Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202202007)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202007

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

20 December 2023

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 handling of the resident’s requests:
1. For it to replace the windows in her property.
2. To use female operatives when doing works at her property.
3. For help in maintaining the communal garden.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a one bedroom flat in a block, and her tenancy started in March 2015. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however she described herself as having a vulnerability, due to a disability and poor mobility.

Summary of events

The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 9 October 2020, in relation to a complaint the resident had raised about repairs. Its report from the inspection stated that the windows in both the lounge and hallway needed repairing.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 15 October 2020, and said:
1. The windows in her property were not due for replacement until “2023/24”
2. It planned to “overhaul” the kitchen window in the interim
3. It would repair the frames of the lounge and bedroom windows, but if it were unable to repair them, they would be “renewed”
By January 2021, the resident was temporarily decanted, so the landlord could complete various repairs at her property. On 22 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said it was “going back” on its word that it would replace the windows, and they were “rotten” and “mouldy”. The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It had told her at its site visit that it was “unlikely the windows would be replaced” when doing the works, as it needed planning permission
2. All of the windows in the block were to be replaced, as part of a planned programme of works
3. It had not gone back on its word and was very clear about what works it said it would carry out
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 January 2021 stating that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and said:
1. She did not think the issues with the windows came under planned maintenance
2. After its visit in October 2020, 2 of her windows were “scheduled for a refit/refurb”. But, she had cancelled the appointments, with her housing officer’s agreement, to reduce disruption. This was so the work to the windows could take place with the other works in January 2021.
3. She was now being told that the windows were “just going to be painted”, which is not what she told before.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it would issue its stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 10 February 2021 and said:
1. As discussed with the resident on the phone, it would repair and repaint the windows, as part of the works currently being done
2. It was aware the current windows were single glazed and it was planning to upgrade the windows to double glazing between April 2022 and March 2023
3. It needed to apply for planning permission and would do so “within the next few months”, and would update her about the works closer to the time.
In early June 2021, the landlord offered the resident a window “overhaul”, the exact date of the email is not clear, but the resident responded on 17 June 2021 and said:
1. She wanted information on what an overhaul would entail
2. The windows needed soundproofing
3. She was “disappointed at the retraction” of its previous offer to replace the windows
4. Come winter it was likely the windows would become covered in black mould again, as they were “very old and rotten”
The landlord responded on 2 July 2021 and said that the overhaul would be to check the handles were working and “getting the windows to close as best we can”. The resident responded on 6 July 2021 and said that getting the windows to close and fixing the handles was not what was previously agreed. Due to their condition, she said they needed replacing. The landlord responded on 9 July 2021 and said it could do an “overhaul” in the interim, and it planned to replace them in 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 July 2021 to explained that she was uncomfortable with male operatives attending her property as she has experienced a “sexual assault from previous contractors”, which she was currently going through a “court case”. The landlord sent an internal email on 27 July 2021 stating that it needed to discuss the matter with the resident. It planned to either arrange for a family member to be present at visits, or for a female member of the landlord’s staff.
According to the landlord’s repair log, on 21 July 2021, it raised an “overhaul” of the lounge and bedroom windows due to them being “rotten”. From the records available, it is unclear if/when the overhaul took place.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2021 make another complaint and said:
1. It had ignored her request to send female operatives for repairs visits
2. Its communication about the window replacement was unclear as she was “promised” new windows, which was retracted and then promised an “overhaul” which never happened
3. The communal garden was a “health and safety hazard” and she had been “promised by many people” that it would be sorted, but had not been. The resident said she had “limited mobility” and needed help in maintaining the garden, and use of it was beneficial to her wellbeing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 August 2021 and said it would send its response within 10 working days.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord raised an “overhaul” of the lounge and bedroom windows due to them being “rotten” and said they did not “fully close”. It is unclear whether the overhaul took place at this time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2021, and said there were “lessons to learn” from its communications about repairs and it noted the resident’s concerns about how the complaints were managed. It said it was unable to re investigate matters already addressed, but would be investigating her complaint at stage 2.
The resident raised a further stage 1 complaint, about the window replacement, on 11 November 2021 and said:
1. The landlord had measured up for new windows 3 times and each time it had “reneged” on its promise to replace them
2. The windows were “rotten” and needed replacing.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response (to the complaint raised on 25 August 2021) on 24 November 2021, and said:
1. It apologised for the failures the resident had experienced, and its communications had “fallen short” of what it expected
2. There would be times when a female operative would not be available to attend her property, but it would do this “whenever possible”. If a female operative were unable to attend, it would agree arrangements with the resident beforehand
3. The windows were due to be replaced in 2022, and it asked the resident to raise any interim repairs needed
4. The landlord offered the resident £250 for failing to meet its own targets and not resolving the resident’s concerns in a “timely manner”
5. The communal garden was the responsibility of residents to maintain, but on “this occasion” it had asked the relevant team to arrange a “clean and tidy up” of the garden
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response (to the complaint raised on 11 November 2021) on 26 November 2021 and said:
1. It had attended to try and repair the windows 3 times, but had “no access” and on 11 November 2021, the resident had “refused entry” and said she did not want the windows repaired, but replaced
2. It could raise the repair again, if the resident wanted it to go ahead.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2021 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and said the response was “not good enough” and asked if the landlord had “even read” the complaint.
On 5 December 2021 the resident reported that a piece of the kitchen window had fallen out. The landlord logged the repair as an emergency and raised a ‘make safe’ appointment. The same repair was raised again on 10 December 2021, and the notes described the kitchen window as “so badly rotten” a pane had fallen out. The landlord instructed its repairs operative to do “the best repair” they could, and it had started the planning application process to get the windows replaced the following year. It is evident, from an email the resident sent the landlord, that the ‘make safe’ repair was completed on 11 December 2021. The landlord replied on the same day, and said its contractor had measured up the kitchen window to replace it.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 December 2021 and asked it for its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord responded on 22 December 2021 with a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement and said it would issue its response within 15 working days. The landlord sent another email, on 23 December 2021, and said that “on further review” it was of the view that the windows issue was covered by its stage 2 complaint response of 24 November 202. It said it would therefore not issue another complaint response on the matter, and advised the resident on how to escalate her complaint to this Service.

