Islington Council (202206511)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206511

Islington Council

12 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 communication with the resident following a fire at her property.
2. The landlord’s disposal of the resident’s personal items following the fire at her property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its removal contractor.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom flat comprising of two floors. She lives with three children, two of whom are young, and one is an adult. The landlord is a local authority and is responsible for the whole building. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It has however noted she stated she has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in her correspondence with it.
There was a fire at the resident’s flat on 18 April 2021. Substantial fire damage was caused to the resident’s kitchen and hallway. Smoke damage was caused to the resident’s lounge, bathroom, and bedrooms. The landlord moved the resident and her children to a local hotel on the same day. From the 22 May 2021 the resident and her children moved into a two-bedroom temporary accommodation property. This property also included a sofa bed but had no allotted parking. The landlord accepted a “permanent management transfer” for the resident at the end of February 2022 on health grounds. The resident moved into a new permanent property on 11 April 2022.
The resident submitted a complaint on 4 August 2021. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to her concerns on 25 August 2021 as follows:
1. It denied telling the resident it would freeze the rent of her property. It said that it had agreed payments of £50 and £400 to support the resident whilst in temporary hotel accommodation. However, it accepted it had been delayed in making these payments. It acknowledged its communication about the temporary accommodation was confusing. It also said it had no guarantee that it could offer parking provision at the temporary accommodation.
2. It was sympathetic about the loss of her items including her father’s ashes. It said disposal was due to contamination of asbestos. It also said it was beyond its control and had no legal recourse to salvage them. It stated it would have received a fined had it not disposed of the items.
3. It acknowledged the resident witnessed a physical altercation between two of its removal contactors. It apologised that its contactors did not show professionalism whilst undertaking their duties.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and said it could have done more to support her in uncertain times. It said it was sorry it did not meet expectations and aimed to provide a fair and efficient service to all customers.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 19 January 2022. She understood her request was out of time but said her ill health (fibromyalgia and mental health) had restricted her contact. The landlord accepted the resident had extenuating circumstances and completed a stage 1 complaint review on 10 February 2022. It responded to the resident’s concerns as follows:
1. The landlord said its communication had not been as frequent or clear as it could have been. The landlord said that parking arrangements at the temporary accommodation was not it’s responsibility. It told the resident she needed to return to her former home by 28 February 2022 as it was fit for habitation. It said it had asked the resident to provide supporting evidence for a permanent home move to another property.
2. The landlord said the resident’s storage cupboards were damaged and may have been contaminated with asbestos. It stated that although some items were moved it was “unsure” why the resident’s father’s ashes were not. It said the asbestos contractor had photographed all disposed of items and would check for a games console. The landlord also said it had discussed the disposal of items with the resident and she had signed a disclaimer.
3. The landlord said it had requested the fire preliminary report from the fire brigade and submitted it to its insurer. It said it was not responsible for the information in the report. It stated it could not provide a copy of the report and the resident should contact the fire brigade.
4. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £625. This comprised of £300 for inconvenience, £300 for time and effort to complain and £25 for the delay in proving this response.
On 21 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.” The resident stated the landlord had failed to include or address the following:
1. It did not apologise or provide a detailed explanation of what happened or why things went wrong.
2. It did not address a lack of communication about its investigation into the resident’s missing items such as the games console.
3. The resident also believed the landlord should have held the removal contactor responsible for the physical altercation she witnessed. She believed the contractor should offer her compensation as the incident left her with worsened anxiety and PTSD.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 February 2022 but told the resident it was not in a position to reply. It repeated this on 3 August 2022. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 30 November 2022. This Service requested its stage 2 complaint response in 10 working days. This Service sent a final request for action on 17 December 2022 for the landlord to reply by 23 December 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 December 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint acknowledging the following failures in its service:
1. It did not follow its procedure for recording the resident’s possessions it had disposed of. It failed to update the resident on the outcome of the games console. It also failed to send her any photographs of her possessions.
2. It failed to pass the resident’s complaint about the removal contactor to its contract management team. It also failed to provide her with details at the time of her complaint to complain directly to the removal’s contractor.
3. It said its stage 1 review response was unclear around the temporary accommodation process. It also said its stage 1 review was insensitive, particularly regarding disposal of her father’s ashes.
4. It offered the resident further compensation of £350. This comprised of £250 for time and trouble and £100 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response. The total compensation (including the amount offered in its stage 1 review) was therefore £975.
The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman and her complaint was accepted for investigation on 17 February 2023. The resident felt her outstanding issues were as follows:
1. She had not received clear answers from the landlord and had to chase it for information.
2. She had been treated insensitively by the landlord, particularly concerning her father’s ashes.
3. She wanted the removal contractor to be made aware of its failures.
4. She was unhappy with the lack of compensation and did not feel it was adequate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident has raised concerns about the information the landlord’s insurance company used to make its decision. Complaints about insurance claims are not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. This is in accordance with paragraph 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. It is also relevant that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make binding decisions as to possible ‘negligence’ in cases such as this.
The landlord offered total compensation of £975. It offered £125 for delays in its stage 1 review and stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord did not clarify to what extent the remaining £850 compensation it offered reflected the communication failures it had acknowledged in its stage 1 review and 2 complaint responses. The landlord’s compensation has been considered separately further in this report.

