East Riding of Yorkshire Council (202207866)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207866

East Riding of Yorkshire Council

22 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. Reports around its staffs conduct.
    4. The suitability of the resident’s property.
  1. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
    2. Suitability of the resident’s property.
  3. The resident raised issues of noise nuisance and ASB by his neighbour to the landlord. Following discussions, he told the landlord he felt it supported his neighbour. He provided it with a deadline to put things in place to ensure his protection. The landlord explained in its response to him in June 2022 that his reports were being dealt with separately. It further confirmed to this service on 6 December 2023 that it had not received a formal complaint from him about the ASB matters, and it continued to deal with the reports.
  4. The resident also raised concerns about the suitability of his property. He raised issues around severe dampness and decay with his property, issues with his front door and kitchen ceiling. Although it is acknowledged that the resident reported the matters to the landlord, there is no evidence that a complaint was raised.
  5. Paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters which in its opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. From the evidence provided, the matters of noise nuisance, ASB, the suitability of the property, damp and mould, kitchen ceiling, and front door had not been raised as a complaint and as such the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to these issues through its internal complaint’s procedure. As such the Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on these issues. Should the matters remain outstanding, the resident can raise a complaint about them with the landlord. The landlord is also encouraged to engage with any complaints raised and provide the resident with the necessary responses.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant in a 2 bedroom property and his tenancy began in December 2020.
  2. The resident lives with physical and mental health vulnerabilities including a hearing impairment, arthritis, and post traumatic stress disorder. The resident also has autism.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the toilet. It states the resident is responsible for keeping the property free from vermin, and any infestations must be treated or reported promptly.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repairs into 4 categories. It states it will deal with category A repairs within 24 hours, B within 3 working days, C within 14 working days, and D within 56 working days. It advises that it is responsible for repairs for sanitation including toilets. It highlights that it will respond to issues with a toilet not flushing where there is no other working toilet in the dwelling within 1 working day.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it should inform residents where possible that complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 2 working days. It states it will respond within 10 working days at both stage 1 and 2 of its complaint’s procedure. It says if the matter is complex, it will update the resident and a new deadline would be agreed. The policy also says that a resident can make complaints in several ways including over the telephone.