Events after the complaints procedure

The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2022 and said she was unhappy that male contractors were still arriving to do work, without her prior agreement. It is unclear whether the landlord responded to this email.
The landlord’s repair log shows that on 27 April 2022 the resident’s reported the windows were “rotten and panes of glass” were starting to “come loose”. The notes show it removed 1 pane of glass and boarded the window up. It is unclear which window was boarded up.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 June 2022 and asked for a progress update on her replacement windows. She said she still had a boarded up window, and said the “plane and traffic noise” was “unbearable”. The landlord responded on 16 June 2022 and said it had chased the relevant team and would continue to do so. The resident emailed again on 30 June 2022 and asked for an update, it is unclear whether the landlord responded to this email.
The landlord replaced the kitchen window on 3 August 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 September 2022 and asked for an update as her window had been boarded up “since April 2022” and now further panes were falling out. The resident said the wait was “unacceptable”. The resident sent a further email on 6 October 2022 asking the landlord to respond. The landlord responded on 10 October 2022 and said:
1. As the windows in the whole building needed replacing, it needed to apply for planning permission.
2. Its contractor would be in touch “shortly to start the process” of doing drawings for the planning application
3. If there was an “urgent repair” needed to the windows its repairs team could help.
The landlord submitted a planning application to replace the resident’s windows on 24 November 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 23 January 2023 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint, and said:
1. The landlord was still not offering her female operatives when it needed to do works,
2. The windows had still not been replaced and had just been painted over, and anti mould paint had been applied to the board on the window.
The landlord completed works to replace the windows in October 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 28 November 2023 to confirm that the windows had been replaced.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes windows and window frames. The resident’s tenancy agreement also states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the windows.
The landlord’s maintenance policy has 2 categories of repair. Priority 1 (emergency) which it says it will attend to “make safe” within 4 hours, and the issue should be “rectified” within 24 hours. It categorises broken windows as a priority 1 repair. Priority 2 repairs(non-emergency) are to be completed within 15 working days, which includes repairs to windows.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for maintaining any garden that she has sole or shared use of.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Stage 0 which it called “front line resolution”. Stage 1, which its policy said it would respond to within 10 working days, and stage 2 which it aimed to respond to within 15 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer “discretionary compensation” when it identifies a failure in service. For “low” impacted cases it can offer up to £20. For “medium” impact it can offer up to £100, and for “high” impact it can offer up to £500.

