Soha Housing Limited (202318878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318878

Soha Housing Limited

30 September 2025

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the installation of new windows in his home.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of insensitive and dismissive language being used by its staff.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his front and rear door were defective.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of a data breach and his freedom of information (FOI) request.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which commenced in May 2021 following a deed of assignment. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The housing records confirm the resident is dyslexic and has depression and anxiety.
The landlord told the resident on 3 March 2023 that it was planning to replace his windows. He told the landlord’s contractor on 7 March 2023 that he was vulnerable and had physical and mental health disabilities. He said he did not want the contractor to telephone him and asked for correspondence to be sent by email. The landlord’s contractor acknowledged the resident’s communication preferences on 21 April 2023 and asked him if the windows could be fitted in the following week.
The resident told the landlord’s contractor on 24 April 2023 that it could not start the work before agreeing his request for reasonable adjustments. He said he wanted the contractor to provide clean dust sheets and to stop phoning him. He asked the landlord’s contractor on 27 April 2023 to provide experienced window fitters and to ensure they were given sufficient time to do the work.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord’s contractor on 8 May 2023. He said it failed to respond to his email of 27 April 2023 and asked for a copy of its complaints procedure to be sent to him through the post. He also asked the contractor if its staff had received disability awareness training. The landlord’s contractor confirmed on the same day that it would ensure it sent an experienced team of window fitters and they would be given enough time to carry out the work. It also said it would take down and refit the window blinds and offered to send a manager on the day of the installation. It sent the resident a copy of its complaints policy through the post.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 May 2023. He said its contractor failed to fully respond to his correspondence and request for reasonable adjustments. He told the landlord on 27 July 2023 that it was deliberately delaying responding to his complaint by asking questions that he had previously answered. He provided the landlord with a list of reasonable adjustment requests on 30 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023 and said:
1. It agreed to fit the windows one at a time at the request of the resident, rather than complete all of the work on the same day.
2. It arranged to fit the first 2 windows on 29 August 2023 and 30 August 2023, but the appointments were changed by the resident.
3. New appointments were scheduled for 30 August 2023 and 31 August 2023 but were cancelled by the resident. He also cancelled the appointment that had been arranged to change the other 2 windows on 7 September 2023 and 8 September 2023. He did this on the morning its contractor was due to attend.
4. It would replace the windows at a time and date that was convenient for the resident. This could include morning or afternoon appointments.
5. Its contractor would use its most experienced team of fitters to ensure the work was done with the utmost care. They would use clean dust sheets and make good any damage that was caused straightaway.
6. Its contractor could arrange for a manager to meet the resident to discuss any concerns he had prior to the work being carried out.
7. It had agreed to take down the resident’s window blinds prior to the work starting. Residents were normally required to do this themselves.
8. The delay in fitting the windows was due to the resident not allowing access to his home. The resident should provide access on any future appointment dates that were agreed with him. This was because its contractor charged the landlord for any missed appointments.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 September 2023 and said:
1. The landlord failed to take his disabilities and request for reasonable adjustments into account.
2. He did not agree the appointment booked for 29 August 2023. He asked the landlord to carry out the work on 31 August 2023, 1 September 2023, 7 September 2023 and 8 September 2023.
3. The landlord’s statement that he did not allow access was incorrect and caused him distress. The landlord cancelled the appointment booked for 1 September 2023. He asked for the appointment scheduled for 7 September 2023 to be cancelled because he had an anxiety attack. He did not cancel the appointment for 8 September 2023.
4. The landlord did not provide him with a copy of its complaints policy or complaints leaflet. It also failed to acknowledge his complaint within 3 working days or consider it in line with its rapid resolution stage.
5. The comments made by the landlord on 7 September 2023 were insensitive and dismissive. This included its comments that he was ‘‘not in a good frame of mind’’ and to contact the landlord when he ‘‘felt happier.’’
6. The landlord had failed to respond to his request for 14 days to reply to correspondence.
7. The landlord had shared personal information about him with its staff and contractor.
8. The landlord had failed to respond to his request for a new front and back door.
9. He wanted the landlord to apologise for failing to take account of his disabilities and the distress that was caused, agree a date to complete the work at a time that was suitable to him and allow him to cancel appointments at short notice. He also wanted copies of the landlord’s policies and procedures that were relevant to his complaint to be sent to him via email and through the post, for a fully qualified member of staff with accredited disability awareness training to act as a point of contact and details of the landlord’s proposed procedures to prevent the issues happening again.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 December 2023 and said:
1. It accommodated the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments. This included agreeing to fit the windows over 4 days and to undertake the work in the afternoons. Its contractor would also use its most experienced window fitters and use clean dust sheets.
