Clarion Housing Association Limited (202013081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013081

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 May 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to various issues including: leaks, damp, asbestos and a defective boiler;
2. Handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
3. Complaint handling;

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and the tenancy began in 1983. The property has one-bedroom. It is located in a listed building. The Ombudsman was unable to determine the property type. The resident is in her 70’s. In February 2023, the landlord told the Ombudsman she had no recorded vulnerabilities on its systems. The resident has said she is registered disabled due to Raynaud’s syndrome.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in “good repair”. This includes: the roof, walls, electric wiring and central heating installations. It confirms the landlord can only end the tenancy by obtaining a court order. Grounds for possession include circumstances where, following a temporary decant, the landlord has completed repair works but the resident will not return to the property.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy, effective December 2020, shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The resident’s core complaint involves issues dating back to the beginning of her tenancy. The resident’s current landlord acquired her previous landlord through a merger. The information seen suggests the merger took place around 2016. The resident has indicated, on more than one occasion, that conditions improved following this process. Nevertheless, she has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities before and after the merger.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history shows four repair orders were raised between June and August 2018. The first order said the ceiling was “hanging in kitchen and the lounge. Further, there was water ingress every time it rained. It was raised on 25 June 2018 and marked complete two days later. The next order, raised in mid-July 2018, was to renew a kitchen fire door. This order was marked complete on 9 August 2018. The next two orders related to the property’s wooden windows. The orders were marked cancelled by the resident and no access respectively.
Both parties agree the property’s kitchen caught fire in 2018. The landlord’s internal correspondence, from early the following month, suggests the fire occurred in September 2018. The information seen indicates the landlord was alerted by the resident’s brother, who said she was in intensive care due to smoke inhalation. Further, he suspected the resident was burning paper to keep warm because the property had no heating. The landlord said he reported the resident had mobility issues, and its own records indicated mental health concerns.
During internal correspondence on 15 November 2018, the landlord said the resident would be discharged from hospital within days. Further, the hospital confirmed she did not have any mental health issues and did not need support. In addition, an inspection confirmed the property was currently unsafe, so the resident needed decanting temporarily. The landlord recommended environmental cleaning and a full electrical test. It said the property was cluttered with rubbish bags and tissues on the floor. Further the resident was using candles on the internal staircase.
The landlord’s repair history shows a corresponding repair order was raised on 26 November 2018. It referenced heavy smoke damage in the property’s kitchen. It said the resident had been decanted until the kitchen was made safe. The order was marked complete on 7 February 2019. A separate order for environmental cleaning was raised and marked complete early the following month. An additional order for electrical testing was cancelled around the same time. The landlord later said electrical testing was completed by its insurer.
Little information has been seen in relation to the period between November 2018 and March 2019. However, the landlord updated its insurer by email on 7 March 2019. It said “a small fire incident took place in early November 2018” damaging the kitchen. Further, the fire brigade attended and the cause was unknown. It said the resident had a health issue during the incident and was taken to hospital, where she stayed for more than four weeks.
The repair history shows an emergency repair order was raised on 18 March 2019. Repair notes said an uncontainable leak from the bathroom was affecting the kitchen ceiling. Internal correspondence from 2 April 2019 said the landlord’s contractor was instructed to repair the leak as part of the kitchen remedial works. The below events show the resident was still decanted during this leak.
During internal correspondence on 8 April 2019, the landlord said it met the resident at her hotel several days ago. It said she wanted to move to sheltered accommodation in another district close to family and friends. Further, the resident reported there was no central heating in her room and other areas of the property. It said she felt the property condition was responsible for health issues, which prompted her admission to hospital “for a very long time”.
Later that day, the landlord’s Technical Inspection Officer said repairs were complete and the resident should return to the property as soon as possible. They said the boiler had been inspected and was “fully functional”. Further, “all other repairs” could be arranged on the resident’s return. The email said the landlord was unable to investigate concerns about a lack of central heating in the resident’s room. This was because the door was padlocked and the resident had the key. Further, the living room was also padlocked.
