Six Town Housing Limited (202116692)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116692

Six Town Housing Limited

16 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to various repair issues;
2. Handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and discrimination concerns;
3. Response to the resident’s request for compensation from the Highways Agency;
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. He holds a joint tenancy with his ex-partner (the joint tenant), who no-longer inhabits the property. Their introductory tenancy began in 2017. The information seen suggests they became secure tenants after 12 months. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise block. The landlord is a local authority. The block is run by an Arm’s Length Management Organisation. The resident is an armed-forces veteran with combat induced PTSD. It is understood his mum was the property’s previous tenant.
The landlord has provided part of the original tenancy agreement. It also provided a sample tenancy document that shows its full terms. The sample agreement suggests the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and outside of the property. This includes: the roof, drains, pipes, and electrical wiring. It will also maintain the property’s fixtures and fittings. The resident must promptly report faults or repairs.
Details of the landlord’s complaints process can be found online. The information confirms the landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at both stages. If the landlord is unable to respond within this timescale, it will explain why in writing. The landlord’s Chief Executive responds to stage two complaints.

Summary of events

The resident has told us he reported drainage issues on multiple occasions from the outset of his tenancy. Further, over the years, sewage repeatedly backfilled into the property’s bathroom and the smell affected other rooms including the kitchen. He attributed these issues to a collapsed external drain located nearby. He has also said the landlord cleared the drains on at least four occasions. He has likened the situation to living in excrement. The resident has other health and safety related concerns about the property and the block.
The landlord provided contact records and tenancy notes from 2015 onwards. Its repair records, running from 2016 onwards, show an emergency repair was raised on 14 November 2018 to address a blocked toilet. Corresponding notes said flushing prompted sewage water to surge through a nearby shower waste. The records show the repair order was marked complete the same day. From these records, no information was seen to show the resident reported any drainage concerns, backfilling sewage or foul smells before this incident.
The landlord’s notes from May 2019 said the resident had requested a bathroom inspection and he wanted the shower to be replaced with a bath. The notes did not reference drainage issues. From the information seen, it is unclear whether the requested inspection took place.
From the repair history, the next similar repair order was dated 1 May 2020. Repair notes said the toilet was not flushing but no further information was provided. The order was marked complete on 4 May 2020.The landlord’s other records suggest it replaced a syphon around this time.
The landlord provided an inspection report from late November 2020. It identified mould on the bathroom ceiling, which it attributed to condensation. It said the ceiling should be tested for asbestos and a fan should be renewed. It also identified loose ceiling/timber in a nearby communal area which it said should be made safe. The report said “after looking around the property…neither myself or the tenant had any other repairs to report…”. The report contained several images showing plants growing in the block’s gutters and dilapidated external woodwork.
In December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and the joint tenant about arrears. Its tenancy records suggest two separate letters were sent and the resident made a payment soon afterwards. The Ombudsman has not seen copies of the letters. In its stage two response, the landlord later apologised for their tone. Further records show it texted the resident about arears in late February 2021.
The next drainage related repair order was raised on 9 March 2021. Corresponding notes said, on flushing, sewage water was again backing up through the shower drain. The order was marked complete the same day. Overall, based on the above information, the evidence suggests the landlord responded promptly to each incident of backfilling sewage.
The landlord’s subsequent complaint investigation records show the following events occurred between 4 and 11 March 2021:
1. The landlord referred the resident to Citizens Advice in respect of the arrears. Soon afterwards, the resident notified the landlord his relationship with the joint tenant had broken down. It subsequently recommended claiming Universal Credit. (The resident later told us the landlord’s representative “was a tremendous help” at this time. He also said they agreed he could make a payment on 26 April 2021. From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to confirm this agreement).
2. The resident told the landlord the joint tenant had moved out but they were refusing to remove their name from the tenancy agreement. He also said he did not want the landlord contacting them about the arrears. The landlord’s records included part of an email it sent to the resident. It said the landlord “(had) made every attempt” to only contact the resident about the rent. However, it was unable to guarantee the joint tenant would never be contacted given their legal liability for the rent. Nevertheless, a warning note had been placed on the account.