2. The resident cancelled the first 2 appointments and the remaining work, just before its contractor was due to visit his home on 7 September 2023. The delay in carrying out the work was not its fault.
3. It would arrange to fit the new windows at a time and date that was convenient for the resident.
This Service contacted the landlord on 1 March 2024 and noted that some of the issues raised by the resident had not been addressed in its complaint responses. The landlord was asked to consider whether it wished to amend its final complaint response and if so, do this by 8 March 2024.
The landlord issued an amended stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024 and said:
1. It was sorry for failing to address all of the issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses.
2. It acted reasonably and tried to be as flexible as possible in accommodating the resident’s requirements. This included agreeing to replace the windows one at a time, arranging for a member of staff who had undertaken disability awareness training to act as a point of contact and communicating with him by email. It also informed its staff that the resident required 14 days to respond to correspondence. It would try and accommodate any other reasonable adjustments requested by the resident.
3. It was sorry for including the wrong date in its stage 1 complaint response for replacing the windows. The letter should have said the appointment was booked for 30 August 2023 and 31 August 2023.
4. The resident cancelled the appointment scheduled for 7 September 2023. It incorrectly assumed that he also did not want the appointment booked for 8 September 2023 to go ahead. The appointment for 8 September 2023 should have gone ahead as planned.
5. The resident’s front and back door were replaced in 2021 and were not due to be renewed for 25 years. It would arrange for the doors to be repaired on receipt of further information from him.
6. It had not breached data sharing guidance by sharing information about the resident with staff and its contractor. The information was shared in accordance with its data sharing agreements and the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
7. There was a delay in logging and acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This was because it needed to fully understand his complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. It was sorry if this caused him distress.
8. It handled the resident’s complaint correctly by undertaking a stage 1 investigation and responding in writing, rather than considering it through its ‘‘rapid resolution’ ’channel.
9. It was sorry the resident found the comments included in the landlord’s email of 7 September 2023 offensive.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 7 April 2024 and said the landlord:
1. Delayed in logging, responding and escalating his complaint.
2. Failed to respond to his request for reasonable adjustments. This included failing to respond to his request to cancel appointments at short notice, limiting the number of operatives who attended his home and texting him before arriving.
3. Failed to provide copies of documentation he had requested. This included the landlord’s complaints policy and complaints leaflet. It also failed to explain how we could use the FOI Act to obtain this information.
4. Disclosed personal data and sensitive medical information without his agreement. This was a data breach and he wanted details on who he could report the breach to.
5. Failed to respond to his reports that the front and back door were defective.
6. Failed to respond to his request for 4 weeks to respond to correspondence.
7. Update its records to ensure its staff were aware they needed to send correspondence by email and through the post.
8. Failed to confirm in its email of 7 December 2023 that it would re-fix the window blinds.
9. Offer an apology for falsely accusing him for the delay in replacing the windows.
10. Provide details of the proposals, procedures or systems it would put in place to prevent a re-occurrence.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024 and said:
1. It had agreed the resident could cancel appointments at short notice. He should keep these to a minimum given its contractor applied a charge for appointments that were cancelled at short notice.
2. Whilst it agreed to limit the number of window fitters to 2, it could not agree to his request for 1 to be inside the property and for 1 to be outside. This was because it would not be able to follow the correct installation arrangements or safe ways of working.
3. It would arrange for its contractor to text the resident before arriving.
4. It sent the resident a copy of its complaints policy on 8 September 2023. A further copy, along with a copy of its new complaints policy was attached to the complaint response. It also sent a copy through the post.
5. It did not send the resident a copy of its complaint leaflet at the time he made the request. This was because the leaflet was being updated to ensure it was aligned with its new complaints policy. It would send the resident a copy of the new leaflet via email and through the post once it was available.
6. It was not subject to the FOI Act. The resident should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he wished to make a complaint about a data breach. It was sorry for the delay in providing the ICO’s contact details.
7. It would arrange for its contractor to inspect the resident’s doors given he struggled to explain what was wrong with them.
8. It agreed the resident could take up to 4 weeks to respond to communication. It also agreed to send communication by email and through the post.
9. It agreed to take down the window blinds and put them back up once the windows had been replaced.
10. It could not agree to share the training records of the member of staff who was acting as the resident’s point of contact. This was because the information was a personal work record.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 May 2024. He said the landlord had failed to respond to his complaint or provide him with the reasonable adjustments he had requested. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 21 May 2024. It also noted that some of the concerns he had raised were new issues and could not be considered as part of its stage 2 review. It said it would respond to these issues in a separate communication. It did this on 13 June 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 July 2024 and said:
1. The resident made a request on 13 August 2023 for the contractor to text him before arriving at his home. It did not respond to his request until 16 April 2024. This was because the resident had previously made conflicting requests and it needed to clarify the situation with him.