During internal correspondence on 19 June 2019, the landlord raised the resident’s situation. It said she had refused to return to the property and was paying for her own hotel accommodation.
In July 2019 the landlord told its legal representative there was no medical evidence, from either: a GP, Occupational Therapist, or the hospital, to show the resident was not suitably housed. It said a hospital report raised no concerns and the resident passed her stair assessment. The landlord’s representative wrote to the resident’s legal representative the same month. The key points from the representative’s letter were:
1. The landlord did not agree the property was unsuitable and the resident had not provided any evidence to the contrary. She was temporarily decanted due to the nature and extent of repair works to the property. The resident was advised she was expected to return to the property on their completion.
2. The resident could request an occupational therapy assessment and provide the landlord a copy of the resulting report. Regardless of the outcome, the landlord did not accept it was obliged to rehouse the resident, or provide any temporary accommodation.
3. Nevertheless, the landlord previously offered the resident alternative sheltered accommodation as a goodwill gesture. It did not advise the resident she would receive three offers of accommodation. Its February 2019 letter made clear that the resident would be required to return to the property if she declined the above offer. The landlord would not make any further offers of alternative or temporary accommodation.
4. Following completion of the repairs, the landlord arranged transport to the property from the resident’s hotel. The resident refused transportation and chose to continue residing at the hotel. The resident was aware the landlord would only fund her hotel accommodation whilst repairs were ongoing. The landlord would not reimburse her extended stay.
5. The landlord had offered “further” assistance with the resident’s rehousing application to the local authority. The landlord could not say how long this process would take. It understood the resident was not deemed to be in urgent need of housing.
The landlord’s repair history shows a works order was raised on 7 January 2020 to address “extreme damp throughout the property”. The records show the order was chargeable but it was not marked complete. This indicates the landlord’s contractor attended the property but it was unable to complete the repair.
During internal correspondence on 16 March 2020, the landlord said it completed a joint visit to the property with the resident’s support worker. Further, this visit was prompted by the resident’s reports the property was unhabitable due to damp. It said a damp meter was used to confirm there was no damp. Since it was “full of clutter”, the landlord asked the support worker to help the resident clear it. The landlord said the resident could move in once this was done.
The information seen indicates the following events occurred between April 2020 and January 2021:
1. The resident advised the landlord she was not living at the property due to repair issues and the staircase. Further, her advocate was holding the property’s keys. She subsequently advised, during a separate phone call, that she did not intend to return to the property.
2. The landlord participated in a case conference with social services and a safeguarding team. The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests the meeting was prompted by the landlord’s safeguarding referral. During later internal correspondence, from December 2022, the landlord said it made the referral because, although the resident had a social worker, there were periods when she was reluctant to engage or accept support.
3. The landlord advised the resident it was changing the locks and she had two weeks to return to the property. The lock change was recorded in the landlord’s repair history. The landlord later said the resident did not attempt to collect the keys. The information seen suggests it ultimately installed a key safe to allow the resident to return.
4. The landlord served a notice to quit and a notice of seeking possession. The information seen indicates this was on the grounds the resident declined to return to the property following the decant.
Around 17 August 2021, a local journalist contacted the landlord about the resident. The landlord’s correspondence suggests the resident reported concerns around water ingress, a defective boiler, a lack of heating and asbestos. Further, she told the journalist that repairs were incomplete when she returned to the property after the decant. The journalist said the resident was “quite frail and unwell”. They also said the resident “appealed” to move several times.
Internal correspondence from 18 August 2021 contained a timeline of events relevant to an upcoming meeting about the landlord’s “abandonment process”. The timeline said a medical specialist advised the resident not to return to the property, due to its condition, following her hospital stay. Paragraph 18 (above) was largely based on this timeline. Later events indicate the landlord did not complete the abandonment process.
