Octavia Housing (202526330)

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our Investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. We cannot make the same findings that a court would, and we do not operate in the same way as a court. We do not make binding decisions on issues such as negligence, liability, or discrimination, and we do not award compensation in the way a court may award damages. We also do not assess claims in the same way an insurance provider would as these are matters for a resident’s household insurance or for the courts. Our role is to consider the landlord’s actions in response to the reports and whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she considers the landlord negligent.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours. It also says it will leave the property secure and that any emergency repair will make the home safe and secure. A damaged or insecure front door increases the risk of unauthorised entry and may cause stress or worry for residents. Landlords are expected to identify and address defects that affect the security of a home and to take reasonable steps to reduce any risk.
9. The landlord visited the resident’s property on the same day of the fire, 1 February 2025 day. It assessed the temporary repair that the fire service had put in place and concluded that no further work was required at that stage. The landlord acted in line with its policy by attending as an emergency and checking whether the property was secure. It was also reasonable for it to rely on the expert opinion of its staff.
10. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended the property on 4 separate occasions to secure the wooden panelling again. On each occasion, it attended the same day and resecured the panel. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy for an emergency repair.
11. However, excluding the burglary, it is unclear from the evidence what caused the need for the landlord to return to the property to resecure the door. Given the amount of times the wooden panel needed to be resecured, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered why this was happening and recorded its findings. It should be able to show why it had assessed the panel as not being a security hazard. Or, that it had considered alternative options for securing the property. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of the landlord’s record keeping about these matters.
12. The landlord installed a more secure door at the property on 16 May 2025. It said there was no evidence that the door could have been installed sooner. However, we have not been provided with any records that show when the landlord decided to install the more secure door or when it placed the order. The landlord said the door was installed to make access to the property easier rather than to address security concerns. It maintained throughout the complaint process that the wooden panel provided a reasonable level of security. While we have seen no reports that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns, the landlord did not record its repair findings outside of its complaint responses.
13. The resident has said she was reporting security concerns to the landlord. There is no direct evidence of this. However, there is evidence that repair reports were made to the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident made these reports, despite not living in the property at the time. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have communicated with her and explained why it believed the door was secure.
14. There is also no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about installing the more secure door. The resident has said that the first she knew about this was when it was fitted. Given the resident’s reports, the landlord should have explained to her what action it was taking.
15. While the door was being acquired for ease of access, it still could have reassured the resident about the extra security it would provide. The landlord did not act reasonably with its communications to the resident here.
16. The resident was also unhappy that operatives accessed the property without notifying her. The landlord said it had investigated the issue internally and believed it had informed the resident that it would need to complete structural inspection visits. However, it said its records were unclear. It apologised and offered compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate response.
17. The landlord had taken possession of the property due to its structural safety. It had moved the resident out to temporary accommodation. It was therefore not required to notify her of every visit to the property she had vacated. There is no evidence that the landlord told the resident that it would notify of each visit. Given the landlord had taken back the fire damaged property, it acted reasonably by investigating her concerns and apologising for its unclear communication.
18. The landlord completed repairs within its stated timescales and investigated the resident’s concerns about access. It should have kept clearer records of the repairs and communicated with the resident about the security of the door. The landlord recognised failings in its record keeping and communication in its complaint responses. It apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was an appropriate response. The level of compensation is consistent with our remedies guidance when there has been a failure in the service provided by a landlord.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
20. The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement late. The landlord acknowledged this and offered the resident £50 compensation. This showed the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
21. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response in 20 working days. This is not within the timescales set out in its policy. The policy and the Code allow for extensions. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. These reasons must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord did explain the delay to the resident, which was reasonable to do in the circumstances.
22. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint in the appropriate timescales. The landlord followed its own policy and the Code here.
23. The landlord acknowledged gaps in its complaint handling and offered the resident £50 compensation. It kept in contact with the resident about the complaint extension. It apologised for the delay and looked to put things right. Considering our remedies guidance, £50 was an appropriate level of compensation in the circumstances. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. We have noted in the above and the landlord has acknowledged that its record keeping was not appropriate. It should ensure that its records capture all aspects of a repair. This was a unique situation, but the landlord should be prepared to record why it considers it justified not to complete further works if a repair is being repeated within a short period. The landlord has also not provided any records or notes of its calls with the resident, despite evidence that such calls took place. The landlord should ensure that it records all interactions accurately.

Communication

25. The evidence shows that the landlord provided some updates and usually replied to the resident’s communications. However, some of the resident’s emails were not answered in a timely way, and some were not answered at all. The landlord also acknowledged in its complaint responses that it could have communicated more proactively during a period when the resident was under significant stress. This was a positive reflection, and the landlord should consider how it can apply this learning in future cases where residents may be experiencing difficult circumstances.