Sage Rented Limited (202402678)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat with her daughter. She has a disability that affects her mobility, and she uses a mobility car. She raised concerns about the allocation of disabled parking bays and mice in her flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for disabled parking bay allocation.
   2. The resident’s reports of mice and property defects.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for disabled parking bay allocation.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice and property defects.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found:

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for disabled parking bay allocation

1. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to act in line with its policy when considering the resident’s request for disabled parking allocation. It has not provided evidence it considered its obligations and the resident’s vulnerabilities in line with the Equality Act 2010.
2. The landlord failed to carry out a proper investigation during its complaint’s procedure. It made an offer of compensation towards its communication failings, but this was not sufficient. It did not fully address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice and property defects

3. The landlord repeatedly failed to resolve cracks allowing mice into the property.
4. It has not resolved the matter and offered no acknowledgement or offer of redress for this failing.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord recognised its service failure in communication within the complaint’s procedure. It offered compensation that was proportionate to the time and trouble these failings had on the resident.

Putting things right

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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 have not investigated

7. The resident raised some concerns during the complaints process that have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. We will not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We will be investigating the issues raised in the resident’s complaint from April 2024 and addressed at both stages by the landlord. There was a separate complaint raised about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about hot water supply which we have not assessed as part of this investigation.
8. Throughout her communication, the resident has referred to how these issues impacted her health and well-being. We do not doubt this. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for the courts to deal with or as a personal injury claim. We have considered the distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident and whether the landlord adequately considered the household’s vulnerabilities.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord’s parking and abandoned vehicles policy says that where parking is available, it will allocate parking as per the build plans and make sure residents use all parking areas considerately and respectfully. It says it will review requests for disabled parking facilities on a case by case basis.
10. Under the Equality Act 2010, landlords must take positive steps to ensure disabled residents are able to access their services as easily as non-disabled residents. They should make adjustments when disabled residents are at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is anticipatory, meaning landlords cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access their services.
11. At the point of tenancy sign-up, the landlord advised the resident that parking was unallocated and that only spaces for blue badge holders were available. The resident had disclosed her mobility issues prior to moving in, and an Occupational Therapist assessed the property for suitability.
12. In January 2023, the managing agent contacted the landlord to ask when it would mark the bays as it had offered the resident a marked or allocated bay on sign up and she had been chasing for this since moving in. The landlord acknowledged that the building specification included marked disabled bays and raised this as a defect with the builders.
13. Despite this recognition, the landlord did not take timely steps to investigate or resolve the issue during the complaints process and said it had no evidence to support the resident’s concerns. It was not until November 2024 that the landlord recognised that it had marked the bays incorrectly and subsequently provided an allocated bay for the resident. This was inconsistent with its earlier position in its stage1 response that it had “exhausted all avenues” and demonstrates a failure to conduct a thorough investigation at the time of the complaint.
14. The landlord’s communication throughout the complaints process was inadequate and contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates for 2 years before the matter was resolved.
15. In its stage 1 response in May 2024, the landlord incorrectly stated that there were no disabled bays to allocate and advised the resident to contact the local authority if the property was not suitable for her. This response was not in line with its parking policy as it had already stated disabled bays were allocated in the build plans in January 2023. It has not provided evidence it adequately reviewed her request in line with its policy. It also failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the issue. Had it done so, it would have recognised this failure as it later did in November 2024. This was unreasonable and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident had been chasing an answer, and it had failed to communicate properly with her. It offered £50 compensation for this. This compensation did not cover the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s overall failings caused the resident and or address the length of time she had been waiting for a resolution.
17. In its stage 2 response in June 2024, the landlord said it could not verify what the managing agent had told the resident. The landlord has been able to provide records related to the parking bay specification in its submissions to us and it is unclear why it could not access this at the time. It re-confirmed she had signed to agree the parking was unallocated when she took the tenancy. These responses were inappropriate and failed to address the core issue.
18. The resident moved into the property on the understanding that disabled bays would be available, which would assist her in managing her disability. The landlord’s failure to act in accordance with its parking policy persisted for 2 years. It has also shown no evidence that it considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. These failings caused significant distress and inconvenience. The resident also expended considerable time and trouble pursuing a resolution.
19. Overall, the landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated the matter appropriately or sought to put things right at the time of the complaint. It did not act within its own policies, and its communication fell below reasonable standards. On this basis, we conclude that there has been maladministration.
20. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £350 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to act in line with its parking policy. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident but did not have a permanent impact.

21. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for acting on reported repairs and managing pests if they are the result of a property condition. The only exception to this is if the resident has done, or not done, something which caused the infestation. The landlord did not have a pest policy at the time of the complaint.
22. In February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord following a phone call. She referenced that the landlord had told her that pest control was not a repair issue. She disagreed as the mice were getting in through holes in the building. She asked that the landlord fill in cracks and holes to prevent the mice getting into her flat. She confirmed the landlord had sent a contractor previously who had not found holes. She said she had employed a private pest control firm who had found holes, and she had sent the report and pictures on to the landlord. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord responded to her email at the time which was not appropriate.
23. In May 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said she had not reported cracks or pests and did not uphold this part of the complaint. It said that now it was aware, it had raised an inspection. This was an inappropriate response as it had the opportunity to act on her concerns from February 2024. This showed poor record keeping and investigation from the landlord.
24. The landlord called the resident on 2 May 2024. It confirmed its contractor would fill in holes her private pest control contractor had found. It also said it would raise a repair for a pest control specialist to attend and check for an infestation and take proactive measures against future infestations. It clarified it had found evidence she raised a job regarding holes in January 2024. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to try to put things right and provide a lasting resolution. It was also positive and transparent that it admitted its initial oversight.
25. The resident continued to chase the repairs offered in the stage 1 response and escalated her complaint in May 2024. On 11 June 2024, she confirmed the pest control specialist had not been in contact and this was causing her additional stress and affecting her disability.
26. On 27 June 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It advised that, though it had found evidence of a repair request regarding cracks in January 2024, there was no note of pests on this. It concluded that, based on the evidence available to it, the resident had not reported pests to it at this time. It said the repairs team had offered her £250 as a goodwill gesture to cover the cost of the private pest control firm the resident had used. However, it did not address the lack of contact from its instructed pest control specialist or make steps to put this right. This response therefore failed to address all the resident’s concerns or provide a resolution.
27. Following the final complaint response, the landlord refunded the resident a further £250 as she had to employ a private pest control firm again in July 2024. In August 2024, it confirmed it was treating the communal block and neighbouring building for pests and pest proofing works. We have not seen evidence the landlord has completed this work. The resident has confirmed the internal work to prevent the mice has not been actioned.
28. Overall, although the landlord reimbursed the resident for private pest treatments, it failed to consider the additional distress and inconvenience it caused her in arranging this and having to cover the cost as a single parent on a limited income. It failed to follow up with its own pest control specialist and ensure the completion of related repairs. This prolonged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We therefore find there has been maladministration.
29. In addition to a written apology, the landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to act according to the terms of the tenancy agreement. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but do not have a permanent impact. The landlord must inspect the property and confirm the works required for a lasting resolution. It must provide a schedule of works with estimated completion dates and send a copy to the resident.

30. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
31. The landlord sent its acknowledgement and stage 1 response in line with the timescales from its policy and the Complaint Handling Code, in relation to the complaint raised by us on the resident’s behalf. However, the resident had complained to the landlord previously and her email in February 2024 expressed clear dissatisfaction. The landlord did not acknowledge this as a complaint. This led her to have to contact us to progress the complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to recognise the original complaint.
32. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 16 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 May 2024, 1 day outside the required timescale. Its stage 2 response on 27 June 2024 was out of time by a few days, but the landlord sent a letter extending the deadline. This was within the guidance of the Complaint Handling Code.
33. The resident raised some additional concerns in her escalation and follow up conversations with the complaints team. The landlord addressed these in its complaint responses which was reasonable. It offered compensation of £125 for its communication failings around the complaint handling. It confirmed it had not followed through on phone calls where it had promised these. The resident had explained that her disability made it hard to correspond via email alone and relied on the arranged phone calls to discuss her complaint. The landlord recognised the impact its failure to make these calls had on the resident and this was a reasonable offer to address this failing.
34. Overall, the landlord failed to communicate effectively, did not recognise the resident’s initial complaint attempt and missed the escalation acknowledgment deadline. It acknowledged these failings and offered compensation of £125, considering the particular impact on the resident. This is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a failing that has an adverse impact on a resident so is proportionate to put right the time and trouble that the delays caused the resident. We therefore find there has been reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. Effective knowledge and information management is essential for delivering a reliable and inclusive service. Poor record keeping, such as failing to log or retain details of phone calls and key interactions, creates gaps that undermine service quality and accountability. These shortcomings have an even greater impact on residents who require reasonable adjustments as missing information can lead to delays, confusion, and additional barriers to accessing support. The landlord should implement robust processes to maintain accurate records and ensure that it does not disadvantage residents with disabilities, thereby supporting fairness and accessibility across all services.

Communication

36. This case demonstrates the value of clear and consistent communication. Though the landlord missed opportunities to share key information and make agreed follow-up calls, it acknowledged these shortcomings and the impact they had on the resident. Recognising these issues is an important step toward improvement. The landlord can build on this by ensuring written responses are clear and accessible, and by putting robust processes in place to meet agreed communication commitments, such as scheduled calls, to strengthen trust and resident confidence.