During internal correspondence the following day, the landlord said a surveyor inspected the property on 18 August 2021 and found no evidence of mould. While staining was identified on the living room ceiling, they said there was no evidence of a current leak. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the survey report. We were unable to find a corresponding record in the landlord’s repair history.
The correspondence also said the landlord’s contractor had attended the property, around the same time, to install a boiler part. However there was no cold water supply and a kitchen unit needed removing to access the pipework. Further, the contractor capped the gas supply because the resident was not occupying the property. The landlord said it could arrange to reinstate the utilities and repair the ceiling, but the resident would need to provide access because her belongings remained in the property.
The landlord’s investigation records indicate, from around August 2021, a local authority funded hotel accommodation for the resident in another district. The information seen suggests this funding ended in August 2022 having lasted for around a year. The events below indicate the resident may not have used the full stay.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 February 2022. She raised several concerns including: damp, mould, asbestos, electrical safety, a defective boiler and ceiling repairs. She said she was hospitalised due to the property’s condition. Further, she was discharged to a hotel but the landlord would no longer fund her stay. The resident said she had been physiologically damaged, felt suicidal and was sleeping in her car. Call notes show our handler was concerned about the resident’s persistent coughing.
On 17 February 2022 we passed the resident’s concerns to the landlord. We said it should clarify the complaint stage and respond by 24 February 2022. We chased the landlord on 15 March 2022 because we did not receive a response.
Complaint notes from 21 February 2022 show the landlord was concerned there was “very little to no repair history” for the property. They said a surveyor’s inspection may be needed to address the complaint. No information was seen to show an inspection was completed.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 February 2022. Its complaint notes show she raised a number of concerns dating back to the start of the tenancy. They included: issues with the property’s post-code, an “overdue” boiler replacement and asbestos. The notes said the resident wasn’t living at the property. The notes were limited and contained little further information.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around 23 working days after the Ombudsman’s notification. The response was incorrectly dated 23 March 2021. It addressed: delayed repairs following a fire at the property, damp and mould and the resident’s rehousing request. The landlord did not identify any service failures related to the resident’s core complaint. Nevertheless, it awarded some compensation “in recognition of the issues” involved in the complaint. The main points were:
1. In November 2018, the resident was decanted to facilitate repair works following a kitchen fire. As part of these works, an “environmental clean” was completed in March 2019. Though an inspection on 8 April 2019 determined repairs were complete, the resident declined to return to the property.
2. In January 2020 the resident reported damp and mould. Between 17 and 29 January 2020 the landlord was unable to complete three scheduled mould washing appointments. This was because it was either unable to contact the resident, or the resident refused to facilitate access.
3. In February 2020 the landlord completed a joint inspection with the resident’s advocate. It established there was no damp in the property. “Issues with clutter and hoarding” were discussed with the resident’s advocate with a view to resolving the situation. At this time, the advocate was holding the property’s keys on the resident’s behalf. They were also attempting to obtain supported accommodation for her. The landlord noted the resident did not return the required application documents.
4. In September 2020 a safeguarding referral was submitted to the local authority. Around this time, the advocate agreed to arrange an assessment at the property with an Occupational Therapist. A case conference, with the local authority’s social services, was ultimately held on 19 January 2021. An occupational therapy referral was completed, away from the property, on 8 March 2021.
5. In December 2020 a lock change was completed at the resident’s request. The new keys were returned to the landlord’s office because the resident failed to collect them. A key safe was fitted in August 2021 following a councillor’s enquiry. An access code was provided to allow the resident or her support worker to collect the keys.
6. On 14 September 2021 the landlord agreed to move the resident through a discretionary management transfer. The resident subsequently declined two alternative properties between November 2021 and February 2022. In March 2022, the advocate advised the resident had been offered two properties by another provider. The resident should notify the landlord if she intended to accept one of the offers.
