London Borough of Hackney (202121330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121330

Hackney Council

6 February 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Missing belongings from her previous property following an emergency transfer and related staff conduct.
2. Its refusal to replace a blind at her current property.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the second floor of a new build building. The tenancy started at the end of October 2020 following a direct management transfer from her former property due to domestic abuse. In the course of her complaint, the resident reported to the landlord that she suffered from depression and post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident’s former property was managed by a managing agent, an independent, appointed by the landlord tenancy management organisation (TMO).
An addendum to the current tenancy agreement lists window blinds and fridge freezer as gifted from the landlord items, which do not form part of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance obligations. The resident was informed of this and signed the acceptance form at the start of her current tenancy.
The landlord’s transfer policy sets out that in circumstances of domestic violence the landlord should follow an emergency rehousing procedure social priority “A”.
According to the tenancy condition document, the resident must leave the property in a clean and tidy condition. Residents must remove all their belongings, carpets, laminate flooring, animals, rubbish and private belongings and papers. If residents leave any belongings in the property, they will have to pay a reasonable charge to the landlord for removing and storing them.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, there are two stages of complaint process. At stage 1 the landlord should respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident was referred to Domestic Abuse Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) in 2018. According to landlord’s file the issue was related to domestic violence. The resident had also reported having been sexually abused. As per the landlord’s record, the resident was given A social priority and considered for a “safe area” rehousing due to the perpetrator being an alleged member of a gang.
The resident moved to the current property on 2 November 2020. She reported that she had been “pushed to leave her former property” by the landlord. On the same day, the landlord attended the former property and noted that the resident’s bicycle had been left locked at the front door. The landlord noted no other belongings left but some appliances.
Due to void works assessment at the former property, the landlord visited the former property again on 4 and 12 November 2020 and noted that the bicycle was still outside of the resident’s property. According to the landlord’s file, the resident requested for some of the white goods to be stored and the landlord placed them in the communal basement on her behalf.
On 19 November 2020, when the decoration works at the former property were completed, the landlord attended again and noted that the bicycle was no longer there. On 14 December 2020, according to the landlord’s file, the resident made contact and said that she had offered the stored goods for sale. She asked the landlord to assist with viewing to be arranged for potential buyers. The landlord noted in internal correspondence that the requested viewing was facilitated. It also noted that the resident had not mentioned the bicycle throughout this correspondence. This Service has not seen any evidence of this correspondence. However, this was confirmed at a later stage by the statement of the officers involved in the transfer and the resident’s recollection of events.
On 8 June 2021, an independent specialist support worker raised a complaint on behalf of the resident. They said:
1. During the resident’s transfer, she had liaised with two officers from the landlord to arrange a time to collect some belongings from her former property. The officers’ behaviour had been intimidating, and she did not feel safe to collect her possessions – a pedal bicycle and a suitcase with personal belongings. The officer’s behaviour involved:
  1. Shouting at her.
  2. Falsely accusing her of “setting up a show room to sell her belongings”.
  3. Lack of understanding of the trauma she experienced as a victim of sexual abuse.
  4. Dismissing her requests for information and assistance.
  5. Being abrupt, rude and aggressive towards her.
2. Due to the trauma experienced in her former property she found it difficult to go back there. She also suffered with PTSD, suicidal ideation, insomnia and flashbacks for 6 months following the transfer.
3. By not supporting the resident, the officers had actively contributed to her trauma. She wanted the negative impact the situation had on her to be recognised by the officers. She also wanted to collect her items or be compensated for her loss in case the landlord had disposed of them.
The landlord forwarded the complaint to its TMO and the TMO issued a stage 1 response on 4 August 2021. It said:
1. The TMO received the complaint on 14 June 2021 and acknowledged it with the resident’s specialist support worker on 16 June 2021.
2. It discussed the complaint with the specialist support worker. Neither the resident nor the worker had provided further information about the outcome the resident had been seeking.
3. It discussed the complaint with the officers involved separately and with clear instructions for them to not communicate with each other about the complaint. The interviews had been conducted over the phone due to the pandemic. Another interview had been later arranged with both officers participating.
4. It provided a timeline of events from the start of the resident’s former tenancy in 2017 until the resident was transferred to her current property. These included an urgent application for transfer since 2018, “A social” status granted in July 2019, and consideration of property type and “safe area” requests. It found no failure with the handling of the application process.
5. Following the resident’s transfer from 2 November 2020 to the new property on 4 November, one of the officers visited the former property and noticed the bicycle locked up by the door, but there was no suitcase at the property.
6. The landlord acknowledged the events from November, and that its officers had not seen the bicycle after 19 November 2020. In December it stored the white goods on the residents’ behalf and facilitated viewing from potential buyers. The resident contacted the landlord’s office to make arrangement for the sale of the goods and their viewings. At no stage had she had requested other assistance or escort to collect any item.
7. One of the officers had said during the interview that the resident had informed them she had misplaced the lock keys and would collect her bike at a later stage. Hence the officers had assumed she had done so on 19 November 2020. The officer also had stated they had not seen any suitcase with her belongings.
8. It appreciated the traumatic period the resident had experienced but it had no records and received no account that its staff had intentionally tried to cause the resident distress. It considered the staff supported the resident despite the challenges of working during pandemic, when staff had been mainly meant to work from home.
9. Whilst the landlord had not found any faults with its staff, the members of staff had forwarded their apologies to the resident for the way she had felt following their interaction.
10. It provided her with information on how to escalate the complaint.
In further correspondence of 5 August 2021, the independent support worker informed the landlord that they would liaise with the resident to escalate the complaint and clarify what outcome the resident was seeking.
On 4 October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord an issue with her freezer over freezing due to the way it had been installed. This was raised as a complaint and responded at stage one by the landlord on 4 November 2021. The landlord stated the freezer was not its responsibility as it had been gifted to the resident.
On 16 December 2021, the resident contacted this Service. She stated that the landlord had not escalated the complaint about missing personal belongings as she had not submitted her escalation request on time. This Service has not seen the escalation request, or the correspondence related to the delay in its submission. This Service forwarded the resident’s concerns to the landlord and asked it to respond in line with its complaint’s procedure, and within 10 working days. This Service chased the landlord to further on 19 January 2022 and provided 5 working days for a response.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 26 January 2022. It stated that it had discussed the complaint with the resident over the phone on 21 January and acknowledged that she wanted a replacement of the bicycle and an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord stated:

A response to this had already been issued on 4 August 2021.
On 5 August 2021, the resident’s specialist support worker at the time had contacted the landlord to explain that they had been working with the resident on an escalation response. However, the landlord had not received approved by her response through the independent specialist support worker. It the resident wanted to escalate she could provide this response now.
The landlord provided further guidance on the escalation process.

Following the landlord’s guidance and further advice from this Service, the resident escalated her complaint on 2 February 2022. She said:

After being a victim of domestic abuse, she had been treated “poorly” during the transfer and did not have any support with the move. This had caused her to have a mental breakdown and led her to be subject to abuse again in January 2021.
After her conversation with her new estate officer from the same day, she added new issues of complaint (this Service has seen the telephone note). She was unhappy that they had asked her about her personal details and information related to the officers involved in her rehousing who she had complained about. She was dissatisfied that the officer did not have any information about her circumstances on the tenancy file.
During the inspection of her new property, she had been unable to identify that her blinds were see-through at night from outside. She had since realised that the perpetrator had been watching her. If she had known during the initial inspections that the blinds were see-though she would have suggested that they were not suitable.
Both the landlord and she had overlooked this. She was not happy that the landlord had told her that the blinds were gifted and she should change them herself.
She was not capable of performing daily tasks due to her depression and PTSD. She said she felt the whole “ordeal both in her previous address and her current address had been extremely traumatising and life-threatening”.