Summary of events

  1. The resident contacted the landlord and raised a repair with his toilet. The landlord attended and its notes on 11 August 2021 state that he said he was happy using a bucket to flush as it could not fix the toilet on the same day.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about housing repairs on 13 August 2021. He raised an issue with his toilet not flushing amongst other concerns. Although it had attended within 2 hours, the contractors did not have the correct parts and said they would return the following day but did not and the matter remained outstanding. When he queried the matter, he was told by its contractors that they were advised he was flushing the toilet with a bucket of water. The resident told them that he could not do this due to his physical vulnerability. He stated its member of staff told him to put his complaint in writing which he could not do due to his vulnerability. It is unclear if the resident informed the landlord of this prior to his complaint. He said it was not acceptable that the landlord expected him to wait 5 days for the toilet to be repaired.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response on 23 August 2021. It explained it was following up their conversation on the same day. It said a plumber had attended the resident’s home to repair the toilet on 19 August 2021 and he was happy with the completed repair but did not want to close his complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a record of the telephone call between the landlord and resident.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 August 2021 and asked to escalate his complaint. He said the toilet was working properly but the service he had received was poor as the contractors who originally attended the 24 hour call out were unable to repair the toilet at the time. He was informed they would return the following day and he had cancelled his private appointments to allow access, but they failed to return. He contacted its repairs team and was informed they were due to attend the following week instead. He informed the landlord he had a private appointment the following week. On the day of the repair, the landlord’s contractors attended twice, on the first occasion he was unable to reach the door in time, due to his physical vulnerabilities. On the second occasion, they arrived shortly before he was due to attend his appointment and he informed the contractors they had 15 minutes to complete the repair due to this. He raised dissatisfaction at the length of time taken to complete the repair and that he was embarrassed and humiliated by having to ask his friend and carer for help with flushing the toilet.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 1 October 2021 to an escalation request reportedly made by the resident on 14 September 2021. It is unclear if there was a delay by the resident in sending the escalation request, or if he provided a further escalation request as the information provided to the Ombudsman states he escalated his complaint on 30 August 2021. It said it had read his position about its actions and conduct. It advised that it was continuing to work with care and commitment to its duties and had kept its housing services going to support its communities during the last 18 months of COVID-19. It apologised for not meeting its usual service standard. In its response the landlord:
    1. Confirmed the repair was first reported on 11 August 2021 and an emergency appointment was attended on the same day and the cistern was made safe. A further job was then raised on the same day for its contractors to attend, and they subsequently attended twice on 16 August 2021 and could not gain access on both visits.
    2. Said he had explained that due to his personal circumstances he could not respond by answering the door on 16 August 2021 and another appointment to attend was made on 19 August 2021. He reported satisfaction with the work that was conducted.
    3. Concluded the repairs service it offered him did not meet its usual standards, and there were delays. It apologised to him for this and acknowledged it had not accounted for his circumstances when communicating with him and its contractors who were completing the works.
    4. Advised it was now implementing changes in how it managed its repairs handling service, and its services would in future take into consideration resident’s mobility.
    5. Acknowledged the advice he received about contacting its contractor directly, and the general advice about what to do about flushing the toilet whilst waiting for the repair, although practical was not ideal for his circumstances. It would be providing further guidance and support to its officers to ensure that they were more understanding of resident’s circumstances when they contacted it.
    6. Told him because of his feedback, it was implementing changes to its handling of repairs and an improvement should be seen.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with a further response to his complaint on 21 October 2021. It explained that he had contacted it on 1 October 2021 regarding several enquiries he made regarding his complaint. The landlord:
    1. Said regarding the repairs, in follow up to his complaint, he had advised that he was seeking compensation for the delay in resolving the issue with his toilet. It said it had acknowledged this in its previous response and apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused. It offered him a goodwill payment of £100 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience it had caused him. It said it had and continued to change its repairs reporting process to avoid such delays.
    2. Explained that it was aware there was a six-foot fence around the left rear boundary, and a wooden close-board fence to the rear. On the right boundary, there was a mesh fence that abuts onto the allotments, and the fence was relatively new. In its view, it did not consider the fencing needed to be improved or enhanced, but if he wished to improve it himself, he should write to it, and it would consider his request.
    3. Advised him about the vermin that he suggested invaded his property from the nearby allotments. It told him if he believed there were rats in his garden, then it could arrange for its pest control team to attend and conduct any necessary treatment, but this would be chargeable.
    4. Finally, it provided him with a point of contact if he wished to discuss matters further and explained he could escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  7. The landlord’s repair records show that between 11 August 2021 and 21 July 2022 it raised and completed several works on the resident’s toilet. These included fitting a toilet seat, unblocking the toilet, and inspecting for a leak.
  8. The resident emailed a member of the landlord’s staff and said he was unable to use his garden and toilet on 1 March 2022. He reported that he provided them with a photograph of the toilet leaking.
  9. The member of staff responded on 4 March 2022 and explained he should raise any further matters about the garden and toilet with the relevant team, but they had forwarded the emails to them. The resident responded on the same day and said he had been advised by his solicitor and another organisation not to contact the landlord’s repairs team. This was due to its staff behaving inappropriately towards those living with autism. He named a member of the landlord’s staff and said he could not contact the team due to fear for his safety. He stated he had complained but had not heard anything and had telephoned twice to speak with someone without success.
  10. Between 14 March 2022 and 31 March 2022, the resident communicated with the landlord. He confirmed it had attended and repaired his toilet on 14 March 2022, but raised further issues. He said there was a gap between the bottom of the toilet and the flooring, and the toilet seat made a noise as though it was not self-closing which affected and triggered his vulnerabilities. He also told the landlord that his toilet was blocked. He also raised concerns with his emotional and mental wellbeing.
  11. Throughout April 2022 the resident continued to raise issues about the landlord’s staff and its duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled residents. He said a specific colleague had been dishonest about receiving photographs of his cleared garden for his new lawn to be laid. He said he had been promised new soil would be laid and then a new lawn. He raised repair issues with his front door as he had expressed a problem with it three weeks prior and it remained unattended to. He also reiterated the issue with the gap around his new toilet and that he had been advised not to contact its repairs service. He further raised issues with his dog following a “bad accident” in the garden causing damage to their leg. He said if nothing was done, he would be moving into a pet friendly hotel and the landlord would be responsible for the costs. He felt a drain needed to be installed before the soil and new lawn was laid, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord.
  12. Following his comments about the garden, on 4 April 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a response by email. It is unclear if it treated his comments about the garden and remarks about moving to a hotel as a complaint. It however explained:
    1. It had long been agreed that the garden would be addressed following two conditions, firstly when the weather was suitable and secondly when it had been cleared of obstructions. It said it was agreed he would send photographs of the garden showing it was cleared. It then asked for these to be provided.
    1. It told him to contact its maintenance team directly about matters relating to his property as only he could make the appointments for them to attend.
    2. It asked him if he was looking to move, and said if so, it could provide him with a transfer application form but could not advise that any preference would be created. It also told him if he chose to leave the property and incur costs of overnight accommodation, it would not reimburse any costs arising.
  13. The landlord and resident discussed on 6 April 2022 about its contact with the police following his ASB reports. He then forwarded an email stating he was being bullied by a member of its staff. He explained they informed him that they were able to “manage his autism” but had made it worse. He highlighted that he had shared confidential information with them, and they had not been truthful about receiving his emails and their abilities related to autism. He also stated the individual had contradicted themselves as they had advised him that they had only received his email that morning but had spoken to the police the day prior, which would not be possible if they had only received his email that morning. He expressed there were concerns from others about their conduct towards him.
  14. The landlord explained on the same day that with his consent, it would put the matter through as a complaint, and the resident accepted this. The member of staff he had raised the issue about responded on the same day to explain why it had contacted the police and to reassure him they would be happy to deal with his concerns.
  15. Two days later, the resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns over his fence, following a theft from his garden. He said he was told it would be replaced with a new timber fence. He also raised concerns about his kitchen ceiling and said he was told it would be repaired the previous month. He reiterated his report about his front door and that he had been told someone would attend to replace the “door rubber” but this had not been done. The resident then said the landlord was responsible for many areas and issues concerning the property and his “right to life” which he did not have, and this was a basic human right.
  16. The resident chased an update from the landlord on 22 April 2022, about his complaint against its employee. He explained it was crucial as it was relevant for court proceedings which were on hold. He also stated he addressed the issue of “negative floor coverings” with a member of its staff and aside from a “persistently blocked new toilet”, he had to plunge everyday despite his severe mobility issues, he was wiping a “disgusting black matter” from the base of the new toilet. The Ombudsman had asked for a copy of any court proceedings from the landlord but has not been provided with any. The documents provided instead were legal witness statements about the reported ASB which is suggestive of ongoing legal action.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2022 reiterating he had been instructed not to contact its repairs team due to its member of staff. He stated he had raised a complaint about them months ago but received no response. He also raised issues about other members of its organisation. When he rang to chase one of his complaints, he was told the individual was not employed by the landlord, but they had signed for a recorded delivery letter he had sent it. He also reiterated the need for it to make reasonable adjustments for individuals with disabilities. He then asked it to put him in contact with someone who would deal with his concerns or refuse to do so, and he would include it in his county court proceedings against it.
  18. On the same day, the landlord responded and said it was unaware of a complaint about a member of its repairs team and did not know the individual he was referring to.
  19. Throughout May 2022, the resident spoke with the landlord raising repair issues following a flood in his hallway through his front door, after rainfall. He reported he had raised the issue back in early February 2022. He also continued to raise issues with the members of its staff he had complained about and tried to discuss his complaint. He told the landlord that he had no decorating, or floor coverings in the hallway and bedroom in his property, and that he could not afford food. He advised he was aware that the landlord had been sending his complaint responses to his old address which he left 15 months prior. He said the only response he had received at his current address was the one he was unhappy with, and they continued to ignore all the laws which applied to disabled and autistic people.
  20. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 6 May 2022. It apologised for the delay. It said he had made a number of allegations against its member of staff, and it had spoken with them. It then:
    1. Explained it was concerned about his comments that they had said they could “manage” his autism. It said whatever their personal and professional experience, such issues would not fall within the remit of their role.
    1. Said it had reviewed its records and could not find any evidence to verify his statement that his neighbour had been supported and he had not. It confirmed that it treated all complaint seriously and would investigate them thoroughly regardless of who made them.
    2. Advised he had been contacted both regularly and frequently regarding various issues and complaints he had raised. The member of staff he complained about had also attended visits with colleagues.
    3. Told him that he had emailed the member of staff while they were on leave and would have received their out of office. It did not expect any member of staff to feel any obligation to check emails when away from the office due to an entitlement to a work life balance. While they were away from the office, they would not receive any of his correspondence.
    4. Informed him that contact with the police, other agencies, or sections of its organisation was made if pertinent and relevant to a complaint made. This allowed it to establish what if any action had been taken, or verify details provided to it. It said going forward it would ensure it sought his written authority before approaching any third party on his behalf.
    5. Stated it considered his comments regarding its member of staff to be personal in nature and did not assist it in providing support to him. It also referred him to his tenancy conditions and asked him to treat its staff with the same courtesy and respect afforded to him.
  21. The landlord also told the resident on the same day that it had made enquiries about the rainwater entering his property. It said it would update him as part of its investigation into the noise nuisance.
  22. The resident asked to escalate his complaint twice on 10 May 2022 and 14 May 2022. He reiterated the reasons he had previously listed. He also said he found the landlord’s response disrespectful and that it was not treating his complaint seriously. He explained he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach to handling the matters he had raised, as it referred him to his tenancy conditions. He further tried to raise another complaint about a member of its staff. He also sought to discuss his complaint on 16 May 2022 against its two members of staff and reiterated their reported legislative breaches.
  23. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 16 June 2022. It thanked him for his escalation on 10 May 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord:
    1. Explained it had reviewed all the correspondence between it and the resident and discussed matters with the relevant officers involved. He had been communicating with it about his concerns of antisocial behaviour from one of his neighbours, and this was being dealt with as a separate matter.
    1. Said its stage 1 response on 6 May 2022 was not meant to upset or offend him, and apologised if he considered it disrespectful. It then explained the intent behind the response to him. It said it was aware of his personal circumstances and expected its staff to consider them when communicating with him about his concerns.
    2. Stated it wanted to provide a proactive and responsible service to all its customers and that going forward, it trusted the communication and services that it offered to him would address the concerns he raised.
    3. Advised it provided him with a contact and their details if he wanted to discuss the matter further. It said it was assured the steps it was making and had previously taken were assisting him with the enjoyment of his home and answered his complaint.