7. The landlord’s compensation comprised £50 for the delayed complaint response and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident replied the same day. She said she was angry the landlord referenced the fire. Further, it overlooked important issues including the boiler, asbestos, the leaking kitchen ceiling and a lack of electricity. In addition, she was prevented from accessing vital services because the property had multiple postcodes. She attributed this situation to an error by the landlord. The resident also said she was “given the last rites” in intensive care due to the property’s condition. Further, she had spoken to ITV about her situation but was unable “to show the condition” of the property.
The following events occurred between 28 and 30 March 2022:
1. The landlord told the Ombudsman the complaint had been escalated. Its correspondence was prompted by the Ombudsman’s intervention three days earlier. We said the resident had reported escalating her complaint.
2. The landlord issued the resident a stage two acknowledgment. It said It would respond within 20 working days.
3. The resident replied the same day. She said the landlord unfairly blamed her for the fire. Further, she was coughing everyday having previously caught pneumonia whilst living at the property. The resident said she was currently living in her car and the landlord, under its former company name, knew she was disabled from 2014.
The Ombudsman has seen the resident’s undated response to an email from 6 April 2022. It said “from June 23rd, I had no gas (until) after a new boiler was put in”. It also said the landlord’s heating contractor raised concerns about asbestos behind the boiler from June 2018. The resident raised a number of concerns about the property’s condition prior to the merger. For example, she said squirrels damaged the roof and chewed electricity cables. However, these issues were resolved under the landlord’s new operating name.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around 26 working days after the resident said she was unhappy with its stage one response. The landlord awarded her £50 in compensation to recognise the delay. It detailed the resident’s outstanding concerns and her preferred outcome. It said she wanted compensation for: medical issues she felt the landlord had caused, and distress and inconvenience that arose when the landlord “ignored” her reported repairs and her disability. The main points were:
1. The landlord was unable to investigate postcode issues from 1983. It noted the tenancy agreement did not contain a full postcode. Further, the partial postcode was reflected in its correspondence to the resident. It also noted it previously used different postcodes. The landlord felt there may have been a clerical error, but it was unable to explain the situation. While the landlord was sorry for any confusion caused, it disputed the resident was prevented from registering with a GP.
2. The landlord also disputed that the postcode prevented the resident from reporting repairs. This was because the property’s repair records showed multiple repairs had been raised over the years. From these records, the landlord noted accessing the property was a “frequent” issue. Because there were no records of any reported repairs from December 2020, the landlord did not agree it ignored the resident’s repair requests.
3. The resident’s assertions around a lack of heating and electricity were inaccurate. The property’s boiler was serviced annually in accordance with relevant legislation. Full electrical testing was completed by the landlord’s insurers following the fire in December 2018. The landlord attempted to carry-out routine checks in May 2019 but it was unable to gain access. From the landlord’s records, there was no evidence it had ever stated the resident caused the fire.
4. In March 2019 the landlord attended an emergency repair connected with a leak in the property’s kitchen. The situation was resolved, on 18 March 2019, within the landlord’s relevant timescales. Follow on works were completed accordingly. There were no records to suggest the presence of asbestos at the property. The landlord was aware of the resident’s medical condition. It found no evidence it failed to make appropriate adjustments, or to account for the condition during its communications with the resident.
5. The landlord understood the resident was in frequent contact with its local representative, who delivered her mail whilst she was not occupying the property. The representative was liaising with the local authority about the resident’s acceptance of accommodation, in another region, through an alternative provider. The landlord understood costs were a barrier to the resident’s move. As a gesture of goodwill, it would “offset” the resident’s removal costs to facilitate her preferred solution. The local representative would remain the resident’s point of contact.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 16 May 2022. She was concerned the landlord’s compensation award had reduced from £100. She was also unhappy she did not have an advocate. The resident said the landlord failed to address her pneumonia, which she attributed to damp and mould, and a lack of heating and hot water over four months. Further, she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her rehousing request. Our notes indicate she wanted compensation for moving to another property on the basis her tenancy was secure.
