London Borough of Croydon (202338253)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202338253
London Borough of Croydon
30 October 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:
- Facilitation of a meter reading.
- Handling of repairs in the property.
- Management of the resident’s rent account.
- Complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its associated record keeping.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a third floor flat. The resident moved to the property on 29 May 2023 through a scheme of the landlord that was designed to support vulnerable people move into permanent social housing. Prior to this, he lived in temporary accommodation for 7 years.
- The resident has a number of mental health conditions, including anxiety disorder and depression. He has received care from his community mental health team for this. A support worker assisted him in the move to the property.
- The resident also suffers from Crohn’s disease. Due to the treatment he receives for this, he is immunocompromised. He has advised us that healthcare professionals deem him to be ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’.
- On 17 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the following:
- His tenancy officer did not attend an appointment at the property on 6 June 2023. The resident waited for the officer for 3 hours. He found the experience “anxiety provoking, upsetting and stressful.” The resident and his support worker both called the officer and left voicemails. The support worker also emailed her. They heard nothing for 3 weeks until the resident sent an email copied to multiple people “desperately asking for help and support”. The officer responded immediately and arranged to attend the property the next day on 28 June 2023.
- The resident was unable to access the water meter in order to submit a start of tenancy reading to the water company. One of the main reasons the appointment with the tenancy officer was arranged was so that she would facilitate access to the meter. However, when the officer attended on 28 June 2023, she forgot to bring the key for the meter cupboard. She said she would return the next day to unlock it. She did not. By the date of the resident’s complaint, she had still not returned to the property.
- The intercom in the flat for the building’s door entry system was not working. This caused the resident “a lot of anxiety and unnecessary stress with deliveries”. The resident reported this to the tenancy officer who advised him to “google” how to use it.
- The balcony door was in need of repair. He reported this to the landlord twice but it had not yet attended to this.
- There was a ventilation unit in the bathroom but it was not working. The landlord previously advised the resident that he should have been given a manual explaining how to use it. He had still not received a manual. He said the ventilation was vital for his physical health conditions.
- He had made enquiries about the heating element of his service charge, as the heating was not working in his property. He had not received a satisfactory response.
- The landlord had not yet set up a rent account for the resident due to technical issues with its new housing management database system. The resident also had not yet received a notification of his housing benefit entitlement.
- The resident reminded the landlord that his physical and mental health conditions were documented on his application for the property. He said a housing officer in his previous temporary accommodation praised him as being an “exemplary tenant”. He added that he took “great pride and respect” in where he lived. He said he wanted to settle into his new home and continue being an exemplary tenant. He commented, “housing is an integral part of my wellbeing; feeling secure, stable, settled and safe.”
- The resident sent the landlord a further email on 17 July 2023. He added to his complaint about the rent account. He said that the landlord had previously given him incorrect advice about dual housing benefits. He suggested he had not yet received the benefit due to the landlord having not yet set him up with a rent account. He said the ongoing uncertainty around his rent left him feeling “incredibly overwhelmed and scared.”
- The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 August 2023. It said:
- The meter reading room was limited to staff only for data protection reasons.
- It understood there was a problem with heating controls and “various other unresolved repair issues” that had been “poorly managed by previous repairs contractors”.
- It had arranged an appointment for its new contractors to investigate the heating and instruct the resident how to use the system.
- All other outstanding repair jobs had also been passed on to the contractors. The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving these.
- It understood moving home was a difficult process which in the resident’s case was exacerbated by his health issues. However, the tenancy officer “had gone the extra mile” to resolve the repair issues, which were not the usual remit of her role.
- The resident emailed the landlord’s complaints resolution team on 21 August 2023. He explained he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response as it did not fully address all the issues he raised. He asked a series of questions relating to responsibility for carrying out repairs, and the roles and responsibilities of lettings and tenancy officers. He also said:
- On 3 occasions the tenancy officer attended the property and forgot to bring the key for the meter room. It was 21 July 2023 before he was finally able to obtain a reading. Due to this delay, the water company sent him an estimated bill which was £260 for a 61 day period. This was significantly more that it should have been.
- He was aware that it was the landlord’s responsibility to check the ventilation system every 6 months and service it annually. He had submitted a letter to the landlord from his gastroenterologist consultant stressing the importance of this unit for his health. It had not yet fixed it.
- The repairs remained outstanding to the heating, door entry system and balcony door.
- As he had previously advised, the tenancy officer had told him to “google” how to work the door entry system. He said this was not “going the extra mile” as the stage 1 response suggested.