2. The resident made a request on 21 January 2024 for 1 window fitter to work inside his property and 1 to work outside. It did not tell the resident that it could not agree to the request until 16 April 2024.
3. It sent the resident a copy of its complaints policy via email and through the post on 8 September 2023. A further copy was sent following his email of 16 April 2024.
4. The resident requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints leaflet on 24 September 2023. It did not send him a copy of the leaflet at the time and whilst it was sorry for this, it did not stop him from progressing his complaint.
5. It did not respond to the resident’s FOI query made on 24 September 2023 until 16 April 2024. It was sorry for the delay and any distress that had been caused. It did not believe it had breached GDPR in relation to sharing information with its contractor.
6. Its response to the resident’s complaint about the doors was correct and timely.
7. The resident asked the landlord on 12 November 2023 to give him 4 weeks to respond to communication. Whilst it did not agree to the request until 16 April 2024, the lack of acknowledgement did not impact on the complaints process and he was not penalised for any late replies. It was sorry he was only given 2 weeks to respond to one of its emails.
8. The resident asked the landlord on 12 November 2023 onwards to send any communication via email, with a copy sent through the post. It was sorry it did not confirm it would do this until 16 April 2024. Copies of correspondence were sent through the post when requested.
9. Its contractor confirmed on 9 May 2023 that it would take down the resident’s window blinds and put them back up once the new windows had been fitted. This was reconfirmed on 3 August 2023. It agreed to carry out the work itself after the resident raised concerns that the contractor may damage the window blinds. Its offer to take down the blinds on one appointment and put them back up on a separate appointment still stood.
10. There was an initial delay in responding to the resident’s request for a single point of contact with a member of staff who had received disability awareness training. The resident’s request for a copy of their training records was refused on 16 April 2024.
11. It did not believe the language used in the email was offensive or dismissive.
12. Whilst it responded to the resident’s complaint about a data breach in a timely manner, there was a delay in providing him with details about the ICO.
13. It was not responsible for the delays in fitting the windows and it was not necessary to offer a retraction.
14. It had previously acknowledged there were delays in handling the resident’s initial complaint. An apology was offered at the time and it had since reviewed its complaints policy. The response given was fair and reasonable.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 30 July 2024. This was in relation to the issues that were raised by the resident in May 2024 and which it responded to on 13 July 2024. It said:
1. The absence of the complaints leaflet had not impacted on the resident’s ability to make a complaint. This was because information was available in its complaints policy and on its website.
2. It could not agree to the resident’s request for its contractor to attend on 4 separate occasions to inspect and repair the front and back doors. It could arrange for the contractor to inspect both doors at the same appointment. It would arrange a separate appointment if any identified works could not be carried out at the initial visit.
3. It did not believe the resident’s request for a qualified tradesperson to attend on 4 separate occasions and wait outside whilst the windows were replaced before refitting the blinds was reasonable. It would arrange for a member of staff to attend on one occasion to remove the window blinds and return on another day to put them back up.
4. The resident’s request for a copy of the member of staff’s training records was not reasonable.
5. It had updated its complaints policy to ensure it was compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This included increasing the timescale for acknowledging complaints to 5 working days. It did not need to make any further changes to the policy.
6. It had agreed to the resident’s request for 4 weeks to respond to communication.
7. It was sorry the resident was unable to view communication via its portal and he had received emails through this channel. The mistake was due to new members of staff joining the team. It had updated its systems to ensure its staff were aware of the resident’s communication preferences. It was sorry for not sending a copy of its email of 23 April 2024 via the post.
8. It had sent the resident copies of its policies relating to personal data via email and through the post. It had acted in accordance with these policies and data protection laws and, therefore, did not make amendments to its documentation or offer an apology.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 August 2024 and said:
1. Despite reporting the front and rear door were defective on 20 August 2023, the landlord had failed to take any action. It had previously asked him if he needed any repairs carrying out, despite him notifying the landlord that he did not have any training or qualifications to establish whether the doors needed repairing.
2. He did not request 4 appointments were made to check the front and back doors. He asked for an appointment to be booked to inspect the doors and another one to repair or replace them.
3. The landlord failed to take his disabilities into account by not agreeing to leave his window blinds in full working order every day. Two fully qualified tradespeople needed to attend the 4 appointments, remove the window blinds, wait outside and refit them once the windows had been replaced.
