Falcon Housing Association C.I.C (202224190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224190

Falcon Housing Association C.I.C

29 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs and adaptation requests at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property since 2018. The property provides supported living for up to 5 individuals. The resident’s mother and her care provider have both acted as her representative to the landlord. For readability, this report refers to both as ‘the resident’ throughout. The resident has told this Service she has a learning disability.
On 27 September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said there was not enough kitchen storage for the 5 residents living in the property. The resident said she was unable to use the downstairs toilet due to its positioning and there was a build-up of condensation in between the double-glazed glass in her bedroom window.
The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 20 March 2023. It said it would not install further storage in the kitchen for the residents. The landlord also said the repositioning of the downstairs toilet would be “too costly” at that time.
The resident told this Service that she did not receive a response to her complaint from the landlord. On 22 May and 23 June 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord inspected the resident’s bedroom window in June 2023 and found no evidence that the condensation between the double glazing was causing “an immediate issue”. On 2 July 2023, the landlord repositioned the toilet and put in extra cupboard storage in the kitchen.
On 12 July 2023, this Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord for not responding to the resident’s complaint. After this date it still sent no further correspondence, so a further letter was sent on 3 August 2023, following its non-compliance with the CHFO.
The landlord has told this Service that all windows at the resident’s property are due to be replaced in 2024 as part of a planned maintenance programme. On 13 November 2024, the resident told us her bedroom windows had not yet been replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs and adaptation requests at the property