- He attended a housing repairs surgery the previous month with his support worker and a care coordinator from the community mental health team. A maintenance representative of the landlord advised him that he should have been shown at the start of the tenancy how appliances in the property were operated. However, the landlord ignored emails sent by the resident’s support worker which attached photos of appliances and asked for more information about them.
- He still did not have a rent account. His new housing benefit had not been calculated. He was unsure how much rent he needed to pay. He was concerned this would put him into arrears. This was causing him “psychological distress which has been documented by healthcare professionals.”
- The landlord responded on 25 August 2023. It issued the response as an additional letter to the stage 1 response, rather than a stage 2 response. The response was sent by the same officer who issued the stage 1 response. In response to the questions posed by the resident, the landlord outlined the main roles and responsibilities of lettings and tenancy officers. It clarified that the tenancy officer is not responsible for arranging repairs but will signpost issues or pass repairs on to the repairs department. It also said:
- All equipment should be fully functioning when a tenant moves into a property, with heating and ventilation checked during the void period. The resident should not be expected to carry out or pay for repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility.
- It was sorry for not fully addressing the repairs issues in the original stage 1 response. It had been passed these to the repairs team who would respond directly “as an additional response” to the stage 1 complaint.
- It was sorry for the communication problems and inconvenience caused by the missed appointment with the tenancy officer. This was due to unforeseen circumstances and was not intentional.
- The new housing management database system remained problematic. The landlord remained unable to create new accounts. It understood this was causing the resident distress and that he would like advice. Accordingly, an income officer would make direct contact with the resident to discuss this further.
- The resident spoke to a repair complaints officer on 28 August 2023 about the outstanding repairs. The officer advised him he would be updated on next steps once more information had been gathered.
- On 4 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to advise he still did not have a rent account. He said his housing benefit entitlement had not yet been calculated. He explained that the uncertainty around not knowing whether his housing benefit would fully cover his rent was impacting his mental and physical health. He said that despite raising these concerns with 6 different officers within different departments of the landlord, it had done nothing to resolve the issue.
- The landlord rang the resident the following day. Further to the phone call, the resident contacted the housing benefit officer who confirmed his benefits entitlement. Further email correspondence between the resident and landlord followed. The landlord confirmed the resident was still unable to access an online rent account due to ongoing technical issues with its new system. It advised there was an outstanding balance of £136.20 on his account. This was due to an accrual of heating charges from the start of the tenancy, at a cost of £9.08 per week. The resident asked the landlord to remove this balance. He said he should not have to pay it given the heating had not worked the entire time he had lived in the property. He said that he had reported the repair numerous times, including to a lettings officer, tenancy officer, at a repair surgery, and to the repair complaints officer. The landlord had still not fixed the heating.
- On 19 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint. He stated that the landlord had not complied with its own complaints procedure. He said it had not addressed all the questions he had asked when making his complaint, and it had still not resolved the various issues he had raised.
- On the same day, 19 September 2023, the landlord was due to attend the property to assess the outstanding repairs. The resident sent it an email at 8.23am that morning to ask what time the visit would be at. He reminded the landlord that the intercom in his property for the door entry system was not working and suggested that the attending officers may need to ring him to gain entry. This coincided with the time that 2 officers attended the property to inspect it. They were unable to gain entry due to the broken door entry system. They said they attempted to ring the resident but he did not answer his phone.
- The resident emailed the landlord the following day to complain that it had not attended the appointment. He said this and the landlord’s other failings in handling his various complaint issues were “severely damaging” his mental health and “having a negative impact” on his physical health. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident and rearranged the appointment for 22 September 2023. It raised works orders for the heating, ventilation and balcony repairs. It advised the resident he would be provided with an instruction pack for the heating system as he was unsure how to use it.
- The resident sent the landlord a further email on 29 September 2023. He highlighted the significance of the date as being 4 months exactly from the start of his tenancy. He complained that all the repair issues he had reported since the day he moved in remained outstanding. He expressed his objection again to the landlord charging him for heating given it was not working. The landlord responded on 9 October 2023. It said he would receive a stage 2 complaint response by 16 October 2023. It also confirmed that it had suspended collection action on the unpaid heating charges.
- The landlord emailed the resident on 13 October 2023 to advise that the complaint investigation was taking longer than anticipated and its stage 2 response would therefore be delayed. It apologised and said it would provide the resident with a further update containing an expected date for the response to be issued. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2023. He said he had not heard anything further from it and asked when he would receive the stage 2 response. The landlord replied the following day to apologise for the delay. It said it was, “proving a challenge to obtain clarification as to when the issues will be resolved.” It did not provide a date by which it aimed to issue the stage 2 response.