4. It took the landlord 7 months to provide details of a member of staff who had received disability awareness training to act as a point of contact. He had never asked the landlord for a copy of their personal work records. He had asked for the dates and details of courses they had attended, including certificates. No information was provided by the landlord.
5. The landlord had failed to respond to his request to provide him with its proposals to prevent similar incidents happening to him or other residents.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 September 2024 and said:
1. Its response to the resident’s complaint about the complaint leaflet was fair and reasonable.
2. It had previously provided the resident with the contact details of its contractor.
3. The resident clarified on 22 August 2024 that he had only requested 2 appointments to inspect and repair the doors. It responded on 2 September 2024 and agreed to the request.
4. The offer to take down and refit the resident’s window blinds once the windows had been replaced still stood. This would be done by the member of staff it had previously agreed would do the work. Its offer was fair and reasonable.
5. The decision to decline the resident’s request for a copy of the member of staff’s training records was fair and reasonable.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request made on 14 May 2024 in accordance with its complaints policy. The timeframe for accepting complaint escalation request was changed following a review of its complaints policy.
7. It had previously offered an apology for sending communication via its portal and provided an explanation why this happened. The response was fair and reasonable.
8. It had considered the resident’s complaint about offensive language in its final complaint response dated 15 July 2024. Its response was fair and reasonable.
9. It had provided the resident with a screenshot confirming his request for documentation to be sent through the post. It had offered an apology for failing to send a copy of the email dated 23 April 2024 through the post. Its response was fair and reasonable.
10. It was aware of the resident’s disabilities and considered the reasonable adjustments he requested. These requests were accepted where they could be easily met and addressed where it was unable to do so.
11. Its response to the resident’s complaint about its complaints policy and whether it was suitable for disabled people was fair and reasonable. There were delays in addressing all of the issues raised in the resident’s initial complaint and it would award £150 compensation. This included £100 for its poor complaints handling and £50 for the inconvenience caused.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.’’
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about his landlord breaching GDPR and failing to deal with his FOI requests are matters that fall outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The resident should raise such concerns with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Assessment and finding

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that he has made reference to disability discrimination and the impact on his mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health or potential discrimination. This would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The duty is anticipatory. This means landlords should not wait until a disabled person tries to use a service before considering whether it needs to make adjustments. Residents who have a physical or mental disability are entitled to reasonable adjustments under theAct.
The landlord’s equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policy says it will tailor the services it provides to meet the needs of individual residents. It also says it will regularly provide EDI training to its staff and requires its contractors to do the same. The landlord did not have a reasonable adjustments policy in place at the time the resident made his complaint.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including window frames and doors. It also says the landlord can disclose information about the resident to other organisations where it has permission to do so or the law allows it to without consent. The resident is responsible for providing access.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will prioritise repairs according to the urgency and nature of the work. Residents can report repairs over the telephone, by email and through the landlord’s website. No timescales are included in the policy for completing repairs. The policy also says it will consult residents and agree a convenient start date for completing any planned works.
The landlord’s website says it will consider resident’s individual needs and prioritises repairs into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs are made safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs are completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs are completed in 20 working days, with an appointment offered to the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. At the time the complaint was made, complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days. This was amended to 5 working days following a review of the landlord’s complaints policy in January 2024. The policy was accompanied by a leaflet which summarised the complaint process and what residents could expect when making a complaint.
Where the landlord can issue a ’‘quick response,’’ it says it will do this within 3 working days. If a full investigation is required, the landlord responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If new issues are raised during the investigation and these relate to the complaint, they are incorporated into the response. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer an apology and compensation when it gets things wrong. This includes occasions when the service it provides falls substantially below the standard expected and has caused considerable inconvenience. Cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the installation of new windows in his home

The landlord told the resident on 3 March 2023 that it was planning to replace his windows. It offered to visit him on 12 May 2023 after he raised a number of concerns about the planned work and the problems he had with its contractor at his previous address. It told the resident on 1 August 2023 the windows were ready to be installed and its contractor would arrange to fit them at a time that was suitable for him. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident asked the landlord on 2 August 2023 if the windows could be fitted over 3 afternoons. He provided the landlord with a list of suitable dates on 6 August 2023. This included 23, 24, 30 and 31 August 2023. He said 1 window could be replaced during each appointment. He also noted that he might need to cancel an appointment if he was required to attend a medical appointment or if he had an anxiety attack. He asked for the contractor’s contact details just in case he needed to cancel the visit at short notice.