Our call records we previously gave the resident details for a number of advocacy services. Further, we asked if the resident could speak to her social worker. The notes show the resident was advised, since it was a legal matter, the Ombudsman would be unable to determine why she was hospitalised.
The landlord’s investigation notes indicate the alternative accommodation provider withdrew its offer of accommodation in June 2022. No information was seen to show the provider’s rationale.
Further investigation notes indicate the resident declined an offer of supported accommodation from a local authority around September 2022. The notes said the landlord wanted to continue supporting her but the resident was not engaging. Further, the landlord was concerned about the resident’s welfare and she did not have a social worker.
The landlord provided its main case evidence file on 16 February 2023. It included a screen shot that showed the resident had no recorded vulnerabilities. It also included an email summary of a recent meeting between the landlord’s local manager and representatives from social services. The email was dated 14 February 2023. Its wording suggests the meeting took place that day. The main points were:
1. Social services were still trying to engage with the resident, who was living in her car. They were attempting to obtain an independent psychiatric assessment. The resident’s case would be escalated to the local authority’s Mental Health Team for intervention.
2. The local authority previously offered the resident a “care scheme” property and a number of hotels. The resident declined these offers for various reasons. Following previous “interactions and complaints”, social services would be visiting the resident in pairs from now on.
3. They would try to arrange a further meeting with the resident within days. This would be to discuss a further offer of temporary accommodation. They would also arrange weekly-multi disciplinary meetings, which the landlord was invited to.
4. The landlord reiterated it had started legal abandonment proceedings. However, it would offer the resident suitable properties in another borough when they became available.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 23 February 2023. She said she spent her time alone at a cemetery or in her car. She said her health was poor and sleeping in her car was frightening. Further, the situation was both unfair and undignified. She said she had “spoken at length” to Shelter, and she would speak to an Occupational Therapist within days. Further, she had contacted the Guardian and LBC. The resident’s main points were:
1. Issues around asbestos, the postcode and damp began when she moved in. The walls were wet to touch and the windows were rotten. Though she spoke to Environmental Health, it was unable to assist due to the post code issue.
2. Conditions improved after the merger. For example, the resident received a new door and the boiler was replaced. Nevertheless, the landlord was responsible for the above disrepair issues since it took over the previous landlord’s responsibilities. It should compensate the resident and provide alternative accommodation.
3. The landlord agreed the above actions during a meeting at the hospital in 2018. The resident’s legal representative advised it was also responsible for her hotel stay. The resident’s legal case was ultimately dropped because it was “too much” (it was understood this referred to the complexity of the case).
4. The resident did not have any images of the property’s condition, so the local journalist did not pursue her story. The landlord’s surveyors had all the relevant images and, at the time, the resident trusted them.
5. The resident was concerned the landlord discriminated against her on racial grounds. For example, she said, the property had less bedrooms, more stairs and less heating than neighbouring homes.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline confirms she is dealing with some difficult personal circumstances. It also shows the situation has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or calculate/award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for the resident’s pneumonia.
The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time limited by the availability of evidence. We cannot fairly ask the landlord to provide information relating to events which occurred a long time ago. It may help to explain that this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the timeline above. Events prior to the beginning of this timeline are beyond the scope of the assessment.

The landlord’s response to various issues including: leaks, damp, asbestos and a defective boiler

The Ombudsman has seen little primary evidence relating to the resident’s case. As a result, much of the timeline was based on correspondence which post-dated the events in question. For example, we have not seen the resident’s initial reports of asbestos or mould. Nor have we seen her original concerns about the suitability of the property. From the information seen, there was no indication the resident raised any formal complaints prior to approaching the Ombudsman in February 2022. This was around three years after the above timeline began.
In April 2019 the Technical Inspection Officer accepted additional repairs were needed on the resident’s return to the property. The information seen indicates the landlord was unable to resolve these issues beforehand because it lacked access to a number of padlocked rooms. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say the landlord’s approach was unreasonable. From the information seen, it was unclear whether the resident returned to the property for any significant length of time after leaving hospital.
