The Riverside Group Limited (202114071)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114071

One Housing Group

12 September 2022

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 annual gas service.
2. The landlord’s handling of radiator repairs.
3. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
4. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
5. Staff entering the resident’s home without permission.
6. The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments because of their disability.
7. The landlord’s action amounting to discrimination.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s actions amount to discrimination is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) sets out the legal provisions that apply to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics of; age, disability, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, religion/belief, sexual orientation, pregnancy and marriage/civil partnership. The Ombudsman is unable to make a decision about whether or not the landlord’s handling of the issues amount to discrimination as this would be a for a court to decide, taking into account the legislation and through the cross-examination on witnesses. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s actions amount to discrimination is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord whose Move On Service provides support to him. The resident has a hearing impairment and has a support dog. As a result, email, text messaging & lip-reading are his only means of communication.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that his rent is charged weekly and that “the payment of rent and service and other charges is due in advance on the Monday of each week”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the landlord “will aim to ensure that all urgent and routine repairs… will be made by appointment with the resident”. However, urgent repairs should be attended to within 3 working days and completed within 5 working days, whilst routine repairs should be attended to within 5 working days and completed within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 – Investigation and Resolution – the landlord should respond within 10 days of receipt. If this is not possible the landlord should agree an extension which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. At Stage 2 – Senior Management Review – the landlord should send the response within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord can agree a later date which should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s Reasonable Adjustment Policy states that “Housing is committed to ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged in accessing its services. We will make reasonable adjustments for customers who have a disability”.
The landlord’s Compensation and Other Payments Procedure states that:
1. “In circumstances where a tenant, complainant or claimant has evidently experienced inconvenience, OH will use discretion to offer a gesture of goodwill payment. This payment can be between £25.00 and £250.00. The instances where this can be applied will vary…”.
2. Where the claimant is a tenant with arrears on their rent account, any compensation or payments to which they are entitled should be offset against their rent account. Exceptions to this are where the claimant is in receipt of Housing Benefit, the arrears are a small accumulation between set payment dates.
3. The Compensation and Other Payments Policy confirms that “One Housing retains the right to offset compensation payments against any arrears on the recipients rent account, where arrears are not a result of benefit payment dates”.