The landlord called the resident to discuss arrears on 22 April 2021. The call was made by a different representative. The resident later told us he was concerned about receiving an out of hours call on a personal number, which the landlord could not record. The landlord’s brief notes said “long conversation with (the resident) about rent, debt and tenancy issues…(the resident) was very obstructive… advised I would phone him back tomorrow”. The resident’s key points to the Ombudsman were:
1. The landlord used various techniques to recover the arrears immediately. It would not accept an agreement was already in place and its representative became aggressive. They “threatened” to report the resident to Universal Credit and advised they would contact the joint tenant.
2. The resident explained contacting the joint tenant would “make a volatile situation worse” and likely exacerbate his illness. The representative subsequently agreed not to contact them having accepted the resident would pay any arrears himself. They also agreed to speak to the resident again the following day.
The landlord’s records from 23 April 2021 were more detailed. They show it tried to obtain a telephone payment. They said “(the resident) has been paid the UC housing costs direct”. Further he “was angry” and “kept stressing his mental illness problems”. They suggest: the landlord established the resident was receiving treatment from a veteran support service, the resident said it should not call the joint tenant and that the landlord agreed not to phone them before it had made additional enquires.
The notes detailed the actions agreed during the call. Contacting the joint tenant was not listed as an agreed action. However, both parties agree the landlord contacted them the same day. The Ombudsman has not seen direct details of this contact. In its stage two response, the landlord said it occurred via email. The resident has not disputed this information. He later told us: he was misled, the landlord breached confidentiality and trust, and it knowingly created friction between him and the joint tenant.
On the same day, the landlord included the resident in an internal email chain. The Ombudsman has seen a screen shot of the email. We have not seen the full chain. It said, “(the resident) has a way of making it sound in his favour and this is not an accurate assessment of what was discussed”. The information seen suggests the resident raised concerns about the representative following the day’s events.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord included the resident in another internal email chain. One of its emails contained derogatory remarks about him. Again, the Ombudsman has seen a screen shot. It said, “(the resident) gets angry and becomes a keyboard warrior…each email has different tones.” The subject heading was “Veterans Champion Referral”. This indicates the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances at the point the email was sent.
The information seen indicates the resident raised a formal complaint around 13 May 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of his original concerns. We have seen an email from the landlord inviting him to discuss them. The resident replied he would prefer to communicate by email. This was on the basis the a previous meeting was not recorded and its content could not be referenced. He also said the landlord’s leader should be aware of the situation given they were copied into the offensive email chain.
The landlord replied the following day. It said it preferred to discuss the resident’s concerns directly. However, it would respect the his wish to communicate in writing. The landlord summarised the following nine complaint issues derived from the resident’s previous emails: human faeces in the wet room plug hole; rewiring not chased into wall; old and dangerous air heating system not sealed; dilapidated door and window seals; internal doors not fire-safe; fuse panel next to leaking pipe; lack of ventilation in kitchen; representative deliberately creating conflict with joint tenant and offensive email.
The resident has provided numerous undated images of the property. They include images that appear to show: dusty heating system components visible due to a missing door/cover; cobwebs and dust accumulating around a rusty vent; paper taped over another vent; a pipe inside a cavity; dust and debris in the cavity and subsequent repair works being completed.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around six working days after its acknowledgment. It broadly addressed the landlord’s level of investment in the property and the block. The wording suggests the parties discussed the property’s condition during a meeting on 21 May 2021. The landlord apologised for the poor service it “may have” provided. The key points were:
1. The landlord agreed the property was “looking tired and lacked investment”. An upcoming cyclical works programme, due the same year, would update the estate’s kitchens and bathrooms, along with communal areas. The landlord would obtain more information about the programme and update the resident.
2. The programme would address some issues the resident highlighted during the recent meeting. They included, fitting a bath, electrical works and ventilation. The landlord would check whether replacement windows were part of the programme. If not, it would replace the windows through its repairs service.
3. The parties had separately agreed the following works: new front door; plastering around a window; remove flags and investigate soil pipe; renew door to boiler. It had also agreed to investigate whether a bedroom cupboard could be removed to increase the available space. The cupboard works would be a goodwill gesture.
On 9 June 2021 the landlord issued another stage one response. It used the same complaint reference number, but focussed on the resident’s staff conduct concerns. This was around 18 working days after the landlord invited the resident to discuss his concerns. The landlord apologised for not issuing both responses at the same time. Both of the resident’s complaint points were upheld. The key points were:
1. The landlord’s relevant systems showed the resident asked to remove his ex-partner from the tenancy on 4 March 2021. It could also see, during the phone call on 23 April 2023, its representative had agreed not to contact them by phone. The representative subsequently sent an email to the joint party asking them to get in touch about the tenancy.