The standard of communication from the landlord with the resident following a fire at her property.

The landlord’s Procedure for Temporary Accommodation in Emergencies states the landlord is responsible for maintaining fortnightly contact with the resident. This is to ensure they are occupying their temporary accommodation. The landlord should also update the resident on repairs to their home and when they will move back into their permanent property.
The procedure also states a resident is responsible for continuing to pay rent on their permanent home. The landlord should offer any assistance that is “reasonable and appropriate to the situation.”

Temporary accommodation.

The landlord failed to keep the resident informed of the process for finding and securing temporary accommodation. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident on what property she could consider and who she should speak to. It acknowledged the confusion this caused in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. However, it failed to appropriately consider the inconvenience this caused to the resident and her family.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response it was “contrary to its procedure” to freeze the resident’s rent. It told her it had not informed her of this. This Service can find no evidence of the landlord informing the resident it would “freeze her rent.” It acted in accordance with its procedure in requiring the resident to continue to be liable for rent at her permanent property. It clarified in its stage 1 response the insurer was paying rent at the temporary accommodation. This gave assurance to the resident that it would not bill her for both properties.
This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord maintaining “fortnightly contact” with the resident following her decant from her property. This was not in accordance with its procedure. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns of 29 July, 3 August, and 16 August 2021 that her temporary accommodation was due to end. She was concerned she did not know what the next steps were. This caused the resident to feel she “had to deal with issues on her own with no knowledge of what was happening.”
The resident raised concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation due to her health in her stage 1 complaint of 4 August 2021. The landlord failed to substantially respond to this point in its stage 1 response. It stated in its stage 1 review it needed to obtain temporary accommodation as quickly as possible and acknowledged that it may not have been completely suitable. It is noted the landlord acted quickly to rehouse the resident. However, it should have done more to answer her queries about its unsuitability to show it was taking her seriously. It later supported her in finding permanent rehousing. However, it should have acted more promptly on the issues given the content of the resident’s complaint of 4 August 2021.
In its stage 1 review response the landlord stated it could find no evidence it told the resident she did not have to return to her property on completion of works. It did however ask her to provide medical evidence for a permanent move. This was an appropriate step to take given the resident had stated there was a risk of her health worsening should she have to return to the previous property. The landlord followed through on this when the resident duly provided evidence. It agreed a permanent move due to her health in February 2022. As a result, the resident and her family moved into a new property in April 2022.
The landlord failed to adequately respond in its stage 1 or stage 1 review about the resident’s concerns about parking. She had said it had misinformed her about the availability of parking at the temporary accommodation. She said it had then told her incorrectly that there was a discount at a nearby private car park. The landlord admitted in its stage 2 complaint response it got these things wrong apologising for its “lack of attention and confusion.” It should have done this in its earlier complaint responses to provide resolution at the earliest possible point and limit the uncertainty and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Support for the resident and her family.

The landlord told this Service on 7 September 2023 it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her family. It did note she mentioned PTSD in her complaints, and this was included in the medical evidence she provided to it in February 2022. The resident has also mentioned fibromyalgia and mental health issues in her complaint of 4 August 2021 and her escalation on 19 January 2022. It is of some concern that despite having information about the resident’s health there is no evidence it has completed a risk assessment or recorded her vulnerabilities.
The resident stated she was struggling with the lack of facilities in the hotel, this included washing and cooking. The landlord did award her payments of £50 and £400 but failed to pay these until 6 May 2021. It took the appropriate steps in arranging the payment. However, its delay in paying increased the detriment experienced by the resident during her stay in temporary accommodation. She had been living with her family for 18 days without further financial support. The landlord did go on to support the resident with supermarket vouchers at an unknown date. The resident said she was not offered support with a meal plan at the hotel’s restaurant until the end of her stay. The landlord failed to explain in its responses why it was delayed in arranging this.
The landlord admitted in its stage 1 response “it could have done more to support the resident in uncertain times.” Its stage 1 review stated it prioritised finding temporary accommodation over communication. This is not in accordance with its procedure which states communication should begin “immediately following an incident”. It was also inappropriate for it to state it was unable to communicate effectively whilst it found temporary accommodation. Both were required to ensure the resident felt safe, secure, and confident in what action was being taken.

Insurance

The landlord’s insurers completed an insurance report on 21 April 2021. The report stated the fire brigade’s website suggested the cause of the fire to be “a carelessly discarded cigarette.” In her complaint of 4 August 2021, the resident disputed the fire in her property was started by a cigarette. The landlord failed to respond to the issue in its stage 1 complaint response of 25 August 2021. Its stage 1 review response told the resident it had provided the fire brigade report to the insurer. The landlord confirmed this information was incorrect in its stage 2 response of 20 December 2022. It stated the insurer had in fact obtained the information from the fire brigade’s website and the landlord was not responsible for providing this. All the above caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident for a prolonged period.
In her escalation request of 19 January 2022, the resident said she had further evidence the fire brigade had changed the determination on the cause of the fire. The landlord told her in its reply of 10 February 2022 she should obtain evidence from the fire brigade. It is expected the landlord would signpost the resident to its insurer to raise her concerns at this point. However, it failed to do so, causing inconvenience and confusion to the resident. The resident provided evidence to it on 17 February 2022 that the fire brigade had changed the determination, but the landlord failed to respond to this. This caused further uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord did not respond about the matter again until its stage two response of 20 December 2022. Its response appropriately explained the insurer’s decision was based on information available from the fire brigade at the time. It acknowledged the fire brigade’s determination had changed since the insurer had made its decision. It appropriately suggested the insurer could accept a new claim if there was evidence the landlord was negligent. It should have signposted the resident to its insurer from this point to gain a definitive answer. Its failure to do this caused further uncertainty and confusion to the resident.
In summary while the landlord had responded to the resident’s concerns about communication and had made changes to improve its service, overall, its communication was lacking. It failed to communicate effectively with her in a difficult time causing uncertainty and inconvenience to her. It denied her the opportunity to fairly state her case with its insurer. The Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.
It was fair in the circumstances that the landlord should consider redress to put right its service failings. The landlord’s final offer of compensation did not break down the amount it was offering for each element of its service failure. In any case, in all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s attempts to put its communication failures right through its complaint responses were not sufficient. The resident was left to navigate a very difficult situation with inadequate support from the landlord. Further compensation has been ordered, as detailed later in this report.

The landlord’s disposal of the resident’s personal items following a fire at her home.