- During October and November 2023, the landlord attended the property to carry out repairs as follows:
- On 23 October 2023, the balcony door, which was not shutting properly, was repaired.
- The extractor fan in the bathroom was cleaned and confirmed to be in working order on 7 November 2023.
- Contractors were scheduled to repair the heating on 12 October 2023. This appointment did not take place as the contractors were unable to access the building due to the door entry system not working.
- A further appointment for 24 October 2023 was cancelled by the contractor. At that stage, electric heaters were supplied to the resident. A rescheduled appointment took place on 26 October 2023 and resulted in a digital thermostat and receiver being ordered. The contractor was due to fit the parts on 2 November 2023 but it did not attend the appointment. It completed the repair on 8 November 2023.
- On 20 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
- It acknowledged the resident’s comments about the ongoing issues and delays impacting upon his health. It apologised that he had found the whole experience extremely stressful.
- It was challenging to obtain updates and clarification internally regarding the issues raised. The landlord had undergone “unprecedented changes” which had led to changes in staffing.
- It was sorry for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
- The delays in repairing the heating were “not the level of service that you would expect” from the landlord. It recognised that the administration of the appointments by the contractor caused the resident “unnecessary frustration”. The landlord raised this with the contractor who confirmed that it had provided feedback to all operatives involved. Following the missed appointment on 24 October 2023, the landlord intervened and asked the contractor to prioritise the rescheduled appointment in light of the resident’s circumstances.
- It enclosed a copy of the ‘Resident’s Handbook’ and confirmed the name of the resident’s new tenancy officer.
- It was sorry that the door entry system was not working resulting in missed appointments, deliveries and visits from family. The door entry system was the responsibility of a managing agent. The landlord suggested the resident raise the matter with the agent directly and provided an email address.
- It apologised for the delay in repairing the balcony door.
- It had put recovery action relating to the heating service charge on hold during the complaint investigation. The landlord had since cleared the balance.
- It recognised that waiting 6 months for issues to be resolved was “a delay that no one should be expected to tolerate.” It was not the landlord’s intention to cause the resident inconvenience and upset. As an apology it offered £200 compensation. Of this, £150 was for the delays in resolving the complaint issues, and £50 was for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
- The resident was unhappy with the response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 December 2023. He said:
- The landlord had not fully repaired the heating as the radiators were not heating up fully.
- He was not satisfied that it had properly serviced the ventilation as it had not been inspected by a specialist.
- The door entry system still did not work.
- He still did not have a rent account.
- The large water bill he received was due to delays in gaining access to read the meter. He said this was only resolved after he had a “lengthy battle” with the water company.
- The landlord demonstrated some accountability in its stage 2 response. However, he said it did not answer all his questions, had not successfully completed all the repairs, “lacked empathy” in its responses, and offered an “insulting” amount of compensation.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s handling of his various complaint issues on his mental and physical health. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for personal injury. We are not qualified to make an assessment as to how the landlord’s actions might have caused a medical condition or resulted in a deterioration of an existing condition. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through insurance or as a civil action. Therefore, while this has investigation assessed any overall distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord, it has not assessed the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health.
Facilitation of a meter reading
- The resident was unable to provide the water company with a start of tenancy meter reading when he first moved into the property. This was due to the meter being in a locked room in the building that only the landlord’s staff could access. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that for data protection reasons, residents were only permitted access to the room when accompanied by staff.
- The explanation given by the landlord was reasonable. However, the resident’s complaint was not that he did not have automatic access to this room. It was that the landlord had delayed in facilitating him access. The tenancy officer missed an arranged appointment on 6 June 2023 at which she was due to provide the resident with access to the meter. The resident outlined in his complaint correspondence the anxiety and distress he felt when the tenancy officer did not turn up. The officer did not return phone calls or messages from the resident and his support worker. When she did attend the property over 3 weeks later, she forgot to bring the key for the meter room. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not acknowledge the missed appointment or the forgotten key.
- When the resident responded to the stage 1 complaint on 21 August 2023, he said that on 2 further occasions the tenancy officer attended his property and forgot the key. It was 21 July 2023 before he eventually was able to read the meter. He said that due to this delay, the water company estimated a much larger first bill than it would have if a reading had been provided.