Replacement windows

It is apparent that the matter was complex and some of the delay in replacing the resident’s windows was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, as it needed planning permission. The delay in getting planning permission added to the length of time the matter was outstanding. The process of considering a planning application and providing permission rests with the local authority. Complaints about a local authority’s planning decisions are considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and not the Housing Ombudsman. As such, this investigation has not considered whether the time taken by the local authority was reasonable, but has focused on the actions of the landlord in relation to replacing the resident’s windows.
During her temporary decant, in January 2021, the resident expressed a concern that the landlord was not going to replace the windows, as she thought it had agreed. The landlord promptly responded to manage the resident’s expectations that it could not yet replace the windows, which was appropriate. However, its email, of 22 January 2021, failed to outline what repairs it was going to do to the windows, or when it planned to replace them, which would have been reasonable. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter, as the resident was left not knowing what interim repairs the landlord was prepared to do. This caused an inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of February 2021 offered an explanation about when it planned to replace the windows, and what repairs it would do in the interim. This was reasonable in the circumstances and went some way to putting right the shortcomings in its earlier response. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes, the landlord failed to show any assessment, or learning, about its handling of the matter up to that point. It was evident that its communication about the matter had caused confusion for the resident. That it did not reflect on what had caused the confusion, and how it could prevent such issues arising again, was unreasonable.
The landlord’s repair log indicates that it raised an “overhaul” of the resident’s windows in July 2021. It is unclear from the repair log when, or if, the repair was completed. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, as outcomes of repairs are not recorded. Given the resident raised a further complaint about the windows in August 2021, and the overhaul was raised again in September 2021, it is reasonable to conclude the overhaul did not take place in July 2021.
The landlord’s comments, in its email of July 2021, that the interim repair would focus on “getting the windows to close as best we can”, was inappropriate. For the landlord to indicate that a window not fully closing was an acceptable standard of repair was unreasonable. Given the landlord was not planning to replace the windows until the next financial year, that it was prepared to leave the windows in such a condition, including the upcoming winter months, was unreasonable. This is particularly concerning considering its repair log indicates that its own description of the window was that they were “rotten”.
As outlined above, as part of the complaint raised in August 2021, the landlord logged a repair to overhaul the windows again. From the evidence available it is not possible to determine the outcome of that repair, again, due to the landlord’s poor record keeping. It is evident that the landlord’s poor record keeping and the lack of recorded outcomes, contributed to its overall poor handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 26 November 2021, stated that it had tried to complete interim repairs 4 times. It said it had been unable to gain access 3 times, and the resident had refused access in November 2021. From the evidence available it is not possible to determine when the “no access” visits occurred, which is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping. But, the resident did not dispute she refused access in November 2021, as she later said she wanted the windows replaced, not repaired.
It is unclear how the landlord obtained the information relied on its stage 1 complaint response, as the no access visits are not detailed in its repair log. However, it is evident that the resident’s unwillingness to let it complete interim repairs meant that its inability to complete interim repairs in November 2021, was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 November 2021 was dismissive in relation to the window issue. The matter had been ongoing for some time, without the landlord being proactive in providing updates about its progress. Considering this, the lack of detail in its complaint response was inappropriate, and a further missed opportunity to show learning. The landlord’s comment suggesting the resident should log interim repairs with its repairs team was also inappropriate. The resident had, repeatedly, raised concerns about the condition of her windows, that it simply asked her to report a repair was dismissive and unsupportive.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 26 November 2021, was silent on the replacement windows and lacked detail about the proposed repair. This was inappropriate, and was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to assess its handling of the matter up to that point. The resident suffered further distress of living with windows the landlord accepted needed replacing, without receiving further updates on when it planned to replace them. This is particularly concerning considering it had told the resident, in February 2021, that it would be submitting its planning application in the next “few months”. That it was not proactive in giving an update on its latest position was unreasonable, and caused an inconvenience.
On 5 December 2021, the resident reported that a pane of glass had fallen out of the kitchen window. The landlord, appropriately, logged this as an emergency repair, in line with its maintenance policy. Again, its records are unclear, but it does not appear a ‘make safe’ visit took place on 5 December 2021, as the same repair was logged again on 10 December 2021. This was a failure to abide by its maintenance policy, and a 5 day wait for the ‘make safe’ repair was unreasonable. This is particularly concerning given the time of year. The resident was left waiting 5 days, in winter, for it to board up the kitchen window, such a delay caused a significant detriment. The window was not replaced until August 2022, 8 months after the landlord had attended to board it up. The distress that living with a boarded up window caused is evident, and an 8 month wait for the replacement was an unreasonable delay.
By December 2021, it is evident that, the kitchen window at least, was in such a condition that the glass had started to fall out. In response, the landlord decided to replace the kitchen window, outside of its planned replacement of all of the windows. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Given its own description of the other windows in the property, that it did not act with more urgency to progress with the replacement of all of the windows was unreasonable.