The landlord’s Procedure for Temporary Accommodation in Emergencies states before it removes any belongings from a property it must take photos and complete a full inventory of all items. This also affects rooms unaffected by an incident. Where possible the tenant should be present and accept the inventory as true with a signature.
Following the fire at the resident’s property on 18 April 2021 a specialist asbestos contractor completed an asbestos survey at the property. It found asbestos in the resident’s hall, lounge, kitchen, mid-level, and bottom level landing and in a bedroom.
The landlord offered an appropriate response in its stage 1 complaint response that it needed to dispose of items due to possible contamination of asbestos. It explained it had no legal recourse to salvage them. The landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s further concerns on why it disposed of her father’s ashes when they were inside an upstairs hallway cupboard. It explained advice from the specialist asbestos contractor confirmed asbestos contamination to all surfaces including cupboards. This was all in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response the specialist asbestos contractor had moved some items from upstairs to downstairs and not disposed of them. This raised uncertainty for the resident who questioned why it could not have done the same for her father’s ashes. It failed to answer this question in its stage 1 review. It told her in its stage 2 response it could not establish why some items were moved and not disposed of. This caused ambiguity and confusion to the resident over whether it needed to dispose of her father’s ashes. The landlord’s lack of awareness on the matter suggests it failed to have control over the disposal of the resident’s property. This caused distress, upset and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 review response of 10 February 2022 the resident had signed a disclaimer to approve disposal of her items. This is not supported by the evidence as between 10 June 2021 and 2 August 2021 internal landlord emails stated it was attempting to get the resident to sign a disclaimer. The landlord admitted internally on 19 December 2022 it had no evidence the resident had signed a disclaimer for the disposal of her items. This Service has seen no further evidence of a disclosure signed by the resident. Other than suggesting the resident needed to sign a disclaimer there is no evidence of a concerted effort by the landlord for her to complete this. As such the landlord failed to abide by its procedure of having the resident sign before it removed items from the property.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 review it had spoken with the resident before disposing of her items. It failed to clarify this any further. Its stage 2 complaint response obtained a call recording of 21 June 2021. In the call the resident did not raise a dispute when the landlord told her it would dispose of items on the fire damaged floor. However, as previously mentioned the landlord raised internally on 2 August 2021 the resident needed to sign a disclaimer before it removed her items from the property. This negates the landlord’s belief in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident had provided sufficient consent for it to dispose of her items on the call.
In accordance with the landlord’s procedure, it should have itemised the items it disposed. It failed to do this. It did not acknowledge it had failed to do this until its stage 2 complaint response of 20 December 2022. This was over 14 months after the resident had complained about it disposing of her items. In doing so it failed to act in accordance with its procedure. It also caused the resident to feel it was not treating her with respect over a prolonged period.
The landlord should have photographed each item it was disposing of in accordance with its procedure. It told the resident it had done this in its stage 1 review response. It suggested it could provide the photographs to resident in its stage 2 complaint response. This Service has seen the photographic evidence, and it is difficult to determine the subject of many of the photographs. There is no evidence the landlord catalogued each item it disposed of in a photograph. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its procedure in this regard.
The resident said a games console was missing from her property. The landlord promised in its stage one review response to follow this up, which it failed to do. In its stage two response it apologised for failing to follow this up. It said the photographs failed to show evidence of the games console. The landlord would have accurately been able to determine this if it had itemised and photographed the individual items it disposed of. Its failure to do this meant its response was not comprehensive and it had no certainty whether it had disposed of the resident’s game console.
In summary the landlord took the correct steps in completing an asbestos report and taking advice from its specialist asbestos contractor. Following this it failed to correctly manage the situation as follows:
1. It failed to itemise or accurately photograph any items it was disposing of.
2. It failed to obtain the resident’s consent to dispose of her items before doing so.
3. It did not manage the disposal of the items with its contractor correctly suggesting a breakdown in its communication.
4. It failed to accurately keep the resident informed about what its process or what action it was taking.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s attempts to put this issue right, including any element of the final compensation figure it intended for this aspect of the case, was insufficient. A finding of maladministration has therefore been determined. There was significant uncertainty caused regarding the disposal of the resident’s personal items. The landlord’s failures took place over a significant amount of time and it failed to evidence putting things right and learning from the outcomes of the case. It also failed to abide by its procedure for protecting a tenant’s property. This caused considerable detriment to the resident and her family including stress, worry, anxiety and inconvenience. This included the resident’s concern over the loss of significant personal items. Further consideration of an appropriate level of compensation is outlined later in the report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its removal contractor.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states a complaint can be made about services delivered by its contractors. It expects its contractors share its vision and values. Contractors must deal with complaints in a way that is consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s Staff Code of Conduct states that contractors and their employees will abide by the spirit of its code. Employees must always exercise self-control, never behaving in an angry or aggressive manner. In the event the code is breached, the landlord will consider terminating or seeking compensation under the contract arrangement.
In her complaint of 4 August 2021, the resident stated she witnessed two employees of the removal contractor “punching each other in the street” on 24 June 2021. She said she raised this with the landlord by email, however there is no evidence of this in the evidence provided by the landlord. She also said she raised her concerns with the contractor.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 25 August 2021 did apologise on behalf of the contractor. It also said the altercation was “subsequently reported and dealt with by the contractors.” It’s response is unclear if it reported the issue to the contractor or if it was referring to the resident having done so.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response confirmed the Business Assurance Team was responsible for conducting monitoring meetings with contractors. In an internal email of 14 December 2022, the landlord’s Business Assurance Lead said it was not aware of the incident and subsequently had never raised it with the contractor. This information invalidates the landlord’s response of 25 August 2021. This is because it had no certainty the issue was “dealt with by the contractors” as it’s team responsible had no contact with the contractor about the issue.