The timeline indicates the resident raised mould concerns around January 2020. The information seen shows the landlord attempted to complete remedial works in response to this report. This was appropriate given the circumstances. The timeline suggests the resident attended a joint inspection with her support worker in March 2020. At this point, the landlord disputed the property was damp. It is acknowledged the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report. However, little contrasting information was provided by the resident.
For example, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s support worker could have obtained images, or provided a statement detailing the property’s condition. Similarly, from the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to refer to information from related third parties such as social workers, the journalist or the resident’s legal representative. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman’s assessment was largely dependent on the information contained in the landlord’s records. The deficiencies identified in these records will be addressed later in the assessment.
No reference to asbestos was seen in the landlord’s repair records. Nor were there any references to replacement boiler works. Similarly, there was no information to indicate there were prolonged absences of heating or electrical safety issues during the above timeline. Further, no information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to compensate the resident on ending her secure tenancy. The information seen indicates the landlord recently resumed abandonment proceedings, which suggests the tenancy is ongoing. Given the above, there was little information to support the resident’s concerns around the above issues.
With regards to the postcode, the landlord acknowledged an apparent clerical error. It also apologised for any confusion caused. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience related to this issue. The landlord said it was unable to offer an explanation due to the time that passed. It disputed the “clerical error” prevented the resident from registering for vital services. No information was seen to the contrary. Nor was any seen to show the resident was adversely impacted as a result of the issue. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say the landlord’s approach or its related offer of redress was inappropriate.
In summary, the evidence suggests the resident has been living in her car for an extended period. It is accepted this is an extreme situation. Having carefully considered the evidence available, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures by the landlord in respect of her core complaint. Ombudsman investigations are necessarily evidence led. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord awarded the resident a reasonable level of redress given the clerical error identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

The timeline suggests the resident has a number of vulnerabilities. Given her circumstances, the landlord should have shown her due care and compassion. The Ombudsman used its inquisitorial remit to consider whether it offered the resident appropriate support, and demonstrated due sensitivity. The resident’s 30 March 2022 correspondence said the landlord knew about her disability from 2014. The resident has said the landlord failed to acknowledge her vulnerabilities or act accordingly.
In its stage two response, the landlord said it was aware of the resident’s condition. Further, it found “no evidence it failed to make appropriate adjustments, or to account for the condition during its communications”. In contrast, the landlord later told the Ombudsman, in February 2023, there was no information in its systems to show the resident was vulnerable. It also provided a supporting screen shot. Because the screen shot contradicted the landlord’s previous statement, the Ombudsman assessed the landlord’s actions against the above timeline.
The timeline indicates the landlord responded to medical information it received from the hospital, including a stair assessment. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this assessment. Legal correspondence, from July 2019, indicates the landlord: arranged transportation for the resident, made an offer of “sheltered” accommodation and offered assistance with her local authority rehousing application. The information seen indicates, around December 2020, the landlord made a safeguarding request to the local authority because it was concerned the resident was not engaging with her social worker. These were appropriate actions given the circumstances.
The timeline indicates an occupational therapy assessment took place, away from the property, around March 2021. From the landlord’s complaint correspondence, it later agreed a discretionary management transfer to resolve the resident’s situation. The information seen indicates the resident subsequently declined two offers of alternative accommodation between November 2021 and March 2022. The landlord subsequently agreed to offset the resident’s moving costs to facilitate her move to another region with an alternative provider. These were reasonable steps given the resident’s situation.
It was unclear why the resident’s offer was withdrawn. However, it is reasonable to conclude the matter was not in the landlord’s control. The landlord’s recent update to the Ombudsman suggests it will continue to offer alternative properties when they become available. It also suggests the landlord continues to work with third-party agencies involved in the resident’s case. Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord was alert to the resident’s situation and vulnerabilities. Further, it remained appropriately engaged throughout the timeline.
In her February 2023 update to the Ombudsman, the resident alleged the landlord treated her differently due to racial bias. We expect landlords to investigate concerns about bias through their complaints procedure. In this case, no information was seen to show the resident raised her concerns directly with the landlord. Nevertheless, we checked the landlord’s evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns. From the information seen, the Ombudsman cannot fairly say the landlord failed to respond appropriately to an allegation of bias.
Despite its record keeping, the timeline suggests the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. It remained engaged throughout the timeline, offered a range of solutions and worked collaboratively with relevant third-parties. Given the circumstances, this was appropriate action on the landlord’s part.
That said, its records failed to reflect the resident’s circumstances. Since no information was seen to show this failure had an adverse impact on the resident, the matter will be addressed in the below assessment of the landlord’s record keeping. Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord recognised it was responsible for delays at both stages of its complaints procedure. It awarded the resident a total of £100 in delay related compensation. The timeline shows these delays amounted to around 19 working days in total. Given their overall duration, the landlord offered the resident proportionate redress given what went wrong. It was noted the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s 23 March 2022 correspondence was an escalation request until the Ombudsman’s intervention several days later.
Whilst this delay was redressed by the landlord’s compensation award, the landlord should ensure it can promptly identify escalation requests so it can progress complaints accordingly.
The landlord’s stage one response did not reference asbestos, electrical safety, boiler issues or the ceiling. It therefore contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. The asbestos and boiler issues were reflected in both the Ombudsman’s complaint notification and the landlord’s call notes from 25 February 2022. The other issues were referenced in the Ombudsman’s complaint notification.
Due to the limited information in the call note on 25 February 2022, it is unclear how the complaint points raised in the Ombudsman’s complaint notification to the landlord differed to those points covered in its response to the resident.
Her same day escalation request confirms these issues were important to the resident. It was therefore unfair that the landlord failed to address them. It is reasonable to conclude the overlooked issues significantly reduced the landlord’s chances of resolving the complaint at stage one. Further, this failure likely extended the length of the resident’s complaint journey. Though the landlord ultimately addressed these issues at stage two. It failed to recognise, and therefore redress, its previous error.
Given the above there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman will award the resident proportionate compensation to put things right based on the information seen. The timeline shows the landlord’s responses were issued around five weeks apart. This suggests the impact to the resident was limited. Landlords should consider their own complaint handling as part of their complaint investigations. Any errors identified should be redressed accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its response to various issues including: leaks, damp, asbestos and a defective boiler.

Reasons

Contrary to the Code, the landlord’s stage one response overlooked several of the resident’s key complaint points. Though they were addressed at stage two, the landlord failed to recognise, and therefore redress, its previous error, which likely extended the resident’s complaint journey.
Despite its record keeping, the timeline suggests the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. It remained engaged throughout the timeline, offered a range of solutions and worked collaboratively with relevant third-parties. Given the circumstances, this was appropriate action on the landlord’s part.
The Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures by the landlord in respect of the resident’s core complaint about various issues including leaks, damp and mould. Ombudsman investigations are necessarily evidence led. The evidence suggests the landlord offered proportionate redress in relation to the identified clerical error.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks to:

Pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise that complaint issues were overlooked at stage one. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered by the landlord in its complaint responses. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:

Review the key case findings around complaint handling and provide the Ombudsman a report detailing how it intends to improve its performance in this area. The report should confirm the changes implemented. Relevant learning should be cascaded to the landlord’s related staff for training/improvement purposes.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider assigning the resident’s case to a member of its leadership team, who could act as a point of contact for both the resident and third-party agencies. This is with a view to ensuring the landlord can make any decisions about the case promptly and at a high level.
The landlord to update the Ombudsman as to the outcome of the next muti-disciplinary meeting.
The landlord to consider offering independent surveys as a means to resolving long-running disputes about a property’s condition.
The landlord should amend its records to accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities and the property’s correct address. The address can be confirmed using Royal Mail’s online address finder.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.