Luton Borough Council (202305069)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305069

Luton Borough Council

26 July 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 31 July 2006. The property is a first floor two-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The resident advised this Service that she has functional neurological disorder and mental health issues due to previous trauma. The landlord advised this Service that its housing system recorded no vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. Another resident of the block reported that a gutter was leaking. The landlord attended the block to repair this on 11 May 2023. The resident was awoken by a man on a ladder outside her bedroom window. Her bed is situated immediately adjacent to the window.
  3. On 11 May 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said that she had been woken up that morning by a man outside her bedroom window. She said that she had been unaware of any repairs being reported so “to be woken up to hearing a man’s voice so close to me and then to see him outside my window has scared me so much it’s unreal”. She said that it was not the first time it had happened and that the landlord had previously assured her that a note would be placed on her records to make sure that operatives knocked on her door prior to work being carried out.
  4. She said that the 2 operatives tried to carry on with the job. One of them argued with her through the bedroom window and the other tried to climb a ladder while she screamed at him. She explained that her home was her safe space and that she had spent the day since the incident having panic attacks, flash backs and body tremors. She said that the “violation of her privacy” had “absolutely destroyed” her. She said that after it happened the previous time, she had spent 3 months sleeping on her sofa because she was so scared. She said that she felt “petrified” to stay in the flat but “even more scared to go out”.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023. It explained that the operatives had attended in response to a neighbour’s report of leaking guttering. It said that the operative thought that he had knocked on all the doors in the block to let all the residents know but had presumed that the property the resident lived in was part of another flat. It said that it tried to identify all the residents that would be affected by the work and encouraged the operatives to make tenants aware. It apologised that this had not happened and had caused the resident distress.
  6. It said that it was aware that there was a marker on her address asking for her to be notified if any work was to be carried out. However, because the work had been raised on another property address this had not been picked up. It said that due to her behaviour the operatives had to abort the repair and she would be notified when this would be carried out. It pointed out that she should not shout or swear at employees and that although it understood her reasons for doing so on this occasion, if she repeated the behaviour when the workmen returned it would be a breach of her tenancy conditions.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord back on the same day. She asked it to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that she had spoken to all the other residents in the block who advised her that the operatives did not tell any of them that they were going to complete the work. She said that the resident that reported the issue was not even aware that the work was going to be carried out that day. She said that the landlord had a duty of care to her and that the issue had been raised the previous year but not investigated or dealt with correctly. She said that her housing officer had supported her over the past few years with multiple issues and that because she had severe mental health issues, she had a valid reason to react the way she did.
  8. The resident also contacted her MP for assistance and told them that the landlord had not contacted her to speak to her about the complaint. The MP told the landlord that the resident had said that she had significant mental health issues and that she had worked with her GP and the psychiatric team for over 3 years to “get into a positive mental place”. However, the landlord’s actions had caused her significant distress and made her feel unsafe in her home. The MP also said that the resident felt as though her tenancy was being weaponised against her due to her negative reaction to the operatives when they were at her window.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2023. It apologised for the distress and alarm caused. It said that it had asked its repairs team to check records in future before carrying out repairs. This was to identify the properties that would be affected by the work and give as much notice as practical to residents. It said it had also asked the repairs team to check the records to see if any residents needed extra support or consideration during the work. It said however, that it might not be practical in all situations, for example in an emergency, for this to be completed.
  10. It apologised that it was not the first time that the resident had had this experience and it partially upheld her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.

  1. This Service defines vulnerability as “A dynamic state which arises from a combination of a resident’s personal circumstances, characteristics and their housing complaint. Vulnerability may be exacerbated when a social landlord or the Housing Ombudsman Service does not act with appropriate levels of care when dealing with a resident’s complaint… if effective reasonable adjustments have been put in place, the vulnerability may be reduced.”
  2. As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. Information on vulnerabilities must also be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately.
  3. The landlord’s housing system failed to identify that the resident had vulnerabilities despite it having placed a marker on her address to ensure that she was notified prior to any work being carried out. The resident also said that her housing officer had supported her with various issues over several previous years. This lack of sharing of information and lack of understanding by the repairs team of the effects that a lack of compliance with the resident’s request would have on her was a serious failing. This caused her a great deal of distress and led to her feeling unsafe in her home.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of the complaint said “Landlords must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords must satisfy themselves that their policy sets out how they will respond to reasonable adjustments requests in line with the Equality Act and that complaints handlers have had appropriate training to deal with such requests.”
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time did not set out how it would respond to reasonable adjustment requests. As part of the investigation, we asked the landlord for copies of it’s reasonable adjustment and vulnerable resident policies. It responded that “the guidance for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children is to make a referral to Adult safeguard or the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub”.
  6. This indicates that the landlord does not have specific policies in place that assist its staff in responding to requests for reasonable adjustments. This lack of guidance and failure to act in accordance with the Code has contributed to a lack of insight by staff and a lack of importance being placed on the resident’s request. This has caused her severe distress on more than one occasion.
  7. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights says that “Although we do not expect landlords to tolerate aggressive behaviour from residents, landlords should understand the potential link between a resident’s behaviour and an underlying condition, such as a decline in their mental health or the side effects of medication. They should consider how to support the resident and what reasonable adjustments might be needed. These adjustments should be made to assist the resident, not the landlord, and should not be conflated with an unreasonable behaviour or contact restriction process”.
  8. The landlord should have taken time to meet with the resident following the complaint to understand her vulnerabilities and to make sure that it updated its systems to ensure that the resident was not distressed in this way in future. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it did so. Instead, it added to her distress by including in the complaints response that her tenancy would be at risk if she shouted at an operative again which caused her further distress.
  9. Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlord’s communication about repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Code also said that “A complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
  2. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident, or any of the other residents in the block prior to issuing the stage 1 complaint response. Had it done so it could have checked whether the operatives had knocked on all the doors to tell residents that they were about to pass their windows on ladders. The resident supplied this Service with a video of the layout of the block which has 4 front doors that are clearly visible and accessible. It is therefore hard to understand how the operatives would have missed knocking on any of the doors. Had the landlord investigated further it would have understood why the resident had doubts that the workmen had spoken to anyone in the block. This lack of a thorough investigation undermined the resident’s faith in the complaints process and caused her further distress. It also cost her further time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint.
  3. The Code also said “Effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.”
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states “We will consider offering compensation when an apology is not sufficient and where the service loss or failure has had a more serious impact on the customer.”
  5. The landlord apologised but did not effectively put things right. It offered no compensation and did not offer an assurance that the issue would not reoccur if a repair was logged against another property. Because of the severe effect that the incident had on the resident the landlord should have made sure that the same thing did not happen again. It would be alarming for anyone to suddenly see a person at their window, but for this resident it triggered a severe response.
  6. Therefore, the landlord should have reassured the resident that it had made sure that her vulnerabilities were recorded and that flags were put on all 4 properties in the block so that if any work requested affected her, she would be given some notice. This should have included the need to pre alert her if access was required to common parts including the exterior of the property, even if this was by means of a ladder or lifting platform. The landlord’s failure to do this meant that the resident lived in fear that the same thing would happen again which affected her enjoyment of her home and caused her further distress.
  7. Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
  2. Pay the resident directly a total of £900 in compensation. Compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £200 for time and trouble.
    3. £200 for poor complaint handling.
  3. Apologise. A senior member of staff to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings in this case.
  4. Contact the resident and review her vulnerabilities. It should then ensure that all its systems are updated to reflect them.
  5. Place a marker on all 4 properties in the block, plus the block itself, to ensure that if any repairs are reported that will affect the resident, she will be given a warning. This should include notification if planned works such as window cleaning are taking place. The markers should be visible and fully accessible across its service operations including to those involved in the delivery of repairs or planned works. If external works on the block are needed in an emergency that are likely to cause distress to the resident the landlord should telephone the resident to advise her prior to workers arriving onsite.
  6. Provide a briefing note to all complaint handlers to remind them of the importance of making thorough complaint investigations. This is to include contacting alternative sources to confirm the testimony of individuals, which did not happen in this case. A copy of this briefing note to be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
  7. Review its overall approach on how it responds to the needs of its vulnerable residents and its duties under the Equality Act. This should specifically include:
    1. How it communicates residents’ reasonable adjustments across all its services, to ensure that similar situations do not occur.
    2. Ensuring that it has appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure that reasonable adjustment requests are handled correctly.

 A written statement on how this will be achieved must be provided within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

  1. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its performance against the spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights. This should specifically include the recommendations for landlord’s leadership on “what does the resident need”.