2. The landlord could have been “more accommodating” to the resident’s request. For example, it could have agreed a specific timeframe so he could contact the joint party himself. Its records showed a similar agreement was reached around a week later. Following an internal investigation, the resident’s case had been reassigned to a new representative. Feedback and training had also been provided.
3. The landlord was satisfied appropriate action had been taken to prevent similar issues occurring. It was unable to support the resident’s request for the representative’s dismissal. There was no evidence the representative passed confidential information to the joint party. Since they were a joint tenant, the landlord was legally obliged to consult them prior to any tenancy amendments.
4. The landlord was aware the resident had been copied into an email chain containing inappropriate personal comments about him. This was below its usual standards. Training had been arranged and staff were reminded about the landlord’s codes of conduct. The landlord would take further action if any repeat incidents occurred. Overall, appropriate action had been taken.
5. Having reflected on their actions, the staff member responsible was “extremely apologetic”. With the resident’s agreement, they were willing to call him personally to apologise. With permission, the landlord was willing to ensure this call took place at a convenient time. The landlord was sorry for its “significant failings”. It awarded the resident £150 as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its CCTV drain survey despite the Ombudsman’s request. However, its notes from 10 June 2021 show an operative had found and repaired a buried manhole. They said it had “very poor channel work from the original builder”. Further, “all drains on this site are of a very poor standard…”.
On 22 June 2021 a specialist contractor completed an asbestos management survey. It identified “Chrysotile” asbestos in ceilings throughout the property. The contractor’s report noted there was low level damage to the ceilings. Nevertheless, it said the asbestos was “very low risk” and no remedial action was required to satisfy relevant regulations. However, a further survey would be required if the landlord undertook refurbishment of demolition works to the property, particularly in regards to areas, such as void spaces, which the contractor was unable to access during the inspection.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation request. We have seen a draft of the landlord’s stage two acknowledgement, which appears to have been issued around 6 August 2021. It summarised the following complaint issues: discriminatory customer services; lack of investment and request for a rent rebate; unsanitary conditions; motorway noise disruption and the local authority’s failure to pass on related compensation, along with failure to carry out repairs.
On 16 August 2021 the landlord received legal advice. The advice said human excrement coming up through a plug hole could be considered a statutory nuisance. However, the circumstances described, a single notification of blocked drain resolved on the same day, was unlikely meet the relevant criteria.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 9 September 2021. This was around 25 working days after its stage two acknowledgment email. It thanked the resident attending a previous meeting with its senior leader and a local councillor. It addressed the same issues referenced in the above acknowledgement. As a “goodwill gesture”, the landlord increased its overall compensation award to £400 in total. The landlord did not detail the rationale behind this figure. Its main points were:
1. In relation to his discrimination concerns, the landlord was concerned it made “very few attempts” to contact the resident about the arrears between July and December 2020. It therefore understood why the tone of its letters was surprising. The lack of any previous formal contact meant this tone was inappropriate. The landlord was sorry for any distress caused.
2. The landlord called on 22 April 2021 because the resident’s application for Discretionary Housing Payments had been declined. Its representative had a good understanding of various benefits and they were briefed about the resident’s condition prior to the call. There was no evidence to show a payment agreement was made beforehand. However, the landlord noted a payment was received on 26 April 2021.
3. The representative was aware arrears were building up and the resident was incurring a weekly under occupation charge. Their recollection of the discussion differed to the resident’s in that, they felt, it was agreed they would not contact the joint tenant before discussing the situation with colleagues. The landlord was satisfied the representative’s involvement was justified and the arrears conversation was appropriate.
4. In relation to the offensive email, the landlord agreed its contents were unacceptable. It understood how the resident was made to feel and it was disappointed its representative made such inappropriate comments. The landlord wanted to reassure the resident the matter had been dealt with internally. It was aware he had been included in a further email on 6 September 2021. The landlord was putting measures in place to ensure future contact was relevant and professional.
5. The landlord had a responsibility to seek clarification about the joint tenant’s intentions. It was satisfied the resident had been notified about this and there was no evidence he was misled. Nevertheless, the situation could have been handled better. The landlord could have been clearer about its intentions and it could have agreed timescales with the resident. It therefore agreed with its stage one conclusions. A local representative would contact the resident to agree a way forward in relation to contacting the joint party.
