Clarion Housing Association Limited (202215143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215143

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of a decant following a fire at the resident’s property, including the resident’s reports that her new property did not meet her disability needs.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at her former property from 1996 following a succession of the tenancy. This property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident was decanted permanently to her current property on 30 March 2022. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at this property, which is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord said that it has no known vulnerabilities on its record for the resident. The resident had confirmed to the landlord in February 2022 that she was disabled and used a wheelchair.
The resident had to move out of her former property following a fire at the property on 6 February 2022. The resident stayed with a friend in the interim until the landlord offered her a property as a permanent move. The resident said she required adaptations to the property as her previous home had been adapted for her needs. The landlord told the resident that once she had moved into the property it would work with her to request an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral in order for adaptation work to be carried out. The resident accepted the property and the tenancy started on 30 March 2022.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 March 2022, to which she added further information on 27 April 2022. The complaint was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s temporary decant from her former property, the outstanding reimbursement of her costs, and the condition and suitability of the property she had moved into. This included concerns about the landlord’s communication on these issues.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process on 31 May 2022. In relation to the reimbursement of costs, it said in line with its decant policy it would consider meeting all reasonable costs as a direct result of being required to move home. It provided the resident with the information on what this included. It said a disturbance payment had been made to the resident of £1185 on 28 March 2022 for the time she had stayed with friends. In regard to the suitability of the property, the landlord said it had informed the resident that the property was suitable, and that the bathroom would be adapted one she had moved in. The landlord said it had confirmed to the resident that it would help to get the process started regarding the OT assessment for the bathroom and any paths that may need widening. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication and updates provided to the resident. It offered the resident £300 of compensation in relation to communication regarding the decant and £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2022. She said that the landlord had not addressed all the points she had raised including the damage to her belongings from her former property and the length of time it had taken for her to be allowed to remove her items from the property. The resident said she had continued to receive poor communication about her decant and had not received the reimbursement of her costs. The resident stated that she had felt “bullied” out of her former home. She said she was living in a property which was still not accessible for her needs.
On 15 September 2022, the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It said the following:
1. It was satisfied the information in the stage 1 response was fair, accurate and in line with its policy and procedures.
2. The resident had been offered her current property in line with its policy and because she had indicated that she needed ground floor accommodation for her mobility, and a property in a particular area due to family support.
3. Discussions had taken place with the resident at the time about adaptations being required and the resident had understood these could be done at a later date once the landlord had received confirmation from the OT of what was needed.
4. The resident had confirmed that an OT would be putting through proposals for adaptations needed and it would consider these in the usual way.
5. The landlord said its policy stated she should claim for any lost possessions through her own insurance. However, if the resident did not have insurance, it should have signposted her to other agencies who would have supported her with this.
6. Its decant policy stated that it would help with various elements associated with the cost of moving. It had asked the resident to provide these costs for reimbursement, and was unable to check which receipts had been sent in. It therefore offered the resident £650 for these costs.
7. The landlord offered the resident a total of £850 compensation in addition to the compensation offered at stage 1. This consisted of:
  1. £150 for the cost of reconnecting a cooker.
  2. £50 for post redirection.
  3. £100 for the cost of the washing machine and dishwasher connection.
  4. £50 for the cost of phone and internet connections.
  5. £300 as a contribution towards replacement curtains.
  6. £150 for its failure to signpost the resident to support agencies.
  7. £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of redress. She contacted this Service in October 2022 to request an investigation into her complaint. The landlord confirmed to this service that it had signposted the resident to an OT for referral for adaptations to her property following the end of the complaints process. The resident told this service in March 2024 that the adaptations to her bathroom had been completed in early March 2024 and she was waiting for further adaptations to be completed by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident completed an insurance claim in January 2023 to the landlord’s insurers. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This Service cannot assess or award damages. This would require an assessment of liability and a binding decision from a court or tribunal. This is not something that is within this Service’s jurisdiction to provide.
In contact with this service, the resident advised they believed the landlord had been negligent and should pay damages for their personal items lost in the fire. Determining negligence, liability and awarding damages are legal aspects that this service has no jurisdiction over. Such matters require a binding decision from a court or consideration via an insurance claim. This service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident and if it had acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures.
In raising her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing as this is better suited for the courts.
The resident confirmed to this service that following the end of the complaints process, and an OT assessment, she had experienced delays to the subsequent adaptations to her property. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. This assessment has investigated the resident’s concerns about her reports that the property did not meet her disability needs, and the landlord’s response to this during its complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of a decant following a fire at the resident’s property, including the resident’s reports that her new property did not meet her disability needs.

The landlord’s decant policy states that a permanent decant is when a resident is moved out of their property and there is no intention to return them to it, in circumstances such as where the damage is so extensive that permanent rehousing is necessary. The policy says that the landlord will consider meeting all reasonable costs that a resident incurs as a direct consequence of being required to move home, provided the decant is not necessitated by the resident’s damage or neglect.
The landlord’s void standard states that any new or retained adaptations requested must be accompanied by an OT specification or reassessed for an incoming tenant.
The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy states that the landlord requires an OT referral for all aids and adaptation requests, both minor and major.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord can award remedies using the following ranges:
1. £50-£250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact. This is per quarter, per failure.
2. £250-£700 for cases of considerable failure but no permanent impact.
3. £700 and over is considered where there had been a severe long-term impact.
The landlord has a vulnerable residents policy. The policy states that the landlord will record on the customer record any known vulnerability. The aims of the policy are to:
1. Record any vulnerabilities on the residents contact record and keep this up to date.
2. Use all available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable.
3. Take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management and enforcement.
4. Assist vulnerable residents in accessing additional services that they may need.
5. Make appropriate referrals to [the landlord’s] own advice and support and tenancy sustainment services to provide enhanced support where appropriate to do so.
6. Refer to statutory agencies and other external partner support agencies where appropriate.
7. Make safeguarding referrals whenever needed.
It was evident that the resident had experienced poor communication from the landlord following her decant due to a fire at her former property. The resident was told on 7 February 2022 that she would receive a call from the decant team but did not receive this call. The resident had not been able to get into contact with the decant team following this and during that week had taken the time and trouble to visit the local office of the landlord in an attempt to gain contact. The resident also noted that she had contacted the landlord on at least 17 occasions between 12 April 2022 and 15 August 2022.
The resident experienced difficulty speaking with the correct department and was told during live chats with the landlord that she would be called back on 4 and 5 April 2022, however the landlord did not demonstrate that it had called her back. As a result, the resident was caused the distress and inconvenience of not knowing what was happening with her decant, complaint or the issues she had raised. She had to frequently take the time and trouble to follow up and try to contact the correct departments. The resident had to speak with multiple departments and was not provided with clear advice and guidance on what she was able to claim costs for until the landlord set this out in its stage 1 response.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that there had been a lack of updates and communication from the landlord during the decant process. It had apologised and offered £300 in compensation to account for this. While the landlord had here attempted to put this right, this had not accounted for the continued poor communication after it had issued its complaint response. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from its stage 1 investigation and the resident had continued to experience a poor level of communication after this. The landlord had here demonstrated a poor level of customer service, which had left the resident feeling unsupported and frustrated during this difficult time.
In her complaint, the resident said she had been decanted to a permanent property which did not meet her needs. The landlord confirmed to this service that it was first aware of the resident’s disability and that she used a wheelchair during her initial call to it following the fire on 7 February 2022. It had recorded the resident’s housing needs as requiring a ground floor property and in a particular area for her support requirements. This demonstrated that the landlord had here considered the resident’s needs. The landlord’s offer of a permanent decant due to the extent of work required to the resident’s former property was in line with its decant policy.
The evidence provided by both the landlord and the resident evidenced that the resident had been told by the landlord prior to signing the tenancy that adaptations to the property could be completed by the landlord following an OT assessment. This was confirmed by the landlord in it stage 1 response. This was in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy which states that the landlord requires an OT referral for all aids and adaptation requests. This Service acknowledges that the landlord was required to find a property for a vulnerable resident who was living temporarily with a friend. In consideration of the circumstances, it was understandable that a property that was not fully suitable was identified. However, the landlord had explained why it had offered the resident this property and had confirmed that it would work with the resident and an OT referral to get any adaptations completed.
The landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage one response that she had been told the landlord would support her to get the process started regarding the OT assessment. It was not clear from the evidence provided by the landlord when this support was provided. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had signposted the resident to OT for a referral after the end of the complaints process. This was over 5 months after the resident had moved in. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident required adaptations when allocating the property to the resident, it was not appropriate for the landlord to delay in it supporting the resident with this.
The resident had raised with the landlord on 13 June 2022 and again on 20 July 2022 that she was not able to use the bathroom at her new property as this was not accessible for her and she was using a neighbour’s wet room. She had also told the landlord on 27 April 2022 that she had fallen in the property on the steps and bath, and again on 13 June 2022, and 2 August 2022. While it is accepted that the landlord requires an OT assessment prior to installing adaptations, the landlord here had failed to do what it had said it would in its stage one response and support the resident with this. There was no evidence of the landlord referring the resident to its aids and adaptations team or signposting her to an OT referral or support agencies on her reports of falling in the property, until a considerable time after she took on the new tenancy. This caused the resident significant stress and impacted on the enjoyment and access to her home. She had also needed to take the time and trouble to follow up with the landlord repeatedly on this issue. The landlord had here missed the opportunity and its duty to support the resident.
It was important to note that this service has not seen the OT assessment that has taken place since the end of the complaints process. The resident had confirmed to this service that the adaptations to the bathroom had been completed, but further adaptations remained outstanding. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident, if it had not already done so, and confirm to her the current status of any adaptations and provide its action plan if any of these remain outstanding.
The resident had said in her complaint at both stages that she had felt “bullied” into accepting the property. While this service was not able to assess the exact verbal conversations that had taken place about the permanent decant, it was evident that the landlord had told the resident that it was not able to provide a timescale of when another property would become available. It had provided her with 24 hours to consider the property. This Service cannot comment on the availability of properties at the time, but it is acknowledged that a ground floor property with the required adaptations was unlikely to have been available immediately. That said, it is understandable that the resident felt pressured as she will have seen that the property did not meet her needs and was clearly reluctant to accept out of fear that the required works would not take place promptly. In these circumstances, this Service would expect a landlord to be empathetic, clear and transparent about the situation and to then ensure that it acts promptly to provide the support in place.
It was evident that the landlord had here set the resident’s expectations about the availability of another suitable property and the action required to make this property suitable for her needs. This Service appreciates that it was a distressing and difficult decision for the resident in which she had limited time to make a decision about signing the tenancy agreement for her property. However, the landlord’s initial action here was appropriate in order for the resident to have the full information to make a choice. However, it had not demonstrated that it had provided the further necessary support to the resident, despite her reporting her ongoing difficulties with living in the property.
The landlord had confirmed to the resident in its stage 1 response that she was able to claim for reasonable costs incurred as a direct result of the decant. This was in line with the landlord’s decant policy. However, throughout the complaint period, the resident told the landlord that she was not able to take up its offer of reimbursement of these cost as she was not in a position to pay for the items up front. It was noted that the landlord had covered the costs of the fitting of the carpet and the removals and had paid for these directly. However, in regard to the other items, the landlord’s responses during this time showed no flexibility in applying this reimbursement procedure given the specific circumstances of the resident. This is gives rise to a concern that resident was left unable to meet her daily needs during this period.
The landlord was aware the resident had no insurance and as such was moving into her property with very few furnishings or belongings. It had not demonstrated it had taken this into consideration in its responses to her. The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation in its final response for the costs associated with moving. While this offer was reasonable as a reimbursement of the costs incurred, it had not accounted for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of having to continue to seek support with the reimbursement of the costs she was entitled to under the terms of its policy. It also did not account for the landlord having failed to acknowledge the residents concerns about paying for items upfront.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response that as the resident did not have insurance, it should have signposted her to other agencies for support to replace lost possessions. From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord was aware the resident did not have insurance in February 2022. Although the landlord had contacted the resident in September 2022 about any further support requirements. There was a 7 month delay here in providing this support. The landlord had offered the resident £150 of compensation in recognition of its failure here. This did not fully account for the significant delay and the distress caused to the resident who had continued to seek support from the landlord during this time.
