress caused by the communication failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her rent arrears.
  5. £50 for the failures identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation of theft.
  6. £2500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the kitchen and bathroom refurbishment.
  7. £250 for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
3. Write to the resident to provide a copy of the varied court order. It should also confirm if she is behind or ahead of the court order and if so, by how much.

Recommendation

The landlord should satisfy itself that its self-assessment against the spotlight report on KIM is sufficient to ensure that the failures identified in this report will not reoccur.