6. The landlord did not agree it discriminated against the resident. It wanted to highlight the range of support it had provided to try and help him. It did agree there was evidence of “poor customer care”, particularly in relation to contacting the joint tenant and the inappropriate email comments. The landlord had asked for all its frontline staff to receive training around trauma and its associated mental health impacts.
7. With regards to its investment in the property and the block, the landlord noted the resident felt delays in replacing the roof led to further defects including: internal leaks; damaged gutters ceilings, flashing and pathways along with wood rot. Further, the resident felt the situation presented a health and safety risk.
8. The landlord was required to ensure its properties met the Government’s Decent Homes Standard. This included ensuring bathrooms and kitchens were replaced within agreed timescales. The landlord could confirm the property met required standards and it had received around £3K in investment since 2008. The landlord had invested around £67K in the block over the same period. Roof replacement works had been brought forward given ongoing resident reports about its condition.
9. Given its various planned works programmes, the landlord was due to invest around £400K in the block by the end of the financial year. The landlord acknowledged ongoing problems with the roof “over the last few years”. Whilst repairs were undertaken its approach had not always been effective. The number of repairs since 2016 caused the landlord to question whether it could have done things differently. The resident’s video footage demonstrated the scale of the problem and the potential for damage to other parts of the building.
10. Given the above, the landlord “upheld the aspect of the complaint relating to the delays in replacing the roof and how this led to further defects”. It would consider the matter further and embed any relevant learning. The landlord was grateful the resident had brought the issue to its attention.
11. The landlord understood there were ongoing problems with drains outside the property, which frequently blocked leading to a smell of sewage. Further, sewage had backed up through the property’s walk-in-shower waste and the resident had advised this situation occurred ever since the shower was installed. It was aware he felt: the property was unfit for habitation, he had been unable to make full use of his home and the landlord should have identified the root cause earlier.
12. The landlord’s records confirmed the shower waste had been fitted to a soil pipe, which was in turn connected to the drain outside the property. Whilst it understood this was previously a standard practice, blockages in the main drain caused sewage to back-up into the property’s pipework. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience caused.
13. The landlord was aware of the resident’s reports from November 2018 and March 2021. The drains were promptly jetted on both occasions to clear blockages. A CCTV camera survey in June 2021 revealed no faults or evidence of collapsed drains. A covered manhole the resident referenced had nothing to do with the blocked drains. Given the above issues, the landlord had agreed to bring forward programmed bathroom replacement works as a goodwill gesture. This was outside of its usual process. The works were completed in July 2021.
14. Overall, the landlord reacted quickly to the reported repairs and there were no defects with the drains. Though it acknowledged the situation was unpleasant for the resident, it did not agree the drains were a statutory nuisance or that the resident was unable to make full use of his home.
15. The landlord understood the resident felt the local authority received compensation from the Highways Agency in relation to noise disturbance associated with a motorway expansion. Further, it passed this compensation to the block’s leaseholders but not its tenants. However, the local authority had no knowledge of the situation and no involvement in any claims or compensation paid. Further, it was not in a position to offer any related compensation.
16. In relation to resident’s various repair concerns, the block’s warm air heating system was boxed in when it was decommissioned. The landlord’s policy was not to remove asbestos where it was encapsulated. This was on the basis it only became a risk when removed incorrectly. It understood the heating unit and cupboard were removed after a specialist contractor removed the asbestos. This aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld.
17. During the recent inspection, the resident reported plaster around a window was damaged by water ingress. A number of minor cracks were identified, but there was no evidence of dampness. The cracks were repaired on 10 June 2021. The resident also raised concerns around electrical safety. The landlord had no record of any previous electrical complaints. An electrical safety check was completed on 21 June 2021 and no issues were identified. The landlord was not in a position to encase wires into the wall in line with the resident’s request.
18. The resident did not raise issues around external pointing during the inspection. The landlord was unable to find any previous reports about the issue. However, it had arranged for the works to be completed as part of the upcoming programmed works to the block.
19. The resident had raised concerns around the quality of grounds maintenance. He had also showed the landlord supporting images of the communal gardens around the property. The landlord had not received any complaints and the resident did not provide copies of the images as requested. An inspection had been arranged and any identified works were completed. A regular inspection programme had also been scheduled.
On 20 October 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman by email. He said the landlord’s responses were both unsatisfactory and threatening. The email included his timeline of events. He said he had no complaints about the landlord’s repairs service. However, he required a rent rebate for “living in human excrement”, along with compensation for the landlord’s “disability discrimination”. He also said asbestos dust had built up in a non-sealed void over a period of four years. His key points were:
1. Homeowners in the area each received £3.5K in compensation from the Highways Agency. This payment related to inconvenience caused by works nearby. The landlord’s leaseholders had been compensated, but its tenants were not. The resident wanted to know where the tenant’s compensation had gone.
2. Disciplinary action should be taken against four members of the landlord’s staff.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 13 April 2023. He said the drain issues were resolved following the landlord’s cyclical bathroom upgrade. However, he was concerned sewage water in the shower had negatively impacted his mum’s health condition when she held the tenancy. He also raised concerns about the family’s prolonged exposure to asbestos. He said the landlord’s compensation was unfair given the circumstances. Further, bringing forward scheduled works was neither a favour nor redress. His key points were:
1. A member of the landlord’s staff laughed at him during a previous Teams meeting. On another occasion, a representative told him a similar situation could not happen to them because they owned their own home. While he was unable to evidence these events, they reinforced his perception of discrimination. In addition, the landlord failed to take his repair requests seriously over a number of years.
2. The landlord tried to resolve the resident’s concerns informally prior to stage one. Further informal resolution attempts followed its stage two response. The resident felt its later contact was an attempt to deter him pursuing his concerns through the Ombudsman. He said his initial complaint was raised during a phone call.
We subsequently asked the landlord to provide additional evidence including: survey and inspection reports; contact and tenancy records and the resident’s original complaint and escalation requests. Some of this information had been requested previously. The landlord was subsequently unable to provide copies of the resident’s initial complaint and escalation request, a drain survey or a copy of the inspection report from May 2021.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline confirms he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether backfilling sewage water or asbestos caused long-term damage to his family’s health.
The resident has said the landlord treated him unfairly on several occasions due to his personal characteristics. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of his vulnerabilities and its response to his concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equalities legislation.

The landlord’s response to various repair issues

The resident is seeking compensation in respect of significant health and safety issues. He feels his enjoyment of the property was reduced by persistent drainage problems and sewage smells. He is also concerned unsafe asbestos impacted his family’s health. In its complaint correspondence, the landlord said the property was tired and lacked investment. It also said it could have handled problems with the block’s roof differently. No information was seen to show the property was directly impacted by the condition of the roof.
Though it did not agree with the resident’s key safety concerns, the landlord approved a range of repairs and brought forward cyclical bathroom upgrade works. From the information seen, it ultimately identified issues with the property’s internal drainage as well as problems with an external drain. This is based on the landlord’s notes from 10 June 2021, and its stage two comments about a shower waste fitted to a soil pipe. It is understood a bathroom upgrade in July 2021 resolved any drainage issues.
In themselves, defects do not necessarily evidence failure on a landlord’s part. In contrast, a failure to respond to persistent reports of sewage smells within the property, or backfilling sewage water, would likely represent a failure. In this case, the landlord’s repair, contact and tenancy records broadly support the timeline outlined in the landlord’s final response letter. In other words, the evidence suggests two significant blockages, prompting backfilling sewage, occurred in November 2018 and March 2021. Further, the landlord swiftly cleared them.
No information was seen to suggest the landlord was alerted to persistent issues early in the timeline. Nor was any information seen to suggest it should have reasonably completed further drainage investigations at this stage. For example, whilst his comments to the contrary were noted, there was no suggestion in the records that the resident repeatedly raised unresolved issues. In contrast, the November 2020 inspection report indicates he was concerned about mould in the bathroom and the condition of the block’s exterior. However, he declined to raise other issues.
Though both parties referred to “statutory nuisance” during the timeline, no information was seen suggest Environmental Health was involved at any stage, or that a statutory nuisance was confirmed. Given the above, there was insufficient evidence to support a significant loss of enjoyment based on the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to long-term drainage issues. However, the timeline shows the landlord’s stage two response contained incorrect information. This is because it said the June 2021 survey failed to identify any drainage faults.
The resident’s second key concern relates to unsafe asbestos. Asbestos was highlighted during the November 2020 survey, which recommended specialist testing. The timeline suggests this was ultimately completed, around seven months later, on 22 June 2021. National lockdown restrictions were in place for around four months of this period. Since one month is a reasonable timescale to complete an inspection, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay of around two months.
Despite noting low-level damage the property’s asbestos containing ceilings, the specialist said the type of asbestos identified was low risk. Its report did not recommend any remedial works. Nor were any significant safety concerns highlighted. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant qualified specialists. In contrast, there was no information, from a similarly qualified specialist, to suggest the resident was exposed to unsafe asbestos. As a result, the evidence seen did not support the resident’s request for asbestos related compensation.
In summary, the information seen did not support the resident’s request for a significant rent rebate or compensation award based the landlord’s inappropriate handling of long-term drainage issues or asbestos in the property. Nor were any significant failures noted in relation to other repairs referenced during the complaint. The incorrect drainage information in the landlord’s stage two response and the short delay in completing the asbestos survey amount to service failure overall.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and discrimination concerns
The timeline shows the resident has an ongoing vulnerability and the landlord was aware of his situation. Nevertheless, it copied him in to a number of offensive and disparaging emails. From the information seen, the worst of these emails described him as a “keyboard warrior”. This was highly inappropriate given the resident is an armed forces veteran with PTSD. Given his circumstances, the landlord should have treated him with due care and compassion. The resident feels the landlord’s actions evidence its biased approach towards him.
In its stage two response, the landlord rightly acknowledged these comments were inappropriate. It also recognised other interactions were similarly inappropriate. For example, it said it should not have sent strongly worded arrears letters without prior communication with the resident. It also agreed with its previous findings that things could have been handled better by allowing the resident time to contact the joint party himself. Given the circumstances, this would have been a reasonable solution and it confirms the landlord could have been more accommodating.
Overall, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £400 in compensation to put things right. The timeline suggests it also: reallocated the resident’s case to a new representative; provided feedback to its previous representative – who subsequently offered the resident a personal apology call; provided general training about its conduct standards and asked for its frontline staff to receive specialist training around handling trauma. Nevertheless, having investigated the resident’s relevant concerns, it disagreed its actions amounted to discrimination.
Whilst the resident’s April 2023 comments about other inappropriate interactions were noted, no additional information was seen to support his recollection of these events. However, it was also noted some of the landlord’s internal records were worded in a potentially offensive way. For example, they said the resident was “obstructive”, “angry” and “kept stressing his mental illness problems”. Given the timing of these notes, they may have been written by the representative responsible for the most offensive email. Regardless who wrote them, the landlord should ensure its records are worded in a professional manner.
It is recognised the landlord also displayed positive behaviours during the timeline. For example, the contact notes show it: signposted the resident to Citizens Advice; advised him to claim Universal Credit and established he was receiving support from a veteran’s organisation. It was noted the resident has said the landlord’s initial actions were a “tremendous help”. It was also recognised some of the landlord’s remedial actions, following its inappropriate communications, were both creative and proportionate to the gravity of the situation.
For example, the landlord offered to ensure its representative made a personal apology call at the resident’s request. Further, it asked for its customer facing staff to receive trauma training with a view to learning from his negative experience. Whilst these were appropriate remedial actions given the circumstances, the evidence suggests the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given what happened. This is because the timeline confirms the resident also had temporary vulnerabilities between December 2020 and September 2021.
In other words, he was experiencing both financial difficulties and relationship breakdown in addition to dealing with PTSD. It is reasonable to conclude these difficult circumstances likely aggravated his existing condition on occasion. Nevertheless, the timeline confirms the landlord acted insensitively towards each of these vulnerabilities at different times. This is broadly based on the arrears letters, the resident’s request not to contact the joint tenant and the highly offensive email. The overall number of incidents further reinforces this sense of disproportionality.
For example, the timeline suggests the resident was copied in to at least three offensive emails between 12 May and 6 September 2021. As a result, the Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Given its other remedial actions, the landlord’s failure to offer the resident appropriate redress amounts to service failure overall. Our compensation order will acknowledge the landlord was ultimately entitled to: contact the joint party in respect of arrears, and attempt to recover missed payments from the resident.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate allegations of discrimination through their internal complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord conformed to these expectations. We cannot order a landlord to take disciplinary action against a member of staff. Since we cannot reach legal findings, we are unable to determine whether discrimination occurred.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation from the Highways Agency

In its stage two response, the landlord said it had no knowledge of the situation the resident described. Further, it was not in a position to offer any related compensation. In addition, any compensation awarded would have been a matter between the Highways Agency and, as the owners of the properties, the individual leaseholders. As a result, it did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. We considered the landlord’s evidence file with the resident’s concerns in mind. We also conducted a number of online searches for additional information.
Based on these methods, no information was seen to undermine the landlord’s assertion it had no knowledge about the situation. We were therefore unable to say the landlord’s response to the resident’s related compensation request was unfair. On that basis, there was no maladministration by the landlord with regards to the above complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to issues with the landlord’s complaints handling. For example, it suggests there were short delays at stages one and two. The information seen indicates the parties were in contact during the interim periods, and the impact to the resident was limited. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to apologise for the delay at stage two. The timeline suggests this was around 15 working days. The landlord should have acknowledged this delay and, given the overall delays, it could have reasonably offered compensation.
More significantly, despite our information requests, the landlord was unable to provide the resident’s original complaint or his escalation request. This was standard case evidence and the landlord’s failure to provide it was concerning. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to fully assess some aspects of its complaint handling. For example, whilst it was noted the stage two response was detailed, we were unable to confirm whether it ultimately addressed all the issues raised during the resident’s complaint journey.
It was also noted the resident did not mention any overlooked issues during his recent update the Ombudsman. Regardless, the above was contrary to section 3.10 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which said “A full record should be kept of the complaint, any review and outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received; all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports of surveys prepared”.
The evidence suggests the above failure stemmed from a tendency towards informal complaint handling. The landlord’s initial stage one correspondence appears to evidence this preference. In contrast, the resident said he wanted written communication because the contents of a previous meeting had not been recorded. If his initial complaint was raised during a phone call, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should be able to produce either accurate call notes or a call summary. The same applies to the resident’s subsequent escalation request.
The landlord should be mindful that informal complaint handling is usually an inappropriate means of resolving complaints involving multiple or serious issues. Further, it can often aggravate a complaint in situations where it is perceived as a barrier to accessing a landlord’s formal complaints process. The resident’s April 2023 comments were noted in this context. However, no information was seen to show the landlord tried to prevent the Ombudsman’s involvement. Landlords can often improve their overall complaint handling by responding to complex cases on a formal basis only.
Similarly, it was noted the landlord was unable to provide a record of its May 2021 inspection report. Its stage one acknowledgement confirmed the resident’s complaint referenced several safety concerns. On that basis, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have completed a formal inspection similar to the one it carried out in November 2020, which contained various images of identified issues. This type of report could have recorded the landlord’s opinion in relation to any potential safety issues. Its lack of appropriate records appears to stem from the same informal approach.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents.
Overall, the evidence confirms there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. It was unable to provide key complaint and inspection records. This was both inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Its failure appears to stem from a tendency towards informal complaint handling that was disproportionate given the complexity of the complaint and the reported safety issues. The landlord also failed to recognise a short complaint handling delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities and discrimination concerns.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to various repair issues.
4. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation from the Highways Agency.

Reasons

The landlord was unable to provide key complaint and inspection records. This was both inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Its failure appears to stem from a tendency towards informal complaint handling that was disproportionate given the complexity of the complaint and the reported safety issues. The landlord also failed to recognise a short complaint handling delay.
The landlord’s offer of £400 in compensation was not sufficient to redress its inappropriate and insensitive handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is because it acted insensitively towards three of his vulnerabilities at different times. Further, the timeline suggests it copied him into at least three potentially offensive emails. The landlord’s other remedial measures were proportionate to the gravity of the situation.
The information seen did not support the resident’s request for a significant rent rebate or compensation award based the landlord’s inappropriate handling of long-term drainage issues or asbestos in the property. Nor were any significant failures noted in relation to other repairs referenced during the complaint. The incorrect drainage information in the landlord’s stage two response and the short delay in completing the asbestos survey amount to service failure overall.
No information was seen in the case evidence file, or online, to undermine the landlord’s assertion that it had no knowledge of any compensation payments from the Highways Agency.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,200 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its insensitive handling of his vulnerabilities and its various offensive emails. If it has already paid the £400 it awarded the resident at stage two, the landlord is free to deduct this amount from the above total.
2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to various repair issues.
3. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to provide the resident and the Ombudsman a written update in relation to the outcome of its specialist trauma training. It should include details of when the training took place, and what key changes of approach resulted from the training.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff within four weeks for learning and improvement purposes. Key topics include: informal complaint handling, appropriate complaint and inspection record keeping in line with the Code, professional communication standards and awarding proportionate compensation. The landlord should share a copy of its internal communication with the Ombudsman.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks.