Southern Housing (202439760)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439760

Southern Housing

30 July 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 reports of discriminatory practices.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced in August 2024. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The housing records confirm the resident is autistic and has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The resident told the landlord on 17 July 2024 that he struggled with filling in forms and might need assistance with the application form. He noted on 18 July 2024 that the landlord’s digital service was poorly designed and confusing. He also said the garden was overgrown and asked the landlord to carry out the work whilst the property was empty.
The landlord confirmed on the 19 July 2024 that he had successfully completed part 1 of the application process and that the tenancy signup paperwork would be completed electronically. It also said the garden work would be done after he moved into the property. The resident responded on the same day and said he could not use the digital platform suggested by the landlord to complete the signup. The landlord told the resident on 1 August 2024 that his social worker would be able to help him with the signup process.
The local authority told the resident on 1 August 2024 that the property was ready to let and he needed to contact the landlord to complete the signup process. It said the landlord would only hold the property for him until the end of the week. The resident responded on the same day and said he was unable to sign up for the property until his welfare benefits had been sorted out. He asked the landlord and local authority to have regard to his disability and to ‘‘stop making time sensitive demands’ ‘and to provide support instead.
The local authority told the resident on 22 August 2024 that the landlord would withdraw the offer if he did not sign the tenancy agreement that week.
The resident made a complaint on 27 August 2024. He said he had been subject to disability discrimination and the landlord had failed to accommodate his needs when arranging for him to sign his tenancy agreement. He also noted the landlord’s online account was poorly designed, its communication was poor and the member of staff involved was incapable of acknowledging or addressing his concerns. He signed the tenancy agreement on 28 August 2024.
The resident told the landlord on 1 September 2024 that the property was not clean, tree saplings had not been removed from the garden and the electrical plug sockets had been left switched on. He also noted that someone had failed to flush the toilet after using it and he had been unable to read the gas meter as the display was blank.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2024 and said:
1. It had referred the resident’s concerns about its online systems on to its policy team to consider if any improvements could be made.
2. It offered support and liaised with partner agencies to help residents who struggled to use its systems.
3. The resident’s social worker had been supporting him with his application, but the arrangement had stopped after he made a complaint to the local authority. It had asked the local authority to continue supporting the resident and was waiting for a response.
4. The member of staff from the lettings team responded to the resident’s emails and delayed the moving in date to allow more time and support. The local authority advised the resident he needed to move into the property by 28 August 2024.
5. It offered the resident a face-to-face meeting to sign the tenancy agreement, but he later signed the documentation electronically.
6. A new kitchen and bathroom were fitted prior to the resident moving in. It also arranged for the property to be decorated and the garden trimmed as a goodwill gesture.
7. The property was ready to let on 31 July 2024 and the issues identified by the resident did not stop him from moving in.
8. It arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property following receipt of his complaint and it had been determined it was in a lettable condition. A number of jobs had been raised in the kitchen, toilet and bedroom following the inspection. It would arrange for the work to be completed on the same day to reduce disruption.
9. It was standard practice to leave plug sockets switched on and this did not affect the safety or usability of the property.
10. It was sorry that the toilet had been used and not flushed before the resident moved in.
11. It had made significant efforts to accommodate the resident’s needs, including clearing the garden, allowing him additional time to move in and offering support. It also communicated via email in accordance with its reasonable adjustments policy.
12. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his complaint on 2 October 2024. He said he had been subject to coercive bullying by the landlord into accepting the property even though it was not in a lettable condition. He noted he had not been provided with support or given extra time to move into the property and said repair appointments had not been coordinated. He also said he was unable to use his washing machine and the landlord had not provided 1 of the 2 e-vouchers he had been awarded for a cooker.
The resident noted on 8 October 2024 that he did not have a broadband connection and asked for this to be added to his complaint. He told the landlord on 9 October 2024 that it had failed to make reasonable adjustments. This included noting he had been ‘‘forced to conform to standard procedures’’ and denied a second viewing of the property.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 November 2024 and said:
1. The gutters and downspouts were cleared on 18 September 2024.
2. The repointing work and work to the rear gully should have been identified during the post inspection. An appointment was booked for 18 October 2024 but did not go ahead. This was because the resident declined the appointment.
3. It arranged for the kitchen doors to be checked and the area designated for the washing machine to be measured on 23 October 2024. The appointment was declined by the resident.
4. The decision not to fit a wash hand basin in the toilet whilst the property was empty was in line with building regulations. It agreed to install a wash hand basin on 23 October 2024. The appointment was declined by the resident.
5. The resident needed to contact the repairs contractor to reschedule the repair appointments.
6. The issue with the trees would be addressed on 11 November 2024.
7. Its heating contractor had tested and turned on the resident central heating system.
8. It did not clean window glass as part of its empty property process.
9. It had not agreed to provide a grant for the cooker.
10. It could not contact the broadband company on behalf of the resident due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
11. It did not normally arrange second viewings and could not accommodate the resident’s request. This was because of the deadline that was given by the local authority for the resident to sign the tenancy on the date he made the request.
12. The member of staff did not ignore the resident, but it was possible that she did not respond given the number of emails that were sent by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Equality Act 2010, 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. Autistic residents are entitled to reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord also has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 not to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristics. It is required to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order. This includes walls, gutters and pipes. It is also responsible for keeping any installations it provides for the supply of water, gas and electricity in good working order. The resident is responsible for the garden and is required to provide access to his home.
The landlord’s void letting standard says it will ensure its empty homes are in good repair and fit for purpose when let. This includes ensuring:
1. External walls are watertight, gutters are clear of debris and garden vegetation is cut back.
2. Kitchen unit doors open and close correctly and where possible, provide sufficient space for a washing machine to be fitted.
3. Window frames, cills and internal glass are cleaned (including external glass in ground floor windows and doors).
4. Internal doors are securely hung.
5. The gas supply is uncapped after the property is let.
6. Any external works that are not deemed a hazard are carried out after the resident moves in.
The landlord post inspects empty properties before they are let. No timescales are included in the policy for carrying out post inspection works.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will provide an accessible service and consistently deliver high quality work. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs are made safe within 6 hours.
2. Appointable repairs are carried out as soon as possible with appointment times agreed with the resident. The landlord offers morning and afternoon appointments.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy says it will ensure residents with disabilities are not disadvantaged when accessing its services. It makes reasonable adjustments and works with family members and partner agencies to ensure it meets the needs of its residents and the necessary support is in place. The policy is silent on the level of support that is offered to new residents before they move into their home. Residents are, however, asked whether they have additional needs at the start of their tenancy.
The landlord’s staff and contractors are required to adjust how they communicate with residents to meet their specific needs. This includes asking residents if they have a preferred method of communication and allowing them more time to understand information and make decisions. Staff are expected to anticipate the vulnerable needs of residents using their observations and from information from the resident’s records. They are also encouraged to take extra time and to be flexible in responding to residents with additional needs.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. 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 and to reflect the inconvenience caused. This includes situations where it fails to meet its service standards or follow its policies or procedures. Cases are considered on a case by case basis.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory practices.

The resident has raised concerns of disability discrimination. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination as it is not possible for this Service to make an assessment of an individual’s motives. Furthermore, allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
It is unclear from the housing records as to the extent that the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities when he was allocated the property. He told the landlord on 17 July 2024 that he struggled filling in forms and might need assistance with the application form. He also noted the local authority had completed a care needs assessment.
The resident told the landlord on 18 July 2024 that its digital service was poorly designed and he was unsure if he had completed the tasks correctly. He also noted he needed instructions on how to proceed with taking up the tenancy. He told the landlord on 19 July 2024 that he did not use the digital platform used by the landlord and asked it to provide an acceptable alternative. He also noted the landlord’s online account did not include a facility for him to record that he was autistic. This information should have alerted the landlord to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and identify if the resident had any support requirements.
The landlord responded on the following day and noted that all tenancy sign up paperwork was completed electronically and it did not carry out visits for tenancy signups. There is no evidence seen to suggest that the landlord considered any other reasonable alternatives. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so and discussed the resident’s specific needs with him at this point. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord confirmed there was an option for the resident to confirm he was autistic on his online account. This provided clarity. It also asked the resident’s social worker if they could assist the resident. This was consistent with the landlord’s reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy.