- Although the resident clearly indicated he was unhappy with the stage 1 response, the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. This will be considered in more detail below under complaint handling. Instead, it issued an informal response. It apologised for the “communication problems” and inconvenience caused by the missed appointment. It said this was due to “unforeseen circumstances.” It did not elaborate on this. It did not acknowledge that the missed appointment was failing. It also did not acknowledge that it further failed to promptly reschedule, and that there were 3 appointments where the keys were forgotten. It did not acknowledge the resident’s comments regarding the large water bill received as a result of the delays. These issues were not addressed at stage 2 either, as the landlord did not refer to the complaint about the meter reading in its response.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s facilitation of a meter reading. It was unreasonable that despite the resident’s repeated requests, it took over 2 months to facilitate what was a straightforward service request. The resident outlined in his complaint correspondence the distress and frustration this caused him. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses. When referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, he outlined the further inconvenience caused due to him having a “lengthy battle” with the water company to rectify the estimated bill he received. Given this, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.
Handling of repairs in the property
- The landlord is required by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes external doors. It must ensure that it maintains installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics, and keeps them in good working order. The tenancy agreement sets out additional repairing responsibilities. Accordingly, it was the landlord’s legal responsibility to attend to all of the repairs outlined in the resident’s complaint; the heating, ventilation system, balcony door, and door entry system.
- The landlord’s ‘Lettable Standard’ provides that when a tenant moves into a property, all the fixtures and fittings will be in working order. This includes appliances for the supply of heating, hot water, gas and electricity. The letting standard also states that door frames will be in good condition. The resident told the landlord that the heating, ventilation system, balcony door and door entry system all required repair from the day he moved into the property. The landlord did not dispute this. It therefore follows that the property did not meet the ‘Lettable Standard’ at the start of the tenancy in line with the landlord’s policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in its complaint responses, but it did not.
- The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with records of each report of disrepair made by the resident. It is evident from internal correspondence that there was limited information available to the officers investigating the complaint. This appears to be partly due to the ongoing technical issues at that time that prevented the landlord from setting up new tenancy files on its housing management database system. The investigating officers appropriately contacted the relevant departments directly to seek information but received limited responses. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It stated that it had, “proven rather challenging to obtain updates and clarification from the service regarding the issues.” It said that there had been, “unprecedented changes which has resulted in staff members transferring to other teams or leaving the organisation.” In the absence of the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman has relied on other evidence that is available, including the resident’s account of events.
- The resident said that he, his support worker, and care coordinator made numerous reports to the landlord about each repair issue. By the time the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he had raised the issues with at least 6 different officers in different departments. He also attended a housing repairs surgery in July 2023 and spoke to a maintenance officer. He fulfilled his obligations under the tenancy agreement by bringing repair matters promptly to the landlord’s attention. The onus was then on the landlord to carry out the repairs within a reasonable timescale. It failed to do this.
- The landlord’s repairs policy required it to complete routine repairs within 15 days of the resident reporting them. It took 5 months to repair the balcony door and almost 6 months to repair the heating and service the bathroom extractor fan. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised in its stage 2 response. It offered compensation of £150 for the delays. While this went some way towards acknowledging its failings, it did not in the Ombudsman’s view go far enough to provide reasonable redress.
- In relation to the heating, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response for its contractor’s delay in attending to the repair in October and November 2023. However, the landlord provided no explanation for its failure to attend to the repair between May 2023 and September 2023. Landlords are obliged to ensure that heating systems are adequately repaired and maintained. A failure to ensure that a property is adequately heated can leave residents at risk of developing illnesses. This was an important consideration in the resident’s case given his existing health conditions. The resident, his support worker, and health professionals told the landlord this. When the landlord missed appointments in September and October 2023, its records show it prioritised rearranging the appointments due to the resident’s health. However, it was unreasonable that there was no prioritisation of the repair due to the resident’s vulnerabilities in the 4 months prior to this. It is also unreasonable that the landlord offered no other support to the resident pending completion of the repair until October 2023, when it provided him with heaters.
- The landlord did not specifically address ventilation in its complaint response. In the stage 2 response, it made reference to it under the heading ‘ventilation system and heating’. However, the paragraphs that followed referred only to the heating repair. According to the landlord’s repair records, which are limited, it cleaned the extractor fan in the bathroom and confirmed it was in working order on 7 November 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman that the operative carrying out this work advised him that the fan required servicing by a specialist. However, the landlord did not refer to the repair in its complaint response. It did not address the resident’s complaint which was that the ventilation system was not sufficient for his health needs. It is therefore not known whether the landlord was satisfied, by 7 November 2023, that no further repairs or servicing was required to the ventilation system.
- The top of the balcony door did not shut properly. This allowed cold air into the property. The resident explained to the landlord that this was not good for his physical health conditions. It took 4 months of the resident reporting the issue, before the landlord inspected the door in September 2023. It then took a further month before it carried out the repair. As with the heating and ventilation, this far exceeded the 15 day timeframe set out in the repairs policy. It is evident the landlord did not consider the resident’s health when prioritising the repair. This was unreasonable, particularly given that by July 2023, a formal complaint was in the landlord’s system documenting the impact the outstanding issues were having on the resident. The stage 2 response simply apologised for the delay but did not explain why it occurred. There is no evidence that the landlord probed this during its complaint investigation.
- The resident had been reporting the intercom in his property was not working for 7 months by the time of the stage 2 response in December 2023. It was unreasonable that the only advice offered in the response was that the resident contact the managing agent directly himself to report the issue. There is no evidence that it had told the resident at any stage prior to this to contact the managing agent. Rather, it told him in previous correspondence that it would be addressing all the reported repair issues. When making his complaint, the resident told the landlord of the inconvenience caused by the door entry system not fully functioning. The landlord itself experienced this in September and October 2023 when it missed 2 repair appointments due to the faulty intercom. Given that the landlord had indicated previously it would arrange the repair, and given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for it to liaise directly with the managing agent. It was unreasonable that it did not and that it took a full year, until May 2024, before it repaired the intercom.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the property. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response, it did not thoroughly investigate the cause of the delays. It asked its contractor to learn from the mistakes it made when scheduling the heating repair, but it has provided no evidence that it asked its own staff to learn from the case. This was despite the fact it failed for months, and in the case of the door entry system a year, to fully respond to the resident’s reports. In doing so, it did not comply with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and within the tenancy agreement. It did not adhere to its repairs policy. It failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when prioritising the repairs. The resident told the landlord of the inconvenience it had caused him. He said, “I have suicide prevention support groups to attend, health care appointments, prescription collections and I can’t wait in, with a day’s notice, for staff who simply do not turn up or update me about rescheduling. I’m tired of excuses and insincere apologies.”
- Given the numerous repairs involved, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
- The resident advised the Ombudsman in October 2024 that 2 of the radiators in the property were not fully heating up. He said the contractor who carried out the heating repair in November 2023 was due to return to the property and fix this, but never did. The resident also said that the landlord has not arranged for the ventilation system to be fully serviced. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to inspect the heating and ventilation system in the property. It should ensure both are in full working order. It should advise the resident of the outcome of its inspection.
Management of the rent account
- When the resident moved into the property in May 2023, the landlord was unable to set up an online rent account. It advised him that due to technical issues with its housing management database system, it could not create new accounts. The resident referred to this in his complaint email of 17 July 2023. He said when viewing and signing for the property, the landlord initially advised him that he would not be entitled to dual housing benefit. It later corrected that advice. It told him that he would be entitled to dual benefits to fund the 4 week crossover between the notice period on his former accommodation and the commencement of his new tenancy agreement. However, by the time of making his complaint, the resident had not yet been paid the dual housing benefit. He suggested this was due to the landlord having not yet set him up with a rent account. He said the uncertainty around his rent had left him feeling “incredibly overwhelmed and scared.” He asked the landlord to confirm whether it was aware at the time he signed for the property, that it would be unable to generate a rent account for him due to the technical issues.
- The landlord did not address this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. It was only when the resident replied and the landlord issued an addendum to the stage 1 response on 25 August 2023, that it said a member of staff would contact him to discuss his concerns about the rent account. Accordingly, an income officer spoke to the resident on 5 September 2024. The full details of the phone call are not known as the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any call logs. However, it appears from emails that followed between the resident and the officer, that the resident was advised to make direct contact with the benefits office. The resident did so and received reassurance regarding his benefits entitlements. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to the organisation responsible for processing his benefits. However, it was unreasonable that it was 2 months after the resident formally raised concerns, before it gave him this advice and engaged with him in relation to his rent account.
- The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 complaint response issued in December 2023. By then, the resident had been living in the property for 7 months. He understood that he still did not have access to an online rent account due to the technical issues. The stage 2 response made no reference to this. It did not provide an update on the technical issues, or otherwise advise the resident that an online account was now available to him. If it was still unable to set up an account at the time, it did not indicate when it expected to be in a position to resolve the ongoing technical issues. The only reference the landlord made to the rent account in the stage 2 response, was to confirm that it had, appropriately, removed the backdated heating service charge given the heating had not been working.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its management of the rent account. We acknowledge that technical issues meant it was unable to set up new online accounts. However, this caused the resident, who the landlord knew was vulnerable, concern and distress. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses. At no stage does it appear to have advised how it would provide him with information about his rent and service charge in the absence of an online account. It delayed in referring his concerns to its income team. It delayed in offering him signposting advice. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
- The resident advised the Ombudsman in October 2024 that he still did not have an online rent account. He said that the landlord did not issue him with regular rent or service charge statements. The landlord however has advised us that the resident does now have an online account. Through this he should be able to make payments, view details of his rent account, view and print statements and contact his income officer. The landlord said it would only post out statements if the resident was in arrears, which the resident is not. It suggested if he has access issues to the online system, he may need to re-register. Given this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to contact the resident and provide him with advice on accessing his online rent account.
Complaint handling
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to carry out thorough investigations and issue timely responses that address all aspects of a complaint. If the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, the landlord should escalate it to stage 2. At both stages, the responses should acknowledge failures and set out how the landlord will learn from these. As will be explained below, the landlord failed to adhere to all of these Code requirements.
- The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, required stage 1 responses to be issued within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. It has since amended this, in line with the Code, to be 10 working days from the date it acknowledges receipt.
- The resident sent his complaint to the landlord on 10 July 2023. It acknowledged receipt on the same day. It responded on 17 August 2023, 28 working days later. It apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response. Given it did not comply with the timeframe set out in its policy, it would have been reasonable to offer the resident £50 compensation for this failure in line with its compensation policy. However, it did not offer any compensation.
- The stage 1 response failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and did not fully respond to all the queries he had raised. For example:
- It was evident from the response that the landlord misunderstood the underlying issue regarding the meter reading. The resident’s complaint was that it had failed to facilitate access to the meter room and had missed an appointment. The stage 1 response did not address this.
- It made no reference to the resident’s concerns about the rent account and provided no signposting to benefits advice services.
- It skimmed over the repairs complaint by simply stating the repairs would be attended to. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on Code compliance, where a response indicates that a landlord will carry out repairs, it should inform the resident of the timescale for the works to be completed. It should track and action the outstanding work expeditiously and provide regular updates to the resident. This affords the resident the opportunity to challenge the conclusions of their complaint, including whether the proposed actions are appropriate. The landlord did not provide this level of detail in its response. It subsequently failed to oversee that the repairs were carried out promptly.
- The resident explained in his email of 21 August 2023 why he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. He sent the email to the complaints team, rather than responding to the officer who issued it to him. In line with the Code, the landlord should at this stage have escalated the complaint as it was clearly not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction. However, the landlord stated in internal correspondence that it was “trying to avoid logging a formal stage 2 complaint.”
- The result of this was that the resident received a further response, that only partially addressed his concerns, from the same officer who issued the stage 1 response. He was also passed to a separate repair complaints officer who indicated she would ensure the repairs were progressed and that the resident would be kept updated. However, 4 weeks passed and the resident received no updates. The landlord made no progress during that time in attending to the repairs. The resident asked it on 19 September 2023 to escalate the complaint. At this stage, the landlord appropriately escalated it to stage 2. The landlord therefore did not avoid logging a stage 2 as it had hoped it would. Instead, all that was achieved in delaying the escalation, was that the resident suffered an additional month of distress and inconvenience while waiting on the repairs to be resolved.
- The landlord’s complaints policy required stage 2 responses to be issued within 20 working days of receipt of the escalation request. The policy stated, “if a complaint is complicated and likely to take longer to resolve the investigating officer will keep a customer updated on its progress.” The landlord has since amended its policy to clarify, in line with the Code, that an extension of no more than an additional 20 working days should be agreed with the resident.
- On 21 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s escalation request and confirmed it would issue a stage 2 response by 16 October 2023. In line with the complaints policy in place at that time, it advised the resident on 13 October 2023, that it would not meet the deadline as the investigation was taking longer than anticipated. It said it would contact the resident again with a new deadline. However, almost 3 weeks passed and the resident heard nothing further from the landlord. It was unreasonable that the landlord left the deadline for responding to the complaint open-ended.
- Having received no further update on the complaint from the landlord, the resident contacted it on 1 November 2023 to ask when it intended to issue the response. The landlord replied and explained that it was challenging to get updates from the relevant departments about when issues would be resolved. It once again left the response deadline open-ended. This was unreasonable.