In her escalation request of 19 January 2021, the resident said just saying sorry was by no means “sufficient”. She also told the landlord the incident had “affected her PTSD.” The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage one review of 10 February 2022. Its failure to do so caused distress to the resident and the impression it was not taking her seriously.Frustrated with the landlord’s lack of response on the matter, she raised the issue again on 21 February 2022. She asked for the contractor to take responsibility and to offer her compensation. She repeated the affect the issue had on her PTSD.
In an internal email of 16 December 2022, the landlord said as 18 months had passed it was likely the contactor would have “no recollection of the incident”. Although this may have been the outcome the landlord should have completed this for certainty. This would have been appropriate in showing the resident it had explored all options for resolution.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 December 2022 acknowledged it should have directed the resident to complain directly to the contractor. It also said it should have referred the issue to its contract management team for “monitoring purposes.” In failing to do these things at the earliest possible opportunity the landlord denied itself the chance to ensure the contractor dealt with the complaint in a “fair and consistent manner” as per its Complaints Policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also said it was unable to obtain an apology from or award compensation on behalf of the contractor. The contractor may have been able to consider a complaint and apology from the landlord’s stage 1 complaint if the landlord had raised the issue with it. The landlord’s failure to determine this until it investigated the stage 2 complaint on 16 December 2022 meant too much time had passed to complete a comprehensive investigation into the matter. It is uncertain what prevented the landlord awarding compensation relating to the action of a contractor working on it’s behalf.
In summary the landlord stage 1 response into the alleged altercation was inaccurate and it had failed to raise the concerns with its contractor. It also failed to signpost the resident to the correct channels to do this. It failed to review the issue in its stage 1 review response. Although it realised in its stage 2 complaint investigation of 16 December 2022 it had not appropriately managed the complaint it was too late to take any meaningful action. This was due to the amount of time that had passed. The landlord ought to have responded to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health. In all circumstances it should have taken responsibility for its contractor.
The Ombudsman therefore finds there was service failure of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its removal contractor. Compensation of £150 has been awarded in respect of this aspect of the case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases involving Service Failure. This was because the resident was denied the opportunity to complain but there was no permanent impact. The landlord acknowledged its failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that “responding positively and efficiently to customers’ comments concerns and complaints is a very direct and practical way of achieving progress and reflects (its) commitment to deliver basic services well.”
In accordance with the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it operates a two stage complaints process as follows:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 3 calendar days and respond in 10 working days. It will send a holding reply if it is not able to meet its deadline for reply. Residents have one month to escalate their complaint if they are dissatisfied with the stage one complaint response.
2. The Complaints Policy has no timescale for acknowledging a stage 2 complaint. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 4 August 2021 on 25 August 2021. This was equivalent to 15 working days and outside of the 10 working days to respond in its Complaints Policy. There is also no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 3 days. In its later complaint responses, the landlord failed to consider its delay at this stage.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated, “it could have done more to support the resident in uncertain times.” The landlord failed to qualify this statement. Its ambiguity caused concern to the resident which she raised in her later escalation requests.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 January 2022. She acknowledged she took longer than a month to do this, which was due to her health. The landlord acted reasonably in accepting she had extenuating circumstances and informing her it would complete a stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint of 19 January 2022 on 20 January 2022. It provided its stage 1 review response on 10 February 2022. As there is no information about reviews in the landlord’s Complaints Policy, the response has been assessed against it’s the policy for its stage 1 response. Its response was equivalent to 24 working days and was outside of the 10 working days to respond in its Complaints Policy. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 complaint response. It offered £25 compensation for the delay.
In the landlord’s stage 1 review response it was clear the landlord had collated information from different parts of its organisation. This caused a number of issues with its response. It said its delay in responding was due to its internal teams providing it with information. Furthermore, some of the responses provided by the landlord seem to have been copied verbatim from the internal responses it received. This was evident when it replied “unsure, cannot answer” when the resident asked why it had not moved her father’s ashes. This appeared insensitive to the resident causing her distress. This landlord highlighted this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 1 review response promised the resident it would provide photographic evidence of items it had disposed of. This included the games console the resident said was missing. The landlord failed to deliver on this promise causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 review failed to address all points raised by the resident, which included concerns about the removal’s contractor. It also failed to address the misinformation the resident believed she had received from the landlord about car parking at the temporary accommodation. This caused the resident to believe it was not taking her seriously and caused further inconvenience and distress to her.
The resident asked for the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged this request it on 25 February 2022. The resident chased the response on 17 March and 23 May 2022. The landlord did not respond to these requests. She chased the response again on 3 August. The landlord replied the following day stating it “had not started its investigation yet.” By this point 165 days had passed. The landlord’s lack of responses and dismissal of the resident’s concerns about the delay caused frustration and distress to her.
The landlord did not provide it stage 2 complaint response until 20 December 2022. This was equivalent to 212 working days and exceeded the 20 working days for response in its Complaints Policy. It acknowledged the delay in responding appropriately in its reply and offered £100 compensation to the resident.The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was comprehensive and responded to all points raised by the resident. This included highlighting its failures and attempting to offer some resolution to each of the points raised.
In summary the landlord was delayed in providing all complaint responses to the resident prolonging the concerns for her, causing her further inconvenience and distress. It failed to recognise its delay at stage one and failed to offer proportionate compensation. The resident suffered barriers in obtaining a stage 2 response from the landlord for a considerable amount of time. This caused further frustration and inconvenience to her. It was ineffective for the landlord not to investigate all the concerns raised by the resident, which suggests it was not willing to take appropriate action and learn from complaints.
A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £300 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £125 already offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period.