Post complaint

  1. The landlord told the resident that it had asked one of its team to look at the feasibility of turfing the garden and putting up additional fencing. It said no decision had been made on the matter and it would depend on the feasibility of the works. The resident continued to raise issues with the landlord between August 2022 and August 2023. He raised further issues with “severe dampness and decay”, his ceiling collapsing and infestations of rats and mice in and outside of his property. He raised another complaint about a member of the landlord’s staff and was provided with a stage 1 response in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the resident raised issues with his toilet following the landlord’s stage 2 responses in October 2021, the Ombudsman was unable to determine that a formal complaint was raised about these issues after the responses in October 2021. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to make a formal determination on any issues about the toilet which occurred after October 2021. This is because these concerns had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, and a definite conclusion cannot be made that the new repairs were linked to those considered by the landlord in October 2021. The landlord has not had an opportunity to consider the new repairs raised and respond, so it would be unfair of the Ombudsman to make a determination on them. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider completing an inspection of the toilet or drainage survey to see if this might help with identifying the problem.
  2. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord breaching legislation such as the Care Acts 2014 and 2016, the Equality Act 2010, the Autism Act 2009, and the Human Rights Act 1998. Paragraph 42 (f) of the scheme states the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. As the matter of breach of legislation is a legal question in nature, a legally binding determination is required to identify if there had been any breach. The Housing Ombudsman would be unable to make such a determination. Breaches of legislation are better dealt with by the courts and the resident might want to seek independent legal advice on this.
  3. The resident raised concerns about the landlord breaching the Care Acts 2014 and 2016. As these acts concern the provision of social care, these are issues outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s remit and fall more within the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may want to take independent advice on if the matters are better suited for the LGSCO or the courts.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

  1. When the resident raised issues around a lack of floor coverings and financial issues, the landlord provided no evidence that it provided any support to him. This was unreasonable, and it could have signposted him to relevant organisations for assistance. The failure to do so shows that the landlord did not take a customer focused or sympathetic approach.

Toilet

  1. When the resident initially reported the issue with his toilet, the landlord appropriately attended within 24 hours to make his toilet safe. This was in line with its policy and responsibilities under the tenancy agreement.
  2. Following the landlord’s visit of 11 August 2021, the toilet was left in a non-working order as the resident had to flush using a bucket. The landlord then did not rectify the issue for a further 6 working days. This was unreasonable and it appropriately recognised this.
  3. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have informed the resident about the delay at the earliest opportunity when it realised the repair would not be completed within 24 hours. The evidence suggests it was not until he chased the matter that he was informed of the delay, and this was inappropriate. The landlord has a duty to manage the resident’s expectations and its failure to do so in this instance shows it did not take a customer focused approach.
  4. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had not considered the resident’s mobility difficulties, and this added to the delays in completing the works to the toilet. In line with the Equality Act 2010, it should have considered and ensured that the relevant adjustments were in place prior to the event and not after. It awarded the resident a £100 goodwill payment for the distress and inconvenience it had caused him. It also explained that the resident’s complaint had led to a learning experience for it, and it was looking to make changes based on this. Although the landlord took positive steps in learning from its failings, and offering compensation, this did not go far enough as there were further considerations it failed to account for.
  5. The Ombudsman acknowledges that repairs can sometimes be complicated and there can be issues with a landlord’s ability to source required parts quickly. However, it should have reviewed both its own and the resident’s position once it knew there was going to be a delay in rectifying the matter. Its notes state that the resident was able to flush the toilet with a bucket of water, however, this appears to be as he believed its contractors would be attending the following day to rectify the issue. It should have ensured that it considered the resident’s vulnerability and the impact of repeatedly having to flush with a bucket of water, could have on him for the length of time he was expected to wait before the matter was resolved. It does not appear that the landlord took such consideration, and this was unreasonable. This added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord, and caused distress due to having to ask others to complete the action for him when he could not. The landlord also failed to re-evaluate its position once aware of the delays with repairing the toilet as it did not consider the impact of the extended need to use the bucket to flush, on the resident’s vulnerability. An order has been made below for the resident to be compensated an additional £200 around these failings.
  6. The landlord did not show that it considered the resident’s mobility restrictions, and the impact they could have on his ability to answer the door in a timely manner. Had it done so, reasonable adjustments should have been put in place earlier, such as informing its contractors to allow for extra time for him to reach the door or telephoning him to make him aware of their presence. The failure to consider this until after the event was inappropriate, led to further delays in completing the repairs, and resulted in further frustration for the resident.

Garden, fencing and pest control.

  1. When the resident raised issues with his fencing, the landlord appropriately provided him with information and told him it would consider any request he made. It also reasonably told him it could assist with the pest issues by arranging for its pest control team to attend if he would like them to, and explaining this was chargeable to him. The landlord gave the resident the options available to him to rectify the issues.
  2. When the resident informed the landlord, he had provided the requested photographs around his cleared garden, it could have checked to ensure it had the information. If it found it did not, it could have then apologised and explained to him why it requested the information again. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the photographs were sent to the landlord. No further information was also provided on when/if the works for the garden were completed. There is also no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s reports to satisfy itself that it had not received the photographs previously. The repeated requests were inappropriate and caused the resident frustration.
  3. In summary, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged it failed to account for the resident’s vulnerability on one occasion, it also failed to consider it on other occasions, and this led to frustration and inconvenience for the resident. It failed to evidence that it informed him of the delay in it returning to complete the repair until he chased it for an update. It also failed to show it reevaluated both its own and the resident’s position once it became aware of the delay, and if it was still reasonable for him to continue flushing with the bucket, given his disabilities. It appropriately told him he could ask for permission to alter the fence, and provided an explanation that pest control was his responsibility. The landlord did not show that it investigated the resident’s reports that he had sent the required images of his garden for works to begin. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of reports of the landlord’s staffs conduct.