However, there was also a further failing here. The landlord had failed to identify the resident as vulnerable and take the steps set out in its vulnerable resident’s policy. The resident told the landlord on 11 April 2022 that she had been sleeping on the floor and did not have cooking facilities. She told the landlord again on 14 April 2022 that she had been sleeping on the floor and had no curtains. While the landlord had acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the resident had told it she had been sleeping on the floor in her property, it did not at this point seek to make any appropriate referrals. This was a failure to follow its vulnerable residents policy. This was because it did not signpost the resident to other local support networks that may have been able to help.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability from its contact with the resident following the fire at her former property. The resident had also expressed to the landlord during the complaints process that she had been experiencing difficulties with both her mental and physical health following the fire. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken any steps in regard to the welfare of the resident. This was not in line with its vulnerable residents policy. Given the difficult situation the resident was in, welfare calls would have been appropriate and again referrals to support agencies.
In the evidence provided to this service, it was noted that the landlord and not updated its recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its records. This demonstrated a poor level of record keeping. The landlord had here also again not followed its vulnerable resident’s policy which says the landlord will record on the customer record any known vulnerability, any particular communication or access needs. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord here had failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities once made aware and had therefore missed the opportunity to inform staff who had contact with the resident during the complaint period. As such a recommendation has been made for the landlord to complete a self assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through a total offer of compensation of £1100. While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the failings identified. The resident has informed this Service that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she had spent a considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses throughout what was a very difficult time. It was also noted that £650 of this compensation is for the reimbursement of costs incurred during the resident’s decant.
In summary, the resident experienced poor communication from the landlord throughout the decant process. The resident also had to take the time and trouble to continue to chase the landlord for updates. While the resident had accepted the property she was permanently decanted to with the knowledge that it required adaptations, the landlord had not done what it said it would in supporting the resident with the process of an OT assessment in an appropriate timeframe. The landlord had also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the reimbursement of moving costs appropriately, and had not taken action in line with its vulnerable residents policy.
As a result, the resident had experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a period of 7 months. The landlord had attempted to put this right for the resident through its offer of compensation and had acknowledged some of its failures. However, its offer of redress did not go far enough to reflect the full impact of its failures here. As such there was maladministration in the landlords handling of a decant following a fire at the resident’s property, including the resident’s reports that her new property did not meet her disability needs. A further amount of £750 of compensation has been ordered in addition to the compensation previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a serious, and detrimental impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire.

The resident had raised in both her initial complaint and her complaint escalation, that her belongings had been damaged as a result of the delay in her being able to access her former property.
It was acknowledged that resident was not able to attend the property without the landlord present for health and safety reasons and only once the property was safe to do so. However, from the evidence provided to this Service, it was evident that the landlord facilitated access for a limited amount of time only due to the availability of its staff. In consideration of the size of the property and the extent of the damage, it would have been reasonable to allow the resident a greater amount of access in order to be able to properly attend to her items. As a result of the limited access, the resident advised she did not have time to clean and dry her items before placing in storage. The landlord’s response here had not demonstrated a customer focused approach in facilitating access to her belongings.
It was clear that the resident had chased the landlord on several occasions in the weeks following the fire, to find out when she could gain access. She had also asked the landlord to confirm when it could provide access to her loft for her to assess the damage to her belongings in there. The landlord’s records noted the resident had chased the landlord for a response on this on 7 March 2022, 10 March 2022, and 11 March 2022. This had caused the resident the further distress and inconvenience in having to continue to chase the landlord up to find out what was happening.
In its final response on 15 September 2022, the landlord referred the resident to its own insurers, if she had felt that it was liable for anything else as a result of the fire. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information to the resident, this was 7 months after the fire had occurred. The delay here was inappropriate. The landlord should have directed the resident to its insurance claims process as soon as she had raised her concerns about liability in March 2022.