Overall compensation.

The landlord awarded total compensation of £975 during its complaints process. The award was broken down as follows:
1. In its stage 1 review it offered:
  1. £300 for inconvenience and £300 for time and effort to complain.
2. In its stage 2 response it offered further compensation of:
  1. £250 for time and trouble.
3. It also offered compensation for the delays in providing its complaint responses. In addition to the £850 it offered £25 for the stage one review delay and £100 for the stage 2 response delay.
It was not clear therefore what elements of the £850 offered related to its communication failures following the fire at the property, nor in relation to the disposal of items following the fire. As explained above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient in either case. The Ombudsman has made the following awards of compensation to the resident:
1. £600 for the landlord’s communication following the fire at the resident’s property. This is due to landlord not considering the detriment caused to the resident. Its inadequate support and communication caused her issues in navigating a difficult situation.
2. £700 for the landlord’s disposal of the residents personal items following a fire at her property. The landlord caused uncertainty about its disposal of sensitive personal items to the resident. It failed to follow its process for protecting her property causing much stress, worry anxiety and inconvenience.
3. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its removal contractor. The landlord denied the resident the opportunity to complaint. It did acknowledge its failings but failed to address the detriment it caused to the resident.
4. £300 for the landlord’s complaint handling. It was delayed in providing its responses to the resident. It also failed to effectively and appropriately communicate with her.
5. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation as detailed above will also include the total compensation of £975 offered by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident following a fire at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration of the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s personal items following the fire at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its removal contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of staff to write an apology to the resident for the failures in its service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1750 compensation. This includes the £975 previously offered by the landlord. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient and unreasonable communication following a fire at her property.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s unreasonable disposal of the resident’s personal items following a fire at her home.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective handling of the resident’s concerns about conduct of its removal contractor.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
3. The landlord should complete a risk assessment of the resident and her property, to establish her vulnerability and take further supportive action, as necessary.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its approach to offering financial support in the case of an emergency. It should consider decreasing the time in which it is able to approve payments to those affected.
The landlord should consider its approach to disposal of items within a resident’s property to ensure it is compliant with its procedure. This should include training staff as necessary and monitoring compliance stringently.