Summary of Events

On 11 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it had reported incorrect rent and service charge figures to housing benefit for the year 2020-21. It advised that it would write to housing benefit to ask it to use the figures on the tenancy agreement.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord sent a Stage 1 response to a prior complaint about its handling of an issue whereby the resident’s heating turned off whenever his washer dryer entered into drying mode. The resident escalated the complaint partly on the basis of the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with him as a deaf person, noting that operatives did not arrive with the correct PPE – transparent face masks – that would allow him to lipread.
In the Stage 2 response of 15 March 2021 the landlord accepted its systems needed to be updated about access and the resident’s support needs, including the need for specialist PPE. The resident accepted compensation awarded of £507 and asked for it to be paid to him, not towards his arrears which he disputed stating that the landlord had accepted it made an error on his rent account. The landlord has advised this Service that it accepted the resident’s response, apologised and made a payment by bank transfer. The resident has advised this Service that he continued to dispute with the landlord that he had arrears, providing an email to the landlord sent on 19 April 2021 to which he attached the letter of 11 February 2021.
On 27 May 2021 the resident reported a leaking radiator. After he chased the repair on 18 June 2021, the landlord arranged a repair appointment for a contractor to attend on 24 June 2021. The resident that day emailed that the leak had not been resolved so the contractor returned on 25 June 2021 but the resident again reported by email on the same day that the contractor had not resolved the leak. On 29 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a complaint as his email of 25 June 2021 had not been responded to despite the landlord agreeing that its communications with him would be on par with an able-bodied person. He highlighted that email was his prime source of communication. On 30 June 2020 a contractor identified that a new radiator was required.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the radiator repair which for the purposes of this report shall be referred to as Complaint 1. On 6 July 2021, the resident asked the landlord to also consider that on the previous day, a contractor had attended his property without the landlord giving him prior notice or explaining the purpose of the visit. The Ombudsman understands that the visit was for the annual gas servicing.
On 6 July 2021 a contractor attended the resident’s property to install a new radiator but did not complete the works. The contractor advised he did not want to complete the works whilst the resident’s dog was in the same room. Consequently, he was asked to leave by the resident. In an exchange of correspondence that followed, the resident asked that a contractor comfortable working around dogs attend. The landlord noted that the contractor had reported that the dog was barking and requested that the resident and his dog locate to another room whilst its contractor was working for health and safety reasons and because “not all people like animals”. In response, the resident advised that his dog was a service animal protected by law therefore the landlord’s response was discriminatory. He asked that the landlord liaise with his advocacy agency.
On 9 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating he had received a verification report after his filming of the contractor who attended on 24 and 25 July 2021 was assessed by a support service. The conclusion was that the contractor did not speak clear and fluent English which could be lip-read.
On 8 July 2021 the landlord posted a second notice for the gas servicing stating that its contractor could not gain access on 5 July 2022, therefore it had made another appointment for 14 July 2021 PM. If this was not convenient the resident should contact it by 9 July 2021. The resident did not receive the letter until 13 July 2021. On receipt, the resident emailed the landlord stating that 14 July 2021 was not convenient. He also queried the letter being a second notice as he had no previous correspondence on the matter. On 13 July 2021 the landlord logged a new complaint to investigate the resident’s concerns about disability discrimination and the letter received about the gas safety check which for the purposes of this report shall be named Complaint 2.
The resident had also written to the landlord on 12 July 2021 to complain that it had discriminated against him, his disability and his service dog. He cited the actions of the engineer at the repair visit of 6 July 2021 and the following correspondence with the landlord. The resident stated that the engineer attempted to impede the access of his service dog and when he reminded the engineer of disability laws, the engineer replied, “The law does not apply to me”.
The resident also cited Complaint 1 as the landlord failing to communicate effectively with him despite previous agreements, although he requested that the complaints be investigated separately. He also noted that the contractor who attended his property on 25 and 26 June 2021 did not speak a clear and fluent form of English which he could understand. The landlord registered these issues under Complaint 2.
On 15 July 2021 the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by its legal gas safety letters. It explained that the letters were sent out automatically once its system noted a gas safety inspection was overdue. On the same day, the landlord held a meeting to discuss any reasonable adjustment required to support the resident including PPE, customer contact and tenancy management. The landlord’s notes indicate that it updated its systems with the resident’s communication preferences at this time.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to Complaint 1. It upheld the complaint acknowledging that the email communication following the visit of 6 July 2021 had caused upset for which it apologised. It stated that it had listened to the resident’s feedback and put a process in place for future repairs that was tailored to his needs. The landlord stated it would arrange an appointment for the radiator repair with a member of staff from its Move on Team in attendance. On the same day the resident escalated the complaint, stating that the landlord had altered and misrepresented his complaint, ignored sensitive issues and failed to understand disability laws. He noted that the landlord had sent letters, therefore not complying with agreements to communicate by email.
The landlord arranged an appointment for radiator repair for 22 July 2021 with the gas safety to be completed at the same time. It has provided evidence that it ordered clear face masks prior to the visit.
On 22 July 2021 the landlord attended the resident’s property. The resident after complained that he was not previously informed who the member of staff was who accompanied the contractor that day, and that he would have objected had he known. He explained that from a previous visit, he could not understand the member of staff due to the way he spoke making it impossible to communicate, and that on this occasion the member of staff rolled his eyes at him when informed of this, disrespecting him and making him feel uncomfortable. The resident asked for this incident be included in Complaint 2.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident the response to Complaint 2 although the attached response was dated 22 July 2021. The landlord advised that after two no access visits by its operatives, a letter was sent advising there may be legal action, if necessary, as in some instances it needed to attend court and obtain an injunction order and it was required by the court to have given notice to tenants of this. The landlord further stated that two letters were sent to the resident, one on 21 June 2021 and one on 8 July 2021 advising of appointments on 5 July 2021 and 14 July 2021 respectively. The landlord accepted it should have contacted the resident by email as part of its no access policy and would add a note on the resident’s account to be contacted by email.
On 30 July 2021 the resident escalated Complaint 2 stating that it had not addressed his complaint about the member of staff entering his home without his consent. He noted that the member of staff had not responded to emails sent prior to the visit of 22 July 2021 requesting information on his role and who he was answerable to. The resident also stated that the landlord had not addressed his complaint