The landlord told the resident on 24 July 2024 that he had uploaded the tenancy sign up documentation correctly. This provided clarity. His social worker also confirmed that they could help the resident to complete any required tasks.
The local authority told the resident on 1 August 2024 that the property was ready to let and asked him to contact the landlord. It said the landlord would hold the property until the end of the week, after which it would be allocated to someone else. Whilst the landlord cannot be held responsible for the decision made by the local authority, it was aware that the resident was autistic and it would have been reasonable for it to have considered if he needed more time and support. The landlord’s reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy says it will do this.
The resident told the landlord on the same day that he could not move into the property because his welfare benefits had stopped. He also noted that no one had advised him how to resolve the matter. He asked the landlord to ‘‘stop making time sensitive demands’’ and to provide support instead. He also asked the landlord to acknowledge and have respect for his disabilities.
The landlord confirmed on 5 August 2024 that the property was ready to let and it would help the resident to resolve the issue with his welfare benefits. It also said the resident did not need to pay a full week’s rent in advance. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s circumstances and was willing to make reasonable adjustments.
It is unclear from the housing records why the resident did not sign the tenancy agreement at this point. The resident told the landlord on 21 August 2024 that he could not move into the property until his complaint had been resolved. The local authority confirmed on the following day that he needed to sign the tenancy agreement by the end of the week and if he did not do this the offer would be withdrawn. Again, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the decision made by the local authority.
The resident provided the landlord with an extract from a diagnostic report prepared by his therapist on 22 August 2024. The report noted that the resident ‘‘usually needed to know precise details, the what, when and how on matters he had to deal with.’’ The resident noted that if the landlord continued to ‘‘threaten, intimidate and bully him,’’ it was ‘‘engineering conflict and victimising him.’’ He asked the landlord to acknowledge the discrimination he had been subject to and his right to reasonable adjustments.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification from the resident regarding his concerns and considered whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments. This would have helped rebuild trust and provided reassurance that it was taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord told the resident on 27 August 2024 that it would go through the tenancy agreement with him during the signup and answer any questions he had. It also noted it had provided him with a copy of the tenancy agreement so that he could read it in advance. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It also said the signup would need to take place online as this was the most efficient way of working. The landlord’s comments were not appropriate and demonstrated it did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord advised the resident that his feedback about its digital service had been passed on to the relevant team. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him, it did not do this until some 6 weeks after he raised concerns. It also noted he could not delay the signup any further and the offer would be withdrawn if he did not sign the tenancy agreement.
The resident made a complaint on 27 August 2024. He said he had been subject to disability discrimination during the signup process and noted the landlord had failed to accommodate his needs. He also said the landlord’s communication was inadequate, lacked sufficient detail and the staff member was incapable of acknowledging or addressing his concerns.
The landlord told the resident on 28 August 2024 that it could arrange for the signup to take place in a housing office if required. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, it is unclear why the offer was not made earlier.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement electronically on 28 August 2024.
The resident told the landlord on 4 September 2024 that he was trying to move into the property but had received no support from the local authority. The landlord contacted the local authority on 12 September 2024 and asked it if it could support the resident. This was appropriate.
The landlord told the resident on 17 September 2024 that it did not contact broadband providers on behalf of residents following his request for it to do so. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. It offered to complete a grant application for a cooker on 18 September 2024 and told him on 27 September 2024 that the application had been successful. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2024. 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 it had made ‘‘significant efforts’’ to accommodate the resident’s needs. This included noting it had provided the resident with additional time to move in, offered support and liaised with the local authority. It also said the property was in a lettable condition and it had communicated with the resident in line with its reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations. There is, however, no evidence it carried out an investigation into the resident’s allegations of disability discrimination. It is vital that investigations into allegations of discrimination are completed and fully documented to ensure full transparency.
Whilst the landlord offered £50 compensation, it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint of disability discrimination. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.
The resident noted on 2 October 2024 in his complaint escalation request that he believed that he had been coerced and bullied into accepting the property. He said he had not received any support or offered extensions of time. He told the landlord on 9 October 2024 that it had never asked him about his needs or what reasonable adjustments were required to accommodate these. He also noted he had been denied a second viewing of the property.
The landlord confirmed on 6 November 2024 in its final complaint response that it did not usually offer second viewings and the request was not made by the resident until the deadline date set by the local authority for him to sign the tenancy agreement. It also confirmed it did not ignore the resident’s emails. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint of disability discrimination. This was a further failure and meant the landlord did not evidence that it had adequately considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
In summary, the landlord took a solution focused approach to the resident’s concerns and made several reasonable practical adjustments. It did not, however, identify the resident specific needs or support requirements at a sufficiently early point in time. The landlord also failed to carry out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s allegations of disability discrimination. The situation caused the resident distress. It is noteworthy that the mutuality of expectations between the local authority and the landlord in the period following the resident’s nomination to the property was a factor that may have engendered a lack of clarity as to respective responsibility. Notwithstanding this, in this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory practices, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.

The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 18 July 2024 that there were overgrown shrubs and trees in the garden. He asked for the vegetation to be cut back whilst the property was empty.
The landlord responded on 19 July 2024 and said the work would be carried out after the resident moved into his new home. It said an appointment would be arranged with the resident. This was consistent with the landlord’s void lettable standard. The landlord also confirmed the garden was the resident’s responsibility. This provided clarity and was in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord completed a post inspection of the property on 31 July 2024. This confirmed all of the identified work had been completed, apart from the works to the front and rear garden. The landlord also confirmed the property was ready to let. The housing records confirm the front and rear garden were strimmed and the shrubs cut back on 21 August 2024.
The landlord told the resident on 28 August 2024 that he needed to contact its heating contractor to arrange for the system to be tested and the gas supply uncapped. This was consistent with the landlord’s void lettable standard.
The resident told the landlord on 1 September 2024 that there were a number of issues with the property. He said the property was not clean, tree saplings had not been removed from the garden and the electrical plug sockets had been left switched on. He also noted that someone had failed to flush the toilet after using it and he had been unable to read the gas meter as the display was blank.
The resident noted on 2 September 2024 that the contractor could not turn on or test the gas supply because there was no gas. He said he was unsure how to set up an account with the energy supplier without a meter reading. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. Typically, landlords have available a gas key to provide a temporary supply of utilities so as to enable a gas safety check to be carried out.
The resident told the landlord on 4 September 2024 that the gutters needed cleaning. The landlord raised a job on 6 September 2024 to clear the gutters, with an appointment booked for 17 September 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The resident told the landlord on 7 September 2024 that screws were missing from 4 internal doors. He also said the external brickwork to the rear of the property needed repointing, soil had accumulated against the wall at the front of the property and trees had self-seeded. He told the landlord on 12 September 2024 that the kitchen unit doors were not fixed in a straight manner.
The resident’s heating was tested and turned on on 13 September 2024. The gutters were cleared on 18 September 2024.
The landlord raised a number of repairs on 19 September 2024. This included jobs to repoint the rear wall brickwork, fit a wash hand basin in the toilet, remove an electrical cable in the bedroom cupboard and fill a hole in the concrete gully. The landlord also arranged for the kitchen cupboard doors to be realigned, screws to be fitted into 3 internal doors and the kitchen units to be adjusted to allow the resident to install a washing machine. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed this work whilst the property was empty in accordance with its void lettable standard. The landlord’s failure to do this caused the resident inconvenience. Appointments were booked for the repairs to be completed in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s contractor removed the electrical cable in the bedroom cupboard on 27 September 2024.
The landlord confirmed on 2 October 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the property had undergone significant improvements before the resident moved in and it was in a lettable condition. This included noting a new kitchen and bathroom had been fitted and the property fully decorated. It also noted the garden was cleared whilst the property was empty.
The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for the identified work to be carried out on the same day to reduce disruption and minimise the number of appointments. This demonstrated the landlord was sensitive to the resident’s needs. It also apologised for the condition of the toilet and confirmed that it was standard practice to leave electric plug switches in the on position and this did not affect the safety of the property.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the property, blocked gutters or the need for the brickwork to be repointed. Neither did it address his concerns regarding the lack of space for a washing machine or his request for the tree saplings to be removed. This was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) and meant the resident was not clear on what action was being taken by the landlord.
Whilst the landlord offered £50 compensation, it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property.
The resident asked the landlord on 3 October 2024 why it had taken 3 attempts to provide the vouchers for the cooker. He noted on 8 October 2024 that he had been trying to sort out the broadband connection and asked for this to be added to his complaint. He said the landlord was responsible for ensuring all of the services were in place from when the tenancy commenced.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident on 15 October 2024 and said it was unable to attend the repairs appointment scheduled for 18 October 2024. It said this was due to unforeseen circumstances and asked the resident if it could attend on 17 October 2024 instead. The request was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s contractor took a proactive approach.
The request was refused by the resident. He said this was because he had been waiting for the work to be completed for some time and the landlord did not provide him with an estimated time of arrival. The resident said he did not want any repairs completing until the landlord had responded to his complaint. The resident’s decision contributed to the delay in carrying out the work and the landlord cannot be held responsible for this.
The landlord acknowledged on 6 November 2024 in its final complaint response that the repointing work and work to the rear gully should have been identified during the post inspection. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint. It also noted that it had not been able to carry out the work given the resident had declined further appointments until his complaint had been resolved. This provided clarity. The landlord asked the resident to contact its contractor to arrange for the work to be completed.
The landlord confirmed the tree saplings would be removed on 11 November 2024. It also noted it could not contact the broadband provider on behalf of the resident due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). This provided clarity.
The landlord noted that it did not clean window glass when cleaning empty properties. This was not consistent with the landlord’s void letting standard. This says the landlord will clean all internal window glass and external glass in ground floor windows and doors. Again, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the overall cleanliness of the property when let. Whilst the landlord noted the issues with the central heating system had been resolved, it did not provide any further details on the actions it took to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord noted that it could not respond to the resident’s concerns about the vouchers for the cooker. It said this was because it did not agree to do this. This caused confusion and was contrary to the actions it had previously taken.
In summary, the landlord failed to ensure the property fully met its void lettable standard whilst it was empty. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the property. It did, however, arrange for the work to be carried out in a timely manner after the resident raised concerns. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delays in completing the work after the resident said it could not carry out the repairs. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made a complaint on 27 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 September 2024. This was 1 working day after the deadline date and was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord confirmed its understanding of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes he was seeking. This was in accordance with this Service’s Complaints Handling Code. It said it would provide a response by 19 September 2024.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by the deadline date or advise him that there would be a delay. This meant he was unclear when he could expect to receive a reply. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 October 2024. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 2 October 2024. The complaint escalation request was acknowledged on 9 October 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It said it would provide a response by 23 October 2024.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2024 and said it needed more time to respond to his complaint. This was consistent with its complaints policy. It said it would respond by 6 November 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 November 2024. This was in accordance with the revised deadline date.
In summary, the landlord followed its complaints policy in the main. Whilst there was a delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and complaint response, there was no obvious detriment to the resident. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discriminatory practices.
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 about the condition of the property when let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration 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 £450 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of their claims of disability discrimination
2. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of his concerns about the condition of the property when let.
3. The £50 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 setting out its position regarding the outstanding works. The letter should set out the timescales for when the work will be completed, if they have not already been completed. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a review of this case and share the findings with this Service. The review must include (but not be limited to):
1. Considering what action it needs to take to ensure it meets its reasonable obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including staff training.
2. Identifying the obstacles that prevented it from taking effective and timely action and considering the impact the situation had on the resident.
3. How its nominations agreement and related processes with the local authority as surfaced in this case might be enhanced so as to ensure early sight of any additional need and thus promote early adjustments where these are required or merited.
4. Consider possible revisions to its reasonable adjustments and vulnerable needs policy so as to ensure the appropriate inclusion of prospective residents.