The landlord replaced the kitchen window with a like for like window, and therefore did not need planning. As outlined above, to do so was reasonable in the circumstances. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to explain to the resident why it could replace the kitchen window and not the others. This was a further failing in its communication about the matter. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations at the time.
It is noted that it later explained its reasons to the resident, when she asked why it could replace the kitchen window without planning, and not the other. That it was not forthcoming with its explanation amounts to a failing. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to ask the landlord for explanations about matter which it could reasonably be expected to provide without the resident requesting them.
The landlord did not submit its planning application until November 2022. This was 21 months later, than when it had told her it would submit a planning application in the next “few months”, in February 2021. It is noted that replacing the resident’s windows was part of a larger project that was evidently complex and took time to progress. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated about the delays with the resident. The landlord’s emails and complaint responses throughout were dismissive and gave no detail about its progress. It did not set out what it was doing to try and speed up the process, or advise when there had been delays, this was unreasonable. A more proactive approach would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and given her reassurance that the landlord was being proactive and trying to get the matter resolved.
The evidence available shows that the resident experienced significant time and trouble throughout 2022 in asking the landlord for updates about its progress. The landlord’s responses failed to consider the impact the situation was having on the resident. Its comment, in October 2022, that its repairs team could assist with interim repairs was inappropriate. Given the resident had previously reported panes of glass falling out, that did not regularly inspect the windows to reduce the risk of harm was unreasonable. A more proactive approach to monitor the condition of the windows to ensure they did not pose a safety risk would have been appropriate, considering the delays. The resident experienced further distress of living in a property with a boarded up window, without any indication of when the landlord would progress with the replacement.
The landlord was put on notice in October 2020 about issues with the resident’s windows. By January 2021, the landlord had accepted the windows needed replacing, but it did not replace them for another 3 years, which amounts to an unreasonable delay. It is noted that the difficulty the landlord had in completing interim repairs was somewhat outside of its control, but its overall handling of the matter caused the resident significant detriment. For certain periods of time, the resident was left with boarded up windows awaiting replacements, and the distress this caused is evident. The length of time the landlord took to apply for planning permission was unreasonable and contributed to the overall delay. Its lack of proactive updates to the resident caused further detriment, time and trouble.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The resident had explained that she considered herself to have a disability, and had limited mobility. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord considered the resident’s disability, and the likely impact on living with her windows in such a condition for an extended period. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, as the landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her disability, and the potential impact of the window issue on her described condition.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 24 November 2021, offered the resident £250 in compensation for its handling of various issue, and the fact it failed to adhere to timescales, and targets. It is unclear how much of the £250 it offered was for its failings in its handling of the replacement windows. However, the lack of learning it showed, the lack of detail in its response, and its own compensation policy have led this Service to conclude that, even if the full £250 was offered for its handling of the windows, it did not fully put things right for the resident. The matter was still outstanding at the time of its final complaint response. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to agree to revisit its offer of compensation, when it considered the matter resolved. This Service has seen no evidence that it did so, which was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s loss of amenity and the level of rent paid throughout the matter being outstanding. According to the tenancy agreement provided to this investigation, the resident was paying £ 631.19 in rent, per month at the time of raising concerns about the windows. The resident had some benefit of living in her property during that time, and therefore was liable to pay rent. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 5% of the rent for each room that required a replacement window. This has been calculated from when the evidence indicates the windows were in such a condition they would not close (July 2021) to when they were replaced. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £2,072.11 in compensation for loss of amenity, this is broken down below:
1. The loss of amenity caused by its handling of the kitchen window replacement: 5% of the rent due from July 2021 to August 2022, which amounts to: £367.91
2. The loss of amenity caused by its handling of the lounge window replacement, at 5% of the rent due, from July 2021 to October 2023, which amounts to: £852.10
3. Loss of amenity caused by its handling of the bedroom window replacement, at 5% of the rent due, from July 2021 to October 2023, which amounts to: £852.10.
The resident experienced a significant amount of distress of living in a property with windows that the landlord itself described as “rotten”, and would not close. This was the case for over 2 years for the lounge and bedroom and for a year in the kitchen. She was cost time and trouble in needing to ask the landlord for updates that were not forthcoming, and when they did, lacked detail. Some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control, but the delay in submitting its planning application, given the conditions of the resident’s windows, was unreasonable. It failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in its maintenance policy for emergency repairs. The landlord did not have due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering the impact, the situation had on her. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace her windows.