On 27 September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the following:
1. She had requested the downstairs toilet be repositioned, but this had not been actioned. The resident said it was positioned too close to the bathroom wall which prevented her from physically being able to use it.
2. There were not enough storage cupboards to store her food and utensils in the kitchen.
3. There was condensation between the double-glazed glass in her bedroom window.
The landlord has not been able to provide the Ombudsman with a log of repairs or adaptation requests from the resident. Due to the lack of evidence this Service has been unable to identify the date the resident first raised the window repair and the adaption requests. The landlord has told this Service it has since changed its internal processes so that details are recorded on a system when repairs are raised.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2022 and asked for an update regarding her request for the downstairs toilet to be repositioned and for extra storage in the kitchen. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update.
The resident contacted this Service on 10 January 2023. She said the landlord had not dealt with her adaptation requests or the repair to her bedroom window.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It said there was adequate storage at the property. The landlord suggested the resident could keep kitchen utensils “under the stairs” or the resident could purchase further cupboards for the property using her own money.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 March 2023. She said she was not happy with the suggestion that the storage under the stairs could be used for kitchen items. The resident said this suggestion was a “clear indication” there was not enough storage in the kitchen. She said again she was unable to use the downstairs toilet due to its positioning against the wall.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations that provide sanitation. The agreement states it will keep windows in good repair and proper working order. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for “structural fittings and fixtures of the building”. This includes kitchen units and cupboards.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to complete “routine repairs within 28 days of reporting”. It also states for adaptations it will “signpost” residents to the “appropriate agency for funding and will approve any referrals for alterations to meet the needs of tenants”.
The landlord compiled its response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 20 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. It understood the resident was unhappy because it had not adjusted the positioning of the downstairs toilet for the resident’s use. It declined to put in extra storage for food in the kitchen.
2. There was “under utilised” storage space in a cupboard under the stairs that could be used for “dry food”. There was a cupboard in the kitchen that could be used by resident’s if care staff took their items out and used other storage available.
3. The resident viewed the property and downstairs toilet before moving in. To change the position of the toilet would require considerable works and costs. The landlord could look to do it when the bathroom required replacing.
Whilst the landlord has a record of its stage 1 response on file, there is no evidence provided to this Service to support the letter was sent to the resident.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord suggested the resident use her own money to buy further storage for the kitchen. The landlord also said it would be too costly to move the toilet. There is no evidence the landlord signposted the resident to any appropriate agencies for funding. This was inappropriate of the landlord as it was a breach of its adaptation’s policy.
The landlord also said in its stage 1 response that staff could move items from a kitchen cupboard to create space. It would seem reasonable to conclude the landlord should have taken steps to ensure this happened, rather than only inform the resident of this option.
The landlord’s reply at stage 1 failed to address the resident’s repair to her bedroom window. It had been around 5 months since she raised the concerns. This timeframe was far beyond the 28 days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. No offer of compensation was made by the landlord to try and put things right for the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation to residents if there has been “any distress or inconvenience caused”. The landlord did not recognise its delay in dealing with the window repair and the impact on the resident. It did not offer the resident compensation, which was a deviation from its policy.
The response lacked empathy for the resident and the adaptation requests she made in order for the house to be fully functional for her needs. This was unreasonable of the landlord and caused the resident distress.
On 22 May 2023, 2 months after the landlord’s stage 1 response was dated, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was because the resident told this Service she had not received a reply to her complaint at stage 1.
The landlord told this Service it visited the property in June 2023. It inspected the resident’s bedroom window and said there was no evidence the build-up of condensation between the double-glazed glass was causing “an immediate issue”. It had taken around 8 months for the landlord to act on the resident’s concerns with her bedroom window. The delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience and was an inappropriate breach of the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord has told this Service on 3 July 2023 it completed the adaptation on the downstairs toilet, as per the resident’s request. Extra storage was also provided in the kitchen on this date. This was around 10 months after the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. The landlord has not provided a rationale for the change in its position and why it then decided to action the adaptation requests. The landlord also told this Service the windows at the property are due to be replaced in 2024 as part of a planned maintenance programme.
The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 12 July 2023 to the landlord. We asked it to provide the resident with a “substantive response” to explain what action it was taking. However, the landlord did not respond. On 3 August 2023, the Ombudsman wrote again to the landlord as it had not complied with the issued CHFO. The landlord did not respond to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this instance, the landlord initially dismissed the request for adaptations, primarily on the grounds of financial cost. Prior to an unexplained change in its position, the landlord has not demonstrated through its evidence that it assessed and followed the resident’s requests for adaptations as per its policy. There was no evidence the landlord signposted the resident to alternative sources of funding. There is also no evidence it assessed the impact upon her of not being able to use the property to its full extent in formulating its response at the start of the process. This was unreasonable and unfair towards the resident.
In responding to the resident’s reports of condensation in her bedroom window, the landlord took around 8 months beyond the timescales set out in its repairs policy to conduct an inspection. This delay was unreasonable.
Following its decision on adaptations, the landlord effectively denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint through its process.
The landlord subsequently actioned the adaptation requests. However, it has not evidenced it made reasonable and proactive efforts to put things right for its lack of communication and lack of empathy in its initial approach. The landlord has not put things right for the delay in attending to the reports of condensation in the bedroom window.
These failings combined amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations and repairs at the property. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This amount is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord’s failures had an adverse impact upon the resident and where there was no permanent impact.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 27 September 2022. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 7 March 2023 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord wrote a stage 1 response which it had on file and was dated 20 March 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will “aim to send a full response within 10 working days”. There was a delay of around 6 months between the resident raising her complaint and the landlord’s response. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it failed to acknowledge its delay in dealing with the matter or offer any subsequent redress. This was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 response the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding her bedroom windows. Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 states that landlords must address all issues raised by a resident at stage 1. The landlord’s failure to do so was inappropriate.
On 22 May 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and told it that the resident said she had not received a reply to her complaint. We asked it to ensure it replied to the resident and that a copy was also provided to this Service. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to this letter. This Service sent a further letter on 23 June 2023. We said the resident had not received a response and we were concerned that the complaint did not appear to have been progressed.
The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 12 July 2023 to the landlord. We asked the “landlord to take appropriate steps in order to respond to the resident’s concerns”. We also said that if the complaint was not being progressed then it should provide a “substantive response to the resident to explain what action it was taking”. The landlord failed to respond.
Paragraph 5.9 of the Code states “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. It also states, “If a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating”.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 3 August 2023 regarding its non-compliance with the issued CHFO. We said it had been outlined previously that the landlord must respond to the resident. This Service also said that “as the landlord had not provided any evidence of compliance with this order, the case would now be treated as having exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint procedure” as per paragraph 32 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) 2023.
The landlord told this Service on 22 April 2024 the resident’s complaint was not progressed to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. This was despite the Ombudsman contacting the landlord on 4 occasions regarding the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to respond to the Ombudsman or to the resident.
In summary, the landlord delayed investigating and compiling a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It then did not acknowledge the delay in its response. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident its response at stage 1 of its complaints process. The evidence shows there was a lack of co-operation or engagement with the Ombudsman by the landlord. This resulted in the resident effectively being denied an answer to her complaint, and access to escalation as part of the landlord’s internal complaint process.
The inability to access a functioning complaints process was unreasonable and a serious failing by the landlord. It will have had a substantial impact upon the resident and caused significant distress and inconvenience as a result. The landlord failed to manage the complaint in accordance with the Code and it failed to respond to this Service over a period of 4 months. This leads to a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and an order for compensation will be made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs and adaptation requests at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above. The apology should be made by a member of the landlord’s executive leadership.
The landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £200 for the landlord’s handling of repairs and adaptation requests at the resident’s property.
2. £300 for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The landlord is to provide the resident with the details of when its planned window upgrade for the property, due in 2024, will commence. At the time of this assessment, it had not begun. A copy of the communication should be provided to this Service.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on, but is not limited to:
1. Understanding why the landlord failed to act in accordance with its adaptations policy and what steps it will take to ensure the process is followed in the future.
2. Understanding why the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and the steps it needs to take to improve its communication, particularly when dealing with vulnerable service users.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.