  1. The resident explained that a member of the landlord’s staff told him that they could “manage his autism” but “made it worse”. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence in relation to the verbal conversation and as such is unable to comment on this further. However, the service can consider if the landlord acted appropriately about the resident’s concerns.
  2. Following the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff, it positively explained the steps it had taken to investigate his concerns. It identified that it had reviewed all the documentation and spoken with the relevant officers. This was appropriate and showed that it took a customer focused approach. It reviewed all available evidence to try and ensure its staff had met the standards it expected of them when communicating with the resident and make an informed decision about their conduct.
  3. It also appropriately provided him with assurance that its member of staff’s response to his complaint was not intended to upset, offend or be disrespectful to him. It explained the intent behind the response was to provide an explanation of the role of another member of staff and that there would be delays in their response due to leave. It also told him that its staff were expected to consider his personal circumstances when communicating with him and provided him with a single point of contact. This shows that the landlord looked to take a customer focused approach with the resident and provide him with reassurance around its actions. Despite this however, the landlord has provided no evidence that it ever asked the resident about any reasonable adjustments which would be required around its communications with him, and this was unreasonable.
  4. The landlord also rightly explained that the member of staff’s role would not be to “manage” the resident’s vulnerability. It could have however gone further and provided him with information about any services he could access which might have been of assistance to him. This was a possible missed opportunity to see if he required any support or advocacy service in assisting him.
  5. Despite this however, the landlord told the resident to raise his repairs with the appropriate team after he had expressed his concerns around specifically 2 members of the team behaving inappropriately towards those with autism. He had also said a member of the team who he specifically named was “persistently bullying and abusing” him. The landlord failed to evidence that it considered and recognised that his refusal to contact the specified team was linked to his vulnerability. This is even after he repeatedly raised the issue of members of the team’s staff bullying those with autism in several pieces of correspondence. It also failed to show that it investigated the resident’s concerns and appropriately reassured him about the service provided by them. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity to investigate an apparent issue with its service provision, resolve the resident’s concerns and ensure his repairs were appropriately logged. Had it reflected on the facts of the situation, it should have considered if further action or contact adjustments needed to be made.
  6. In summary, the landlord acted appropriately in investigating several of the resident’s concerns about its members of staff. It however failed to show that it had considered any reasonable adjustments around communication for the resident. It also did not show that it reflected on the resident’s reasons for not reporting repairs to the relevant team. It instead kept referring him to them, rather than considering his reasons and identifying the link to his vulnerability. It failed to show it offered any reassurance to him around this issue or put any adjustments in place. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure.

Complaint handling.