The landlord’s surveyor confirmed on 7 August 2023 that he wanted the windows to be installed whilst he was at work and could visit the resident’s home if required to do so. He noted he was not available during the week commencing 21 August 2023 and said appointments had been provisionally booked for 30 August 2023 and 31 August 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to cancel appointments at short notice or provide him with its contractor’s contact details.
The landlord told the resident on 14 August 2023 that the windows would be fitted over 4 afternoons, with the first 2 windows replaced on 30 August 2023 and 31 August 2023. It said the other 2 appointments would be agreed with the resident. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances.
The resident told the landlord on 20 August 2023 that he was available on 31 August 2023, 1 September 2023, 7 September 2023 and 8 September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request. This led to him contacting the landlord on 28 August 2023 and noting an appointment had been incorrectly booked for 30 August 2023.
The resident told the landlord on 30 August 2023 that he was unavailable for the appointment that was scheduled for the following day because he had a medical appointment. The resident’s request was acknowledged on 31 August 2023. The landlord also told the resident that the appointment scheduled for 1 September 2023 had been cancelled due to the contractor being unavailable. It said its contractor was still available to carry out the work on 7 September 2023 and 8 September 2023.
The resident cancelled the appointment scheduled for 7 September 2023 on the day of the visit. He told the landlord this was due to having an anxiety attack. The landlord responded on the same day and noted the resident had cancelled 3 appointments at short notice. It said it could not continue to book appointments if he cancelled them.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
In this case, the landlord noted that the resident had cancelled 3 appointments, including one at short notice on 7 September 2023. This information was incorrect and demonstrated the landlord did not undertake a meaningful investigation into this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Had it done so, it would have established that it cancelled the appointment booked for 1 September 2023 and the resident did not cancel the appointment scheduled for 8 September 2023. The failure to do this caused the resident distress, time and trouble. He escalated his complaint on 24 September 2023.
The landlord reconfirmed its position on 6 December 2023 in its final complaint response. This included noting the resident cancelled 3 appointments and it was ‘‘not at fault.’’ The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the information was incorrect, likely to have damaged its relationship with the resident and may have led him to conclude that it did not read his emails and had treated him unfairly.
The landlord acknowledged on 8 March 2024 in its amended stage 1 complaint response that the resident did not cancel the appointment booked for 8 September 2023. The landlord offered an apology for the error. This was appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed it cancelled the appointment booked for 1 September 2023. This would have helped rebuild trust with the resident. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the error in its subsequent complaint responses caused the resident further distress, time and trouble.
In summary, whilst the landlord agreed to the resident’s request for the work to be carried out over 4 appointments, it incorrectly stated that he cancelled 3 of the appointments. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, distress, time and trouble in having to pursue his complaint. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the installation of new windows in his home, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

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

The housing records confirm the resident asked the landlord’s contractor on 7 March 2023 to contact him via email rather than telephone. He told the contractor on 24 April 2023 that he wanted to agree a number of reasonable adjustments before the work started. This included ensuring it used clean dust sheets when carrying out the work. The landlord’s contractor agreed to his request on the same day.
The resident told the landlord’s contractor on 27 April 2023 that he experienced problems in his previous property when the kitchen window was replaced. He said he did not want it to happen again. He asked the contractor to provide an experienced team of window fitters and to ensure they were given sufficient time to do the work.
The landlord’s contractor agreed to the resident’s request on 9 May 2023. It also said it would take down and refit his window blinds and arrange for a manager to attend on the day the windows were fitted. The contractor’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord offered to visit the resident’s home to discuss his concerns and agree an action plan on 14 May 2023. It also said it would monitor the situation closely and address any issues that arose. The resident responded on 18 May 2023 and noted the landlord had failed to address his concerns and request for reasonable adjustments. He said he was being ‘‘forced to suffer unnecessary and additional inconvenience and distress.’’ He asked the landlord on 10 June 2023 for 14 days to respond to any correspondence it sent him.
The resident told the landlord on 28 July 2023 that he could not access its secure messaging system due to his disabilities and wanted it to send communication by email. He provided the landlord with a list of his reasonable adjustment requests on 30 July 2023. This included noting the contractor should use brand-new dust sheets, for the windows to be replaced one at a time and for the window blinds to be taken down and refitted. He asked for appointments after 11 AM.
The landlord agreed to all of the resident’s requests on 1 August 2023, apart from his request to remove and refit the window blinds. It said this was to avoid any damage being caused. It said its contractor could help if he was unable to carry out the work. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident asked the landlord on 2 August 2023 to carry out the work over 3 afternoons rather than over a few days. The landlord agreed to the resident’s request on 14 August 2023. There is no evidence it responded to the resident’s request made on 3 September 2023 for a member of staff who had received disability awareness training to act as a point of contact.