This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the resident’s losses, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire was not appropriate. It had not provided the resident with a full response on this matter or an explanation for the delay in providing access. It had also delayed significantly in referring her to its own insurers. This had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to account for its failures here.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Further to a cyber-security incident in June 2022, the landlord had implemented an interim complaints policy. The interim complaints policy stated that when a complaint is made it must be logged at stage 1 of its complaint procedure and acknowledged within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It says complaint escalations will be logged and acknowledged within 10 working days and resolved within 40 working days. If the landlord is not able to resolve the stage 2 complaint within this timescale, it will provide the resident with a timescale and provide updates. The policy says that if the landlord is unable to progress complaints logged before 17 June 2022 it will manage the resident’s expectations.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If it is not possible for a landlord to respond within these timeframes, an explanation, and a date of when the response will be received is required. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord’s complaint responses noted the resident had raised her complaint on 28 April 2022. However, the resident had first raised her complaint on 28 March 2022, and this was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 April 2022. It stage 1 response was issued on 31 May 2022, this was a timeframe of 44 working days. This was not in line with the timescale set out in the Code or the landlord’s policy. The £50 compensation offered by the landlord for the delay was appropriate in this case.
The landlord said its stage 2 response had been delayed as a result of the disruption caused by a cyber-security attack on its IT systems. The landlord’s final response here was provided 68 days after the resident escalated her complaint. The timeframe here was excessive and had not met the timescales in the landlord’s interim complaints policy or the Code. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation to account for the delay in the stage one response. However, this was not proportionate to the excessive delay and the inconvenience this had caused to the resident.
It was noted that the landlord had informed the resident In July 2022 that it was unable to process her complaint due to the cyber attacked and would resume the process as soon as it was able to. However, the resident had to follow up with the landlord again on 3 occasions during August 2022. The landlord had here failed to keep the resident updated. It had demonstrated a poor level of customer service. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to continue to follow up throughout the complaint period.
It was evident that the landlord had not addressed all points of the resident’s complaint in its responses. In her initial complaint, the resident had raised that she had not been allowed back into her property without the landlord present and had been provided a limited time to salvage her belongings. She also raised this again in her complaint escalation. The resident had also raised that she was awaiting repair work to her property and had experienced problems with connecting her gas cooker. She had raised these issues again in her complaint escalation.
Although it was noted these issues had been added to the complaint by the resident in April 2022, the landlord did not confirm if it had investigated these issues for the resident as part of her complaint. The landlord’s complaint response did not address this to offer an explanation or an update on the status of the repairs she had raised. This was a failure to fully address all parts of the resident’s complaint. The landlord had here missed the opportunity to set out how it would resolve these issues for the resident and set her expectations on this. It was also not compliant with the Code. As a result, the resident spent time and trouble following up on these issues with the landlord.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint process did not answer all of the complaint, the landlord’s responses took too long and were not provided within than the timescales set out in its complaints policy, and the resident experienced poor communication. The landlord had attempted to put things right for the resident through an offer of compensation of £100 for the delay in its complaint responses. However, this was not proportionate to the excessive delay at stage 2 and its failure to address all points of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling. This includes the compensation of £100 offered in relation to complaint handling during the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a decant following a fire at the resident’s property, including the resident’s reports that her new property did not meet her disability needs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2350 compensation. This amount includes the £1200 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £1200 for the significant distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the decant following a fire at the resident’s property.
2. £650 reimbursement for the costs incurred as a result of the resident’s move as offered previously by the landlord.
3. £250 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about items damaged in the fire.
4. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

The landlord should review its staff training needs to ensure it pro-actively communicates with residents who are in temporary accommodation, including regular reviews of their circumstances and clear plans for either re-housing or a return to their principal property.
The landlord should contact the resident, if it had not already done so, and confirm to her the current status of any adaptations and provide the action plan if any of these remain outstanding.
In May 2023, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management. Although this report was issued after this case, it is recommended that the landlord, if it has not already done so, completes a self-assessment against this report and identifies any potential improvements to its service delivery in the future.