In internal correspondence from the same day, the estate officer acknowledged that it discussed with the resident, the freezer issue and the blinds issue. It also acknowledged asking her about her circumstances of leaving her former address which due to a cyber-attack were not available on her tenancy file. It said:

It had discussed with the resident the blind replacement request, but she had become “annoyed” when the landlord had suggested the resident was responsible for the decoration and that the blinds were gifted.
The resident had stated that she had been referred by MARAC for a transfer. Due to her mental health, she needed assistance with the blinds. She also stated that replacing them would make her feel more secure at her property.
She ended the call before the landlord could offer support. The resident had not responded to any of the further questions but stated that the landlord should have known her circumstances.
The resident had also stated that she reported the recent incident to the police, but no further information was provided to the landlord.

The landlord contacted its domestic abuse intervention service (DAIS) for further information and found out that the resident was referred to MARAC in 2018. It also referred the resident again for DAIS assessment and support. It asked its new build team to consider replacing the blinds.
On 4 February 2022, its DAIS contacted the resident over the phone and followed up with an email to her. This Service has only seen evidence of the email. The landlord stated:

A telephone assessment had been performed. The resident had stated that she did not feel safe due to ongoing threats by perpetrators who had abused her in the past. The last incident happened in November 2021. The resident wanted blinds to be installed for her safety or to be moved elsewhere.
The domestic abuse had been historical, and the recent sexual abuse had not been in the context of a domestic relationship as such the specific service suitable for the resident was the sexual abuse specific service which she had already accessed. The resident also had reported accessing GP, counselling and other support services.

The estate officer further wrote to the resident the same day to acknowledge her request to be moved and suggested further discussing her options. The landlord also copied her independent specialist support worker in its correspondence. It stated:

As per the advice of its new build team, it would not replace her blinds as they were gifted. The resident was responsible for changing them or for making any “cosmetic improvements”.
It asked for further information on the threats to kill and whether they were reported to the police. In order to assess what support could be provided, it asked for the outcome of the police report and the crime reference number in relation to the recent incidents and the perpetrator the resident had seen outside her property.
It provided a referral form for additional support.

On 7 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to request further information as follows:

Correspondence concerning her bike and other personal belongings.
A description of the bicycle, any photos and where it had been located.

On 15 February 2022, the independent specialist worker wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident. They said:

The resident had advised them that she had been unable to explain the context of the abuse when asked over the phone. It was not uncommon for such “survivors” to “freeze” when asked about what they had experienced.
The resident had explained that whilst the new perpetrator was a stranger he was connected with the previous one from whom she had experienced a decade of coercive controlling behaviour and sexual violence. The previous perpetrators had made several threats and the resident had explained that the recent incident from January 2020 (likely to be 2021) was not random but part of the same pattern of behaviour.
Currently the specialist worker was supporting the resident with her criminal justice case regarding the recent perpetrator. They recommended that blinds were put in place to help the resident feel more secure at home.

The landlord responded the same day. It said:

The resident can contact DIAS on the duty line for reassessment.
The DIAS was only able to support her when the risk of domestic abuse was current.
The landlord had not mentioned it before, but during the conversations with the resident safety planning at home and in the local area had been discussed.

On 25 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord about the personal belongings. She said:

Due to her circumstances, she had no photos of the bicycle.
All the correspondence at the time of leaving her former property was verbal.
She had kept the bicycle safe with “strong chain and lock” for over three years during her former tenancy outside the front door under the kitchen window and it had not been stolen during this period.
The bike had disappeared after the threat of the officer dealing with her transfer to dispose the bike if the resident did not collect it. The resident also explained that a complaint had been previously raised and the landlord should have a record of it.

On 2 March 2022, the independent specialist support worker wrote further to the landlord to explain that the risk to the resident was current. They said:

One of the perpetrators worked in the building the resident was living in.
A further DASH assessment was recommended for DIAS to follow up with as the case was complex with multiple perpetrators and ongoing risk.
The resident’s mental health was affected, and the blinds replacement would give her a “sense of safety”. As such, this would be a reasonable adjustment to aid the resident’s safety rather than a cosmetic arrangement.
The resident was experiencing multiple disadvantages because of the abuse she had experienced over several years. She had only started getting some therapeutic support and making her feel safer would contribute to her day-to-day wellbeing.

On 3 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response incorporating all the issues the resident had raised. It said:

It responded to the freezer issue, acknowledged failure related to the installation of the fridge freezer. It apologised for the delay, arranged the fridge repair and awarded compensation of £140.
It confirmed its findings from the stage 1 response issued on 4 August 2021 about the personal belongings. It stated that it had not found any evidence to support the resident’s claim that her belongings had been removed or disposed of by the landlord.
If the resident believed that the landlord was liable, she could raise a liability claim with its insurer.
It was unable to identify any evidence that the officers involved in the transfer from her former property were not supportive to her. However, it reiterated their apology.
It had looked into the current estate officer’s conduct in relation to dealing with the blind issue. It found that they had offered support and assistance. They had raised concerns about the safety of the resident. Their advice to raise any concerns directly to the police was correct. Their questions related to her previous tenancy was due to multiple contact details and lack of information on the resident’s file. It further confirmed its position from 4 February 2022.
It reiterated that the blinds were gifted at the commencement of the tenancy and were the resident’s responsibility to replace.
It provided further details and a timeline of events into the transfer process which confirmed the details provided in its response of 4 August 2021 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the emergency transfer.

In April 2022, the resident stated to this Service that shortly after her transfer, she had not been capable to collect her bicycle or revisit her former address due to her mental health and the effect of the abuse experienced while living there. The resident stated that she had been locking her bicycle for over three years during her former tenancy. However, the bicycle was removed following the threat by the officer that they would dispose of it if not collected.
In more recent conversation with the resident, she stated that:

The fridge freezer issue was satisfactorily responded to by the landlord and she accepted the level of compensation.
The resident was living in her bedroom only. She was not able to use the lounge and the kitchen as the blinds there were see-through at night. She did not feel safe in those rooms as the perpetrator could watch her. It was not clear which perpetrators the resident referred to as due to her mental health she found it difficult to discuss her circumstances.
She was not capable of replacing the blinds herself as she was not working and due to her circumstances, her mobility was limited because of her depression and PTSD.
She had no written evidence or correspondence with the landlord in relation to her personal belongings during her property transfer in November and December 2020. She was not satisfied that the landlord had “rushed” her into leaving her property. She had had to leave her white goods behind to be stored by the landlord. She had subsequently sold them for less than their market price due to being rushed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is unfortunate that serious incidents happened in the resident’s life and the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s experience. On a few occasions, the resident mentioned that her mental health was affected by the landlord’s action, and she had suffered a breakdown which made her a subject of further abuse. The detriment and harm to her mental health is not something which the Ombudsman can consider. Any damage caused to the resident’s health is better suited for the expertise of the courts under a personal injury claim.
Additionally, this Service will not investigate the landlord’s response to the freezer issue. The resident confirmed that she had agreed that this was dealt with appropriately and she was satisfied with the offered resolution. As such, she did not want to bring this to the Ombudsman’s attention and accepted the offer of compensation which was paid to the resident in July 2022.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, this Service will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff gave rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. We can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff, and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do, however, is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members or dismiss them.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a missing bike and personal belongings from her former property.

The landlord found that there was not enough evidence to support the resident’s claim that her bicycle was disposed of by the landlord following her transfer in November 2020. In its response and investigation, the landlord made a reasonable effort to establish the facts. It demonstrated that it investigated the issue to the best of its ability. Whilst it did not have any sufficient evidence available, it interviewed the two members of staff involved independently and at different times without the others knowledge of the subject of the interview. It subsequently reviewed all the evidence available. This investigation was reasonable, and the landlord demonstrated its commitment to understand the facts and resolve the issue.
From the evidence available and supported by the resident’s recollection, the landlord’s officers provided storage for the resident’s goods and facilitated the sale of those in December 2020. The landlord did not have any obligation as per the tenancy agreement to store the items or provide viewings for potential buyers. Additionally, it did not have any obligation with regards to the bicycle that was locked outside her property. However, it is evident that it took steps to support the resident and assist in the circumstances. Considering the difficulties experienced during pandemic when the majority of staff were working from home, the landlord’s officers involved in the transfer demonstrated a customer focused approach in supporting the vulnerable resident.
This Service has noted that the resident reported that she had felt pushed to leave the property quickly and not supported during this process with her belongings. The landlord, however, had no obligation to handle, store or arrange viewing for her white goods. As such, its response that the landlord’s staff had “taken a step further” was reasonable.
During these viewing arrangements, the landlord’s file evidenced that in her communication with it, the resident had not requested any handling or collection of other belongings, and particularly her bicycle or the suitcase. As such, the landlord was not aware of them being missing until July 2021, which was 7 months after the transfer.
This service appreciates that the resident’s circumstances were difficult and that it was difficult for her to return to the former property where she had experienced long term abuse. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded reasonably to her reports about staff conduct. Some of the events were considerably historical and the evidence may not have been sufficient, but the landlord demonstrated that it had taken seriously the reports and discussed the issues raised with each member of staff involved. Additionally, the landlord provided further opportunity to the resident to provide substantive evidence of her claim. Whilst its investigation did not identify any issues with staff conduct, it offered an apology for the resident’s belief that she had not been supported during the transfer process.
The landlord demonstrated a reasonable and customer orientated approach in investigating its handing of those issues. However, a considerable period of time had elapsed since the events by the time the resident raised a complaint. It is noted that the circumstances of the transfer had affected the resident’s ability to collect her items. However, given the lack of evidence, this Service cannot hold the landlord accountable for the missing items.
Furthermore, its decision was based on the available evidence and in the circumstances, it was reasonable to conclude in August 2021 that there was not sufficient evidence to support the resident’s claim that her bicycle and suitcase were disposed of by the landlord. When the resident raised further missing items in December 2021, the landlord responded again that it had already looked into this issue. This response will be further reviewed in the complaint handling section.
In its final response from 3 March 2022, the landlord, in addition to acknowledging that there was not sufficient evidence to take a decision, referred the resident to its insurer. This was reasonable advice, and particularly in a situation where it had not been able to establish the facts. However, it would have been more appropriate for this advice to have been provided at an earlier stage following the landlord’s initial investigation in August 2021. However, overall, the landlord’s response was customer orientated and appropriate given the circumstances. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing items form her former property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of window blind replacement.