Request for female operatives

As part of her complaint, the resident explained that she had been a victim of sexual assault. The Ombudsman was very sorry to hear this. A sexual assault is an extremely serious criminal matter, and the police would be best placed to investigate the matter and take further action, as necessary. It is noted that the resident did report her concerns to the police and, at the time of her complaint, was awaiting information about court proceedings. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s allegation of sexual assault, but it is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether or not the incident occurred. The police and courts are best placed to deal with allegations of a criminal nature. However, this Service has considered the resident’s request for only female operatives to attend her property, due to her experiences. This Service has considered whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, in light of her request.
The evidence indicates that the resident first made her request for female only operatives in July 2021. At the time, the landlord took the resident’s request seriously and internal email shows that it was looking at alternative arrangement to honour the resident’s request. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The outcome of its internal discussion in July 2021 is unclear, and there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord went back to the resident with any proposed arrangements. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. After initially seeking to find a work around, the landlord did not respond to her request in any formal sense, which caused an inconvenience.
As part of her complaint in August 2021, the resident raised a concern that her request for female only operatives was ignored by the landlord. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it could not guarantee there would always be a female operative available to attend her property. But, it said it would do this “whenever possible”. It also said it would agree arrangements with the resident beforehand, if it was unable to abide by her request. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord evidently sought to agree to the resident’s request, but also manage her expectations and explain it would not always be able to do so. By stating it would agree arrangements before visits, it sought to minimise any negative impact on the resident of it not being able to abide by her request. This was reasonable in the circumstance.
It is evident that after making the arrangement in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord visited the property on numerous occasions. This Service has only seen evidence that it advised the resident that a female contractor would be in attendance, once. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to advise the resident, ahead of time, when only male operatives would be able to attend. This was not in line with the arrangement set out in its stage 2 complaint response, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord did not do something it said it would, as part of the resident’s request, which caused an inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord, reasonably, outlined its position that it would not always be able to only send female operatives. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations about this in its complaint response, and gave a work around. That it did not abide by what it said it would do caused distress to the resident. The evidence indicates that male only teams of operatives attended her property, without any prior warning from the landlord. The landlord’s communication about the matter was poor and it did not abide by an agreement it made with the resident. This is particularly concerning considering the circumstances of the resident, as the reasons she had made the request. As such, a series of appropriate orders are made below.