The resident noted on 6 September 2023 in his complaint that the landlord had failed to respond to his request for reasonable adjustments. He noted the landlord had failed to tell him what would happen if the window fitters could not refit the window blinds or caused damage.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023. It confirmed the list of reasonable adjustments that would be made. This included noting its contractor would use its most experienced window fitters and install the new windows one at a time in accordance with the resident’s request. The landlord also said its contractor would use clean dust sheets, make good any damage that was caused straightaway and complete the work at a time that was convenient for the resident. In addition, the landlord noted its contractor would remove the resident’s window blinds and could visit him prior to starting the work to discuss any concerns he had. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It did not, however, confirm its contractor would refit the window blinds or it would arrange for a member of staff who had received disability awareness training to act as a point of contact.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 September 2023. He said the landlord failed to take his disabilities into account or respond to his request for reasonable adjustments. He asked the landlord for an apology and to be able to cancel appointments at short notice. He also asked the landlord to provide a copy of all policies and procedures that were relevant to his complaint by email and through the post. In addition, he said he wanted a fully qualified member of staff with disability awareness training to be made available and for the landlord to provide details of the procedures that it would put in place to prevent a re-occurrence. He asked the landlord on 8 October 2024 for 3 weeks to respond to correspondence.
The landlord reconfirmed its position regarding the reasonable adjustments that would be put in place in its final complaint response on 6 December 2023. Whilst this provided clarity, the landlord did not address the resident’s request to be able to cancel appointments at short notice or for a qualified member of staff to act as a point of contact. Neither did it address his request for a copy of all policies and procedures and details of its proposals to prevent a re-occurrence. This was a failure and not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code).
The resident told the landlord on 21 January 2024 that it needed to keep the number of people entering his home to a minimum. He asked the landlord if 1 window fitter could be inside his home, whilst the other 1 was outside. He also said it failed to provide a member of staff with disability awareness training or acknowledge his request to cancel appointments at short notice. He asked the landlord for the contact details of its contractor and to place a note on his file confirming he could not view email attachments.
The landlord confirmed on 26 January 2024 that a member of staff had been identified as a point of contact for the resident and he had received disability awareness training. This was almost 5 months after the resident made the request.
The landlord confirmed on 8 March 2024 in its amended stage 1 complaint response that it had updated its systems to ensure its staff were aware of his communication preferences and required 14 days to respond to communication. It did not, however, address the resident’s request to cancel appointments at short notice and limit the number of people entering his home. Neither did it address his request for copies of policies and procedures and details of the processes that it would put in place to prevent a re-occurrence. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
The landlord confirmed on 16 April 2024 that the resident could cancel appointments at short notice and it would limit the number of people carrying out work in his property to 2 operatives. It said it could not agree to his request for one of the operatives to be inside, whilst the other one remained outside. This was because it needed to ensure that the windows were installed safely. The landlord also confirmed it sent the resident a copy of its complaints policy on 8 September 2023 and it would arrange for the blinds to be removed and refitted. It said it would not provide the resident with a copy of the member of staff’s training records. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, it again failed to address his request for details of the processes that it would put in place to prevent a re-occurrence.
The landlord acknowledged on 15 July 2024 in its final complaint response that it should have responded earlier to the resident’s request to limit the number of operatives in his home and to provide a member of staff who had received disability awareness training as a point of contact. It also apologised for not confirming the resident’s request for copies of communication to be sent by email and through the post. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint.
The landlord told the resident on 30 July 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it could not accommodate his request for a qualified tradesperson to attend his property on 4 occasions, take down the window blinds and wait outside until the new windows had been installed, before refitting them. It said the identified member of staff would remove the window blinds during one visit and return to refit them at another appointment. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord apologised for sending information to the resident via its portal and noted this was done unintentionally following the appointment of new staff. A screenshot was shared with the resident confirming its systems had been updated. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord confirmed on 27 September 2024 in its final complaint response that it accepted the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments where these could be reasonably met. Where this was not possible, it said it explained this to him. Whilst the landlord confirmed its overall response was fair and reasonable, it acknowledged there were failings in addressing some of the concerns raised by the resident and this had caused him distress and inconvenience. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. The landlord did not, however, offer any specific compensation with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord accepted the majority of the reasonable adjustments requested by the resident and offered an explanation when it could not do so. There were, however, delays in responding to some of the requests that were made. Whilst this was acknowledged by the landlord, it did not offer the resident any compensation. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of insensitive and dismissive language being used by its staff

The housing records confirm the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 September 2023 and noted ‘‘we appreciate you are not in a good frame of mind’’ and ‘‘please let us know when you feel happier.’’ Regardless of the landlord’s intent, the comments were insensitive and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the resident’s disabilities and the impact the situation was having on him.
The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the comments were insensitive led to the resident escalating his complaint. He told the landlord on 24 September 2023 that it had no idea how debilitating and life changing his mental health disabilities were. He said he found the comments insensitive and offensive.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the comments were insensitive until it issued its amended stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024. The landlord offered the resident an apology for the comments that were made. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took learning from this aspect of the resident’s complaint, it did not offer him any compensation. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
In summary, the landlord initially failed to acknowledge the comments were insensitive and demonstrated a lack of awareness of the impact they had on the resident. It also demonstrated a lack of understanding of mental health disabilities. Whilst the landlord offered an apology, this was some 6 months later and it failed to offer any compensation. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claims of insensitive and dismissive language being used by its staff, for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his front and rear door were defective

The resident asked the landlord on 20 August 2023 to replace his front and rear door. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this and established if the doors needed to be repaired or replaced. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord confirmedon 23 October 2023 that the resident’s front and rear door were replaced in 2021. It asked him if any repairs were required.The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident told the landlord on 12 November 2023 that he did not know if the doors were repairable and the landlord should have arranged a mutually convenient appointment with him. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a further failure and meant the resident was unclear what action would be taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
The landlord told the resident on 8 March 2024 in its amended stage 1 complaint response that the doors did not need to be replaced. It is unclear on what basis this decision was made given no inspection had been undertaken. It asked the resident for more information on what repairs were required. It also confirmed that the doors would be replaced if they could not be repaired. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the doors to be inspected at this point given the concerns raised by the resident.
The landlord told the resident on 16 April 2024 that it would arrange for its contractor to inspect and repair or replace the doors, if required. It said it would do this given the resident said his disabilities made it difficult for him to describe what was wrong with the doors. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, this was some 8 months after the resident first raised concerns. There is no evidence it arranged for the doors to be inspected by its contractor.
The resident asked the landlord on 13 May 2024 for the contact details of its contractor so that he could arrange an appointment. He said 2 separate appointments were required to inspect the front and back door. He also asked the landlord for an explanation as to why it had taken 8 months to arrange for the doors to be inspected.
The landlord confirmed the contact details for the contractor on 13 June 2024. It said it could not accommodate the resident’s request for 4 separate appointments to inspect and repair the doors. It said its contractor would inspect both doors on the same day and carry out any ‘‘easy fixable repairs’’ at the same time. If this was not possible, a further appointment would be arranged. The landlord did not provide an explanation for the delay.
The resident told the landlord on 22 August 2024 that he had requested 2 appointments and not 4 visits as suggested by the landlord.
The landlord told the resident on 27 September 2024 in its final complaint response that it believed it responded fairly and reasonably to his request. This included noting that it had provided him with the contractor’s contact details. It also noted that following clarification from the resident regarding the number of appointments, it had agreed to his request for 2 appointments. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered an apology for any confusion it caused. This would have helped rebuild trust.
In summary, there were delays in responding to the resident’s reports that his front and back door were defective. It did not arrange for the doors to be inspected despite the resident’s request for an appointment. It is unclear on what basis it determined the doors did not need to be replaced. It did, however, later agree to carry out an inspection and complete any identified works. The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that his front and rear door were defective, for which it is ordered to pay £150 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint to the landlord’s contractor on 8 May 2023. He said it had failed to respond to his email of 27 April 2023. He asked for a copy of the contractor’s complaints procedure and queried whether its staff had received disability awareness training.
Whilst the landlord’s contractor responded on the following day, it did not confirm it was dealing with his concerns as a complaint. This was not appropriate and caused delays. The Code says a complaint must be raised when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a response to their service request. It also says complaints handled by third parties must form part of the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident told the landlord’s contractor on 10 May 2023 that it had not addressed his concerns about potential damage that could be caused to his window blinds.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed on 12 May 2023 that it had referred his concerns onto the landlord. The landlord updated the resident on the same day and offered to visit him to discuss his concerns further. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him, it did not acknowledge or log the resident’s complaint. This was a further failure and was not in accordance with the Code. This says landlords must not refuse to escalate complaints through all stages of their complaints procedure unless they have a valid reason to do so.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 May 2023. He said the landlord’s contractor had failed to respond to his complaint and request for reasonable adjustments. The complaint was not acknowledged or logged by the landlord. This was not consistent with its complaints policy and meant the resident was unclear when he would receive a reply. It contacted the resident on 22 May 2023 and 30 May 2023 and told him it was unclear what his complaint was about.
The resident told the landlord on 10 June 2023 that he had already provided the landlord with details about his complaint. He also said the situation was causing him unnecessary inconvenience and anxiety. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s email or his subsequent email of 27 July 2023 in which he noted he could not discuss his complaint with the landlord due to his disabilities. The landlord’s failure to respond caused delays and demonstrated poor communication.
The landlord told the resident on 5 September 2023 that his complaint was not at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said this was because it did not know what outcomes he was seeking. It confirmed on 6 September 2023 that it had logged his complaint, but it was unclear what it was about. The resident provided further details about his complaint on the same day.
There is no evidence the resident’s complaint was acknowledged. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy and meant the resident was not clear when he would receive a reply.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023. This was some 5 months after the resident raised a complaint with the landlord’s contractor. Whilst it confirmed the reasonable adjustments that had been agreed, it did not address the resident’s concerns about its complaints handling. This was a failure and not in accordance with the Code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 September 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. This was a further failure and led to the resident having to chase the landlord up on 12 November 2023.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 December 2023. This was some 10 weeks after the resident escalated his complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did not apologise or offer any compensation for the delay. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also failed to address many of the issues raised by the resident in his complaint escalation request.
The resident asked the landlord for its ‘‘final decision’’ on 21 January 2024. The landlord responded on the following day and confirmed he had exhausted its complaints process and he should contact this Service if he wished to progress matters. The landlord’s actions were appropriate.
The landlord sent the resident an amended stage 1 complaint response on 8 March 2024 following contact from this Service. It acknowledged it had not addressed all of the issues that had previously been raised by the resident and apologised for this. It also said its stage 1 complaint response included inaccurate information and acknowledged there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It said this was because it wanted to fully understand his complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. The landlord also confirmed it did not use its ‘‘rapid resolution stage’’ given the nature of his complaint. This provided clarity. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the identified service failures.
The resident escalated his complaint on 7 April 2024. He said the landlord had failed to follow its complaints procedure and had not addressed many of the complaints he had made. He also provided the landlord with details of new complaints.
The landlord told the resident on 16 April 2024that it had previously addressed a number of the issues raised by the resident in its previous complaints responses and he could ask thisService to investigate these concerns further. This was in accordance with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 21 May 2024. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord confirmed the nature of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. This was appropriate. The landlord also noted that some of the concerns raised by the resident were new issues and could not be considered as part of its stage 2 review. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It said it would provide a response to the resident’s complaint by 16 June 2024.
Whilst the landlord provided the resident with an update on 13 June 2024 on the new issues he had raised, it did not treat these concerns as a stage 1 complaint response. This was a failure and not in accordance with the Code.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 15 July 2024. This was some 2 months after the resident escalated his complaint and was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and it did not follow its complaints policy. It said this was because of the complex nature of the complaint. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and noted a new complaints policy had been introduced. Whilst this demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint, it again failed to offer any compensation for the identified service failures.
The landlord asked the resident on 24 July 2024 if he would consider participating in mediation through an independent third party given its complaints process was not providing him with the outcomes he was seeking. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and wanted to put things right for the resident. It also confirmed it would issue a stage 1 complaint response in relation to the new issues he raised in May 2024 and to which it responded to on 13 June 2024. It said it would provide a response by 7 August 2024.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response in relation to the new concerns raised by the resident on 30 July 2024. This was some 2 months after the resident made a complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 August 2024. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged on 30 August 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 27 September 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 September 2024. It acknowledged there were delays in responding to the resident’s initial complaint and addressing all of his concerns. It offered the resident £150 compensation. This included £100 for its poor complaints handling and £50 for the inconvenience caused. The offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, there were delays in responding to the resident’s initial complaint and it did not address all the issues he raised. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble having to pursue his complaint. There were also delays in logging and responding to the new complaints raised by the resident in May 2024. Whilst the landlord offered an apology and compensation for its poor complaints handling, it did not do this until September 2024. The offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress in the circumstances. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £100 compensation, on top of the £150 already offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the installation of new windows in his home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claims of insensitive and dismissive language being used by its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that his front and rear door were defective.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about a data breach and his freedom of information (FOI) request is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £850 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his concerns regarding the installation of new windows in his home.
2. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his request for reasonable adjustments.
3. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his claims of insensitive and dismissive language being used by its staff.
4. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his reports that his front and back door were defective.
5. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his complaint.
6. The £150 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident and confirm the reasonable adjustments that have been agreed. It must also agree a date with the resident when the work to replace the windows and inspect the doors will be carried out. A copy of the letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of its training arrangements for relevant staff to ensure it meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.