The first request for the “see-though at night” window blinds to be replaced with “black out” ones was made on 2 February 2022, when the resident discussed other issues with the estate officer. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to replace the blinds. Given the limited information the landlord had on file at the time about the resident’s circumstances, it was reasonable for it to decline the resident’s request for replacement.
It is appreciated that the window blinds were gifted to the resident at the start of her tenancy, and she was responsible for replacing them. However, given the circumstances of her transfer, the landlord should have inspected the property for any risks at the start of it. If such an inspection was not performed or due to the nature of the issues this was not noticed during the initial inspection, the landlord should have considered inspecting the property again following the resident’s reports of the risk. However, this was not done.
Following the initial telephone assessment of the resident by the landlord’s DIAS from February 2022 and its findings that there was not current risk, the resident’s independent support worker contacted the landlord on 2 March 2022. They clearly explained that the nature of the abuse could affect the way the resident described her circumstances. They further clarified that the case was complex and involved multiple perpetrators. They reiterated that the resident did not feel safe and asked for another assessment. However, there is no evidence that this was performed.
Whilst the landlord did not have any obligation under normal circumstances to replace the blinds, the resident and her independent support worker had clearly stated that, in this case, the request was not in relation to the decoration, but it was about the resident’s safety. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider reasonable adjustments in order to mitigate any risk for the resident. The landlord, however, did not consider the resident’s circumstances and safety needs. Whilst the advice to report the issues to the police was correct, the landlord did not consider arranging any thorough risk assessment or inspection of the property. As such the landlord failed to evidence that it took reasonable steps in relation to the household vulnerability by risk assessing and acting on the findings of this risk assessment.
It is noted that the landlord made a few attempts and requested further information and the criminal reference of the recent incident in order to support the resident. However, no information was provided by the resident or by her independent support worker. As such it was difficult for the landlord to take an informed decision as to what further support the resident might need.
For the above reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace her blinds. The resident reported an immediate risk of the perpetrator standing outside and watching her. Whilst the landlord followed up with an initial assessment of its DIAS, it did not perform a DASH assessment as per the independent worker’s recommendations nor did it inspect the property. This Service has ordered for the landlord to inspect the property and perform a risk assessment. In addition, a compensation order of £100 has been awarded to reflect the distress this issue has caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident was transferred to another property in November 2020. She raised her complaint for missing personal belongings during this transfer on 7 July 2021. Whilst there was a gap of over six months from the events the resident had complained about, the landlord raised the complaint under its process. This was reasonable given the circumstances of her transfer and the reported difficulties she had experienced after. The landlord’s response, however, was issued on 4 August 2021, which was delayed by 10 working days from the timescales set out in its complaint’s procedure.
The landlord’s complaints procedure does not have any timeframes within which residents are required to escalate their complaint. The resident contacted this Service in December 2021 and asked for assistance with the complaint. She explained that the landlord had advised that she had not escalated the complaint on time. This Service has seen no evidence of any escalation request during this period. Following this Services’ intervention on 16 December 2021 and chase up in January 2021, the landlord raised another stage 1 complaint and responded on 26 January 2021 that the issue had been already investigated in August 2021. It would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to escalate her complaint given she had provided clear view of the outcome she had been seeking.
Nevertheless, it responded again at stage 1 and as such missed an opportunity to review the complaint and provide a resolution for the resident at an earlier stage. Whilst it had provided a stage 2 response at a later stage, and in March 2022, its complaint handling had caused considerable delays and frustration to the resident.
In the resident’s further escalation from February 2022, she raised additional issues related to the landlord’s response to her request for window blinds to be replaced. The landlord incorporated all the resident’s complaints into one stage 2 response. And while the previous issues were due to be investigated at stage 2, in this way the landlord provided a stage 1 response only for the window blinds issue. This was not in line with its policy and deprived the resident from her right to have her complaint about the window blinds reviewed by a more senior member of staff. This caused additional confusion as to the landlord’s process.
Additionally, it was of concern that the landlord did not have the resident’s updated contact details or any information on her tenancy file about her circumstances. As such, in February 2022, questions about her former property were asked, which the resident reported as uncomfortable, frustrating and lacking in sensitivity. Whilst it is appreciated that the landlord experienced a cyber-attack, and this contributed to the loss of data, it would be reasonable for it to have had a system in place to deal with those issues so that it could effectively respond to vulnerable tenants.
Due to the above failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Compensation of £250 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing items from her former property and associated staff conduct.
Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for window blinds replacement.
Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated that it responded to the resident’s reports of missing items from her former property to the best of its ability and the evidence available. The limited evidence suggests that it handled the resident’s items on her behalf, stored them and assisted her with their sale whilst it had no obligation to do. This demonstrated a customer focused approach and empathy to her circumstances.
It advised her appropriate that due to the lack of any evidence, the issue should be forwarded to its insurer.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the window blinds to be replaced due an ongoing risk was not appropriate. The landlord did not conduct an inspection of the property or DASH assessment to identify any risks.
The landlord delayed its response at stage 1. It responded twice at stage 1 for the missing items issue. Additionally, its provided an only 1 stage response in relation to the blinds issue. As such, it did not follow its complaints process and caused further confusion and frustration to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident, for the failings identified in this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident) within four weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request for replacement of the window blinds.
2. £250 for any time and trouble the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to arrange an inspection of the blinds of the property and a DASH assessment for the resident. It should provide a copy of the reports to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

As part of it’s goodwill gesture, the landlord should consider inspecting the blinds and replacing them if deemed see-through at night in the interests of the resident’s security.
The landlord should review its record keeping practices and ensure that it has a system in place to prevent any loss of data on tenants’ files in situation as such and of cyber-attack.
The landlord to provide training to its staff with regards to escalations and adherence to its complaints policy in following a 2-stage process. Additional training should be provided for staff to follow up on any risk assessment issues reported by vulnerable residents and their needs.