Request for help maintaining the communal garden

The resident raised a complaint about the garden in August 2021, which the landlord responded to in its stage 2 complaint response of November 2021. In May 2022, the resident asked that the landlord give her permission to have an area of the garden fenced off, for her sole use. The landlord refused this request. The resident told this Service, in January 2023 that she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to refuse her permission. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this particular concern, as part a formal complaint, it is not within the scope of this investigation to consider. However, this Service has considered the resident’s original complaint about the garden and whether the landlord’s actions, following that complaint, were reasonable in the circumstances.
As part of her complaint in August 2021, the resident explained that due to her limited mobility, she had difficulty in maintaining the garden and it had become a health and safety hazard. As part of its complaint response the landlord said that “on this occasion” it would arrange for the garden to be cleared and tidied. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord completed this work, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. It is noted that the landlord agreed to do something it was not responsible for. However, that it did not do something it said it would caused a disappointment for the resident, and was a failing in its handling of the matter.
While it is evident from the resident’s tenancy agreement, that she had a shared responsibility to maintain the garden, the landlord’s response was inappropriate. The resident explained that her vulnerability made it difficult for her to maintain the garden. The landlord’s proposed actions did not consider the individual circumstances of the resident, and was unsupportive. That it did not consider how it could support the resident, after its initial clearance of the garden, is evidence it did not consider her described vulnerability and what support it could provide.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. The resident had explained that she considered herself to have a disability, and her limited mobility made it difficult to maintain the garden. That it did not consider what it could do to offer the resident more support to maintain the garden was a failing. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, her disability, and give advice on where she may be able to get help with this matter.
It is of particular concern that the landlord told this service on 27 January 2023, that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The evidence available for this investigation shows the resident considered herself to have a disability and was vulnerable, due to having limited mobility. The resident outlined this in her complaint of August 2021. That the landlord failed to appropriately record this, was failing in its record keeping, and impacted the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden. As such, a series of appropriate orders have been made below.