  1. When the resident contacted the landlord querying his complaint in August 2021, he was told to put his complaint in writing. When he said that he could not do so due to his osteoarthritis, it has provided no evidence that it offered him any reasonable adjustment. This could have been for example, allowing him to make the complaint over the telephone, in line with its complaint’s policy.
  2. There was a 14 working day delay in the provision of its stage 2 response of October 2021, in accordance with the landlord’s policy. The delay was inappropriate as it has provided no evidence that it agreed an extension for it to provide its response late. An expectation would have been created with the resident that a response should have been provided earlier. However, there is no evidence that the delay in responding to the complaint led to detriment for the resident.
  3. There is also a discrepancy within its stage 2 response, as the evidence provided to this service states that the resident asked to escalate in August 2021, but the response states the resident requested his escalation in September 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to explain why the landlord found he had escalated the complaint in September 2021. This raises questions about the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping and its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s staff’s conduct, no acknowledgement was provided that it had been received. He then had to chase it for a response to ensure that his complaint was being progressed. This was unreasonable and caused him frustration. The landlord should have ensured that the resident was kept updated on what was happening with his complaint.
  5. The resident identified to the landlord that his previous correspondence about the member of staff in its repairs team was an attempt to raise a complaint. Following this, the landlord failed to show that it took any steps to deal with the matter as a complaint. This was unacceptable and a missed opportunity to reassure him that it was taking the matter seriously. It is acknowledged that it would have been difficult to identify that the resident’s initial communications were in fact a complaint. However, once it became aware that it was, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure that it was logged and appropriately responded to.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 May 2022, 11 working days outside of the timescales within its policy and the Ombudsman’s code. There was also no information provided to show that his complaint had been logged after he confirmed that he wanted a formal complaint raised. If the landlord was going to provide its response late, in line with the Ombudsman’s code and its policy, it should have requested an extension from the resident, and there is no evidence this was done. This was unreasonable and would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord, as he did not know what was occurring with his complaint.
  7. After the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident had to ask the landlord twice to escalate his complaint as following his original request, no acknowledgement was provided. This remained the same following his second request until it provided its stage 2 response, and this was inappropriate. Acknowledging the escalation would have provided the landlord an opportunity to provide him with assurance that it had received his complaint. The landlord could also have used this as an opportunity to manage expectations and provide a response timeframe to his complaint. The failure to respond initially saw the resident taking the time to chase for a response, and this would have caused him frustration. In complaints where residents raise concerns around staff conduct, it is important that the landlord rebuilds trust and confidence with residents. In this case the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint, and keep the resident updated may have added to the resident’s view that he was being treated differently.
  8. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response 5 working days outside of the timeframes within the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and this was unreasonable. The landlord provided no evidence that it kept the resident updated on the delay, or that it requested an extension to provide its response late. This is especially inappropriate given its failure to acknowledge his escalation and would have left the resident wondering what was happening with his complaint until the response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction:
    1. Handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour.
    2. Suitability of the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Service failure with the landlord’s response around reports of its staffs conduct.
    3. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when carrying out repairs. It initially expected him to flush with a bucket for 24 hours, but the repair then remained outstanding for 6 working days. It did not evidence that it re-evaluated its position and considered his vulnerability around the prolonged delays. It also failed to evidence that it provided him with any update about the delays until he chased. Doing so would have allowed it to manage his expectations.
  2. The landlord appropriately, investigated the resident’s complaint by reviewing the available documentation and speaking to the relevant members of staff. It however failed to appropriately investigate his reports around the conduct of its repairs staff against those with autism and provide the correct assurances to allow the resident to have confidence in its handling of his repairs. It also failed to show that it considered appropriate adjustments for the resident.
  3. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy in recording the resident’s complaint. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling across both the repair response and the response to issues of staff conduct. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, and this saw him attempt to escalate on 2 occasions, neither of which received any response. It did not demonstrate that it asked for an extension to provide the responses late, and its lack of communication around the delays would have led to frustration for the resident. It also failed to demonstrate that once it became aware the resident was trying to raise a complaint about its repairs team, that it appropriately liaised with the relevant team to ensure the complaint was logged and responded to.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology around its identified failings (repairs, staff conduct, complaint handling).
    2. Pay the resident £600 in compensation consisting of:
      1. £100 previously offered by the landlord if it has not previously been paid to the resident.
      2. £200 for its failure to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and put in reasonable adjustments in relation to the repairs.
      3. £100 for its failure to appropriately investigate the resident’s reports around its repairs staffs conduct and appropriately reassure him.
      4. £200 for its complaint handling failings.
    1. Speak with the resident to ensure there is an understanding of his vulnerabilities. Ensure that all required reasonable adjustments needed to provide him with a service are in place, and if not put these in place.
    2. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider:
    1. Completing an inspection and/or a drainage survey, by a suitably qualified person to look at the toilet/drains and identify the cause of the ongoing issues. This is due to the repeated issues raised by the resident including blockages with his toilet. The report and/or any findings should be shared with the resident.
    2. Completing an inspection of the resident’s property, including a damp and mould survey, to identify any required repairs/works to the property and garden and to identify any areas of damp and mould in the property which need to be addressed.
    3. Providing the resident with information on accessing its pests control team to aid with any pest issues at the property.