Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited (202328291)

Decision
Case ID	202328291
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Adullam Homes Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. The resident raised concerns as he felt the landlord was receiving housing benefit payment for a tenancy support package it did not provide him. This resulted in arrears on his rent account. He submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) as a result, which the landlord did not respond to following advice it received from the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). The resident also raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff. The resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy the landlord did not raise a complaint through its internal processes. We contacted the landlord and told it to issue a final complaint response. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded on its systems for the resident due to mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for personal data it held about him.
   2. Reports about a lack of support from it during his tenancy.
   3. Reports of poor conduct from its staff.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for personal data it held about him is outside the jurisdiction of this Service and therefore was not investigated.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a lack of support from it during his tenancy.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor conduct from its staff.
7. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The resident’s request for personal data is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
9. The landlord’s evidence shows it provided the resident with a housing support package. Its records show rent arrears were caused by an error after its rent increase. It took steps to resolve this by contacting the local authority and acted in a reasonable manner to resolve the issue for the resident.
10. There is no evidence that indicates the conduct of the landlord’s staff was inappropriate. However, it failed to address the resident’s concern at an earlier stage.
11. The landlord did not follow its complaint’s policy after the resident raised his complaint. It did not investigate at stage 1 or provide the resident with an explanation for this. Its final response lacked empathy and came across in a heavy-handed manner.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation made up as follows: £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of poor conduct from its staff. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 10 June 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 November 2023	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said: It was withholding his case file from him because this proved it did not provide him with a tenancy support package until late 2022. It continued to claim a housing benefit payment for providing this service. He felt it did this to “inflate the dividends received by stakeholders.” It had prevented him from accessing support as it had lost the charter to provide supported housing. However, it was still receiving funding for this.
6 February 2024	The Ombudsman contacted the landlord. We said evidence showed the resident had raised a complaint with it. Despite contacting it on 18 December 2023 about the matter it had not issued a complaint response. We advised it to issue its response by 13 February 2024.
22 February 2024	The landlord contacted the resident. It said it would not provide further information about his complaint, and it considered the matter closed.
20 March 2024	The Ombudsman contacted the landlord. We said we did not consider its response complied with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We asked it to issue its final response by 28 March 2024.
27 March 2024	The landlord sent its final response. It said: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) had upheld its decision that the resident’s information request was excessive. It had taken further advice from the ICO about a “slimmed down” request for information. It was satisfied his Subject Access Request (SAR) exceeded the ICO threshold for it to refuse his request. This was further supported by his email on 7 January 2024 offering to withdraw his complaint for financial gain. It had told him on several occasions if he had concerns about the support package he should register a complaint with the local authority. It would cooperate with any investigation they launched and would refund any money if it had made an ineligible claim. It believed his primary intention was financial gain. He had suggested several times the support it provided him was positive. For example, he had sent its staff a Christmas card and attended its operational committee. It had evidence that his complaint was to extract money from it through threats and intimidation. For example, he sent it an email on 7 January 2024 saying if it paid him £18000, he would be happy to conclude the matter. It was not prepared to discuss specific staff or how it manages them. It had interviewed its staff who had said he had racially abused them. While it could not substantiate this, a social media post by him referred to its staff and it had no reason to disbelieve them. It had exhausted all means to address his complaint and considered the matter closed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said: The landlord did not address the fact he reported its staff had harassed him after visiting his property without prior notice. He believed the information he had requested would show it did not provide him with a support package. The landlord had taken steps to evict him for “bogus” rent arrears. The misconduct of the landlord’s staff related to it issuing him with a notice seeking possession for rent arrears. This was despite housing benefit paying rent in arrears.

What we found and why

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

Complaint	Subject Access Request
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

12. The resident’s complaint included concerns about the landlord’s handling of a subject access request (SAR). However, we cannot consider the landlord’s decision not to release information to the resident, as this was based upon advice it received from the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). This is better dealt with by the ICO because we are unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data and how it responded to a SAR request.

Complaint	Lack of support
Finding	No maladministration

13. The resident said there was a lack of support from the landlord. However, the landlord’s records show it provided the resident with support during his tenancy. For example:
    1. On 6 April 2022 it discussed his support needs with him relating to budgeting and furniture in his property.
    2. It referred him to its intensive housing management team on 8 April 2022.
    3. It completed a welfare check on 29 April 2022. It ordered him a fridge freezer for his property. It also confirmed other furniture which it had ordered had arrived at his property.
    4. On 17 October 2022 it applied for hardship funding for him, as he said he had no money for his energy costs. He confirmed to it on 8 November 2022 he had received payment following the application.
    5. It provided him with his housing options following ASB he had experienced. We have previously considered this aspect of his complaint in case 202229939.
14. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2022 about rent arrears. He was unhappy it had not told him about these. The arrears related to an issue with his housing benefit payment. The landlord’s records show it contacted the local authority to ask them why his housing benefit payment did not cover his full rent amount. They asked it to provide proof of the resident’s benefits and said they may be able to back date their payment. This was reasonable and shows it was taking steps to resolve the issue for the resident.
15. The landlord’s records show it updated the resident about the housing benefit issue on 8 November 2022. It then asked the local authority to escalate the issue on 5 December 2022. Its records show it contacted him on 17 January 2023. It explained the reason for the housing benefit issue and that its rent increase in April 2022 may have caused the problem. It contacted the local authority on the same day to ask them to rectify the issue urgently. The landlord’s records show the local authority made a backdated housing benefit payment onto the resident’s rent account on 26 January 2023. This cleared his rent arrears. The steps it took demonstrate it was supporting him to resolve the issue.
16. The tenancy agreement shows there was a service charge for enhanced housing management and furniture. This indicates the landlord provided a support package as part of the tenancy. This is supported by the actions it took we outlined above in paragraph 13 of this report.
17. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records that it sought to evict the resident for rent arrears. There is also no evidence the landlord falsely claimed housing benefit for the benefit of its stakeholders as the resident suggested.
18. We can find no evidence of maladministration by the landlord. The evidence shows the resident received a tenancy support package and the support it provided him was reasonable. It was responsive to help him resolve any issues he faced.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

19. On 10 March 2023 the resident raised concerns with the landlord. He was unhappy it had sent a housing manager to attend a repairs inspection. He also said its housing officer had contacted other organisations despite him withdrawing his permission. He wanted it to remove them from an antisocial behaviour case it was investigating. He contacted it again on 15 March and 24 March 2023. He said he would contact the police if it visited his property unannounced as he felt it was harassing him and it must give him 24 hours’ notice before any visits. There is no record that the landlord responded to the resident. This was not reasonable. It should have considered addressing his concerns or raising a complaint about the issue. Its failure to do so is likely to have caused the resident distress.
20. The landlord’s evidence includes a letter from the resident which he sent to it. While this is undated it shows he raised concerns about its staff documenting meetings it had with him. The concern he had about this was part of the reason he submitted a SAR request. In his letter he accepted that its staff’s actions were part of its procedure. The landlord recording information about the resident’s wellbeing may have caused the resident distress. However, maintaining accurate, detailed records of its contact with the resident shows it was being transparent and accountable.
21. The landlord’s final complaint response on 27 March 2024 told the resident it did not agree with his view it was harassing him. It said it had interviewed staff and it considered the resident’s actions were unreasonable. We have not seen evidence to confirm either viewpoint. However, it was reasonable the landlord reached its own conclusions based on its investigation into the matter.
22. We can find no evidence the conduct of the landlord’s staff was inappropriate. However, it was not reasonable that the landlord took over a year to address his concerns. It should have considered doing so at an earlier stage. Its failure to do so caused the resident distress and inconvenience. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for minor failures which caused the resident inconvenience and distress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

23. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It did not provide a timeframe for responding at stage 2.
24. The resident raised his complaint on 16 November 2023. There is no record that the landlord raised a complaint at this stage. As a result, we contacted it on 18 December 2023 asking it to respond to the resident. It responded to us on 27 December 2023. It said it felt the only way it could provide closure to the resident was through our mediation service. However, this related only to the SAR part of the resident’s complaint.
25. We contacted the landlord to discuss the matter on 5 February 2024. However, we were unable to speak with its officer who had contacted us on 27 December 2023. As a result, we advised it to issue its complaint response to the resident on 6 February 2024. It responded to the resident on 22 February 2024 to say it would not provide information about his complaint. It considered the matter closed as he had refused mediation.
26. We contacted the landlord on 20 March 2024 and said its response to the resident on 22 February 2024 did not meet the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We asked it to issue its final response by 28 March 2024.
27. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It failed to raise a complaint and respond to the resident at stage 1. It did not explain to the resident clearly why it would not raise a complaint. This was a complaint handling failure.
28. The landlord’s final response addressed the issues the resident raised. It explained its position and set out the reasons for this. Regardless of the landlord’s concerns about the resident’s behaviour, it was not reasonable that its response lacked empathy and came across in a heavy-handed way. It also did not identify the failures we have found in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
29. We have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

30. There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint. It should ensure its complaint responses are in line with the Code and show empathy to residents’ situation. This will assist it to strengthen landlord and tenant relationships.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records overall were of a good standard. Generally, they captured the full details of the complaint issues. This level of detail supports transparency. This is a positive from the landlord

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication with the resident reasonable in its attempts to resolve the housing benefit issue. However, its communication during the complaints process could have been more effective.