Complaint handling

It is evident that that resident raised multiple complaints about various issues at the time the substantive issues were ongoing in her case. Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident likely contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. However, the evidence also indicates that the landlord’s communication around the various complaints was poor and it often did not follow its complaint procedure, or respond within the timeframes set out in its policy.
The resident raised a further complaint, about the landlord’s handling of various issues, in August 2021. The evidence shows that the resident did not receive a stage 1 complaint response to the complaint. After exchanging emails with the resident, about the substantive issues in August and September 2021, the landlord then emailed on 19 October 2021, and said it would respond at stage 2. This created a confusing and protracted complaints procedure for the resident.
Having acknowledged the complaint at stage 1, saying it would respond within 10 working days, without further explanation said it decided to take the complaint to stage 2. This was a failure to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which states: “landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1, and at the request of the resident”. The landlord’s decision not to respond at stage 1, without explanation, was unfair, in what had already been a delayed complaints process.
When the landlord, inappropriately, wrote to the resident on 19 October 2021 to explain it was considering her complaint at stage 2, it failed to say when it would issue its response by. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, as the resident experienced an inconvenience of not knowing when the landlord would response to a complaint that she had raised 2 months before.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2021, 64 working days after the resident first made her complaint. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its own procedure and the Code. The result was an unfair and protracted complaints process. The delay contributed to the landlord’s overall poor handling of the substantive issues in her case, as there was an unreasonable delay in getting answers to requests she had made of the landlord.
The impact of the delay in getting a complaint response is evidenced by the fact the resident felt the need to raise a further complaint about its handling of the window replacement on 11 November 2021. The resident was evidently frustrated that she had not had a response to something she was very concerned about. She was cost time and trouble in feeling the need to raise this as a further complaint. Had the landlord responded to her complaint of August 2021 within a reasonable timeframe, the resident would have received a response much earlier than when she raised the later complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 November 2021, failed to acknowledge or apologise for the fact the process was delayed. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge or offer any redress for the delay show it failed to apply its compensation policy, and a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s overall approach to the complaints was confusing for the resident. Despite already having an open complaint about its handling of the window issue, it decided to issue a stage 1 response to the complaint raised on 11 November 2021. This, in itself, was not unreasonable. However, that it sent 2 separate complaint responses with different explanations about its position, was inappropriate. That it did so, is evidence that the landlord’s internal communication about the resident’s complaints, and the substantive issues was poor. This approach created a confusing complaints process for the resident, which caused an inconvenience.
Having issued a stage 1 response, to the complaint raised on 11 November 2021, the landlord then refused to take the complaint to stage 2, which was unreasonable. Having opened a fresh complaint, and sent a response 2 days after its other stage 2 response, to then refuse to escalate the later complaint was unfair. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure”. The resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response, and its lack of consideration of her concerns.
That the landlord refused to escalate the complaint in this instance was unreasonable. It is noted that it had already issued a stage 2 complaint response on the matter. However, as outlined above, on the windows issue the response lacked detail and failed to show an adequate assessment of its handling of the matter. To decide not to provide a detailed response to the matter of the windows was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s handling of resident’s complaints was poor. As outlined earlier in this report, the complaint responses lacked any meaningful assessment of the substantive issues in the resident’s complaint. The landlord created a confusing, protracted and unfair complaints process. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timeframes set out in its procedure and the Code. The delays contributed to its overall poor handling of the substantive issues of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to replace the windows in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for to use female operatives when doing works at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for help in maintaining the communal garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident experienced a significant amount of distress due to living in a property with windows that the landlord itself described as “rotten”, and would not close. This was the case for over 2 years for the lounge and bedroom and for a year in the kitchen. Updates about the matter were not forthcoming, and when they did, lacked detail. Some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control, but the delay in submitting its planning application, given the conditions of the resident’s windows, was unreasonable. It failed to adhere to the timeframes set out in its maintenance policy for emergency repairs, and did not have due regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering the impact the situation had on her.
The landlord, reasonably, outlined its position that it would not always be able to only send female operatives to resident’s property. As part of its complaint response, the landlord gave a work around. It did not abide by the work around it had agreed with the resident, and continued to send male only teams of operatives, without prior agreement from the resident, as it had agreed.
The landlord explained to the resident that, in line with her tenancy agreement, that it was her responsibility to contribute to maintaining the communal garden. However, its overall approach was inappropriate as the resident had explained that her disability made this difficult. The landlord agreed to clear the garden as one off, but it did not do so. Its approach was unsupportive and did not advise the resident on how she could seek assistance in getting help with maintaining the garden. Such an approach would have been appropriate, considering the resident’s reported disability.
The landlord’s complaint responses lacked any meaningful assessment of the substantive issues in the resident’s complaints, and failed to show appropriate learning. The landlord failed to respond to complaints within the timeframe set out in its procedure and the Code, which impacted on its handling of the substantive issues. It, unreasonably, refused to escalate 1 of the resident’s complaints to stage 2, and failed to acknowledge or offer redress for the delays in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a senior director to apologise, in person, for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident 3,322.11 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £250 it offered for its handling of repairs at the resident’s property (if it has not already done so)
  2. £2,072.11 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to replace the windows
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for female operatives
  5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for help in maintaining the communal garden
  6. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.
3. Meet with the resident to discuss her difficulties in maintaining the communal garden and give advice on how it, or any appropriate external organisation could assist her. The outcome of the meeting must be shared with this Service.
4. Update its records to accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
1. Knowing when it should escalate complaints, in line with the Code
2. The complaint response timeframes set out in its procedure and the Code
3. Meaningful complaint investigations that seek to learn from outcomes
4. The need to apologise and offer redress when a complaint response is delayed
5. The dates of the training, and content, should be provided to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs to windows that are due to be replaced. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks, and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again.
2. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner, and recording the outcomes of repairs visits
3. Proactive assessments of potentially hazardous situations
4. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and her particular vulnerabilities
5. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management
6. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by its handling of the window issue, in the resident’s block, as well as other blocks where the windows were due to be replaced. This should be from October 2020 to present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review;
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4, 8, and 12 weeks respectively to confirm it has complied with the above orders.