- The landlord eventually issued the stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. It apologised for the delay. It indicated this was due to “unprecedented changes” within service areas and staffing changes. It was good practice that it explained the reasons for the delay. It reasonably offered the resident £50 compensation in line with its compensation policy.
- As outlined in the relevant assessment sections above, the landlord did not address the resident’s complaints about the meter reading or the absence of an online rent account. It did not assess the adequacy of the stage 1 response, even though the resident referred to complaint handling within his escalation request. In relation to the repairs, it provided no explanation as to why it did not respond for months to the resident’s many reports. Given his vulnerabilities, the delay in attending to the repairs was a significant failing. However, there is no evidence the landlord probed during its stage 2 investigation why this occurred. The landlord outlined in the response that it had addressed failings with its heating contractor. However, it overlooked its own failings in the 4 months prior to it instructing the heating contractor to attend. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles require landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord demonstrated no introspection on its own failures, of which there were many as outlined in this report.
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration.
Consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its associated record keeping
- According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “housing is the basis of stability and security for an individual or family. The centre of our social, emotional, and sometimes economic lives, a home should be a sanctuary—a place to live in peace, security and dignity.”
- The move to permanent social housing was a significant change in circumstances for the resident. It had the potential to offer him the stability and security that his previous temporary accommodation could not. The resident spoke of this in his original complaint email. He said, “housing is an integral part of my wellbeing; feeling secure, stable, settled and safe.” He stated that he took “great pride” in where he lived. He expressed his wish to settle into his new home and be an “exemplary tenant”. He was supported by healthcare and social work professionals from the community mental health team, with practical assistance provided by a support worker. However, he also relied upon the landlord to play its role in supporting the transition.
- The landlord was aware from the outset of his mental and physical health conditions given that it was the local authority that operated the moving scheme through which he was allocated the property. The landlord was subsequently reminded by the resident, his support worker and care coordinator on numerous occasions of his vulnerabilities. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to factor this information into its decision making when arranging appointments, assisting the resident with settling into the property, responding to his queries and prioritising repairs. However, a common theme in the landlord’s handling of the various complaint issues, was that it continually failed to take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account. For example:
- When the resident reported his intercom was not working, the landlord simply advised him to “google” how it worked. It later told him in the stage 2 complaint response that he should liaise directly with the managing agent regarding this issue. This was after 7 months of the resident repeatedly raising the issue with the landlord. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, a ‘hands on’ approach by the landlord to ensure firstly that he knew how to operate the system, and secondly to pursue the issue with the agent, would have been reasonable. This may have resulted in the intercom being repaired much sooner than a full year after the resident moved into the property.
- The landlord did not consider the impact of disrepair on the resident’s health when prioritising works. This is evident by the fact it took 4 months before it first attended the property to inspect the reported issues. It then took a further 4 weeks to carry out the repair to the balcony door and 6 weeks to repair the heating. The landlord contemplated this during its stage 2 complaint investigation. An internal email demonstrates that the investigating officer asked colleagues whether the repairs were considered a priority due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, it is not known whether she received a response to this query. The only priority given, based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, was in rearranging missed appointments in September and October 2023. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities during the 4 months prior to this when it took no action. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. This meant it missed the opportunity to learn from its mistakes and put in place measures to ensure they did not happen again.
- The resident said in his complaint correspondence in August 2023 that the landlord ignored emails sent by his support worker which attached photos of appliances and asked for more information about them. He also said he was advised by the landlord at a housing repairs surgery in July 2023 that he should have been shown how to work various appliances in the property when his tenancy began. However, the landlord did not address this in its complaint responses.
- Once it became known to the landlord that the resident was struggling to operate appliances, even with assistance from his support worker, it should reasonably have taken steps to provide support. As a minimum this would be to respond to emails and ensure he was given instruction manuals. However, if it wished to provide a more holistic approach, it could reasonably have arranged to provide the resident with practical demonstrations on the operation of the appliances. It was aware the resident had been living in temporary, partly supported, accommodation for 7 years prior to moving to the property. It was aware of his vulnerabilities. Instead, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for support. It was only following an inspection of the property on 22 September 2023, that the landlord arranged for an instruction pack for the heating to be sent to the resident as he was unsure how to use it properly. It was unreasonable it took the landlord 4 months to provide the information, given the resident had already explained a number of times that he did not know how to operate the various appliances in the property.
- When gathering evidence for this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to outline its understanding of any health or disability needs of the resident and when it became aware of these. The landlord advised us in July 2024 that there was “no housefile” for the resident on its housing management database system. It said it was therefore unable to provide us with any information on health or disability. It did not explain why there was no file. Even if the technical issues that arose in 2023 remained ongoing, it was unreasonable if over a year later the landlord had not found an alternative means of recording important information relating to the tenancy. The landlord would have obtained details about the resident’s health from his initial housing application, information disclosed during the complaints process, and other communications with the resident, his care coordinator and his support worker. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident continues to suffer severely from his mental health conditions and that he attempted suicide in December 2023. It is therefore very concerning to us that the landlord does not appear to have ready access to any collated information about the resident’s health and wellbeing.
- The importance of record keeping, particularly in relation to vulnerabilities, cannot be overstated. These records not only enable the landlord to provide a better response to residents, but they may provide vital evidence to partner agencies when dealing with safeguarding issues. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’, published in May 2023, found that it was a regular occurrence for landlords to not appropriately record this type of information. This was even if they had been advised multiple times and their procedures explicitly stated that vulnerabilities would form part of the decision-making process. The KIM report stated, “in the absence of that information, wrong decisions were made, those most in need were not prioritised and residents were treated insensitively.”
- The Ombudsman further considered vulnerabilities in its ‘Spotlight on Attitudes, Respect and Rights’, published in January 2024. It is recognised that this report post-dates the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s complaint. However, it is worth highlighting as some of the observations made within the report, were borne out in practice in this case. The report found that, “landlords need to empower themselves with knowledge about their residents and homes to be more proactive and effective, but too often the records on vulnerabilities are incomplete or ignored.” The report explored how service failures, when combined with vulnerabilities, can become more complex to resolve and result in more detriment to the resident. Such failures can lead to a breakdown of trust.
- The resident told the Ombudsman that a breakdown of trust occurred in his case. He said that the landlord’s responses to him lacked empathy and that it did not take him seriously. He stated that prior to moving his “mental health journey was on a more positive path”, but following the move, the landlord made him “feel undervalued as a human” and “dismissed”. He commented, “I’ve lost trust in their ability to provide quality, safe, secure, affordable and comforting accommodation to those who really need it.”
- Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its associated record keeping. It failed to take account of the resident’s complex health issues and tailor its response accordingly when responding to the resident’s queries, complaints and reports of disrepair. The cumulative effect of this, combined with its failure to maintain appropriate records, leads to the finding of severe maladministration. In terms of detriment to the resident, his words are self-evident. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the severe maladministration.
- If the landlord has not already done so, we would encourage it to carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations made in our ‘Spotlight on Attitudes, Respect and Rights’. The Ombudsman has previously ordered it to review its record keeping with reference to the recommendations made in the KIM Spotlight report (case references 202205866, 202118843 and 202227185). We would encourage it to keep its KIM self-assessment under review.
- The Ombudsman also previously ordered the landlord to ensure that staff responsible for overseeing repairs complete our e-learning on KIM (case reference 202203123). We ordered in that same report that staff responsible for investigating complaints complete our e-learning on dispute resolution. It is positive to note that the landlord confirmed this training would be completed by relevant staff during July 2024.
- The KIM orders made previously by the Ombudsman post-date the events giving rise to the resident’s complaint. To avoid duplication, a further order is not made in this report regarding record keeping generally. However, in relation to the resident specifically, the landlord is ordered to ensure that it has an updated tenancy file that records all known details of vulnerability, complaints and reports of disrepair. It is also ordered to carry out a senior manager case review in relation to the failures identified by the Ombudsman, with a particular focus on vulnerability.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s facilitation of a meter reading.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the rent account.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its associated record keeping.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
- Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should make the apology.
- Pay the resident £2,300 compensation as follows:
- £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in the landlord’s facilitation of a meter reading.
- £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
- £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s management of the rent account.
- £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
- £1,000 for distress and inconvenience caused by the severe maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its associated record keeping.
- If the £200 compensation offered in the stage 2 response of 20 December 2023 has already been paid, it may be deducted from the £2,300 ordered.
- Inspect the heating and ventilation system in the property. It should ensure both are in full working order. It should advise the resident of the outcome of its inspection.
- Contact the resident and provide him with advice on accessing his online rent account.
- Ensure it has an updated tenancy file for the resident that records all known details of vulnerability, complaints and reports of disrepair.
- In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a senior manager case review in relation to the failures identified by the Ombudsman. There should be a particular focus on vulnerability. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should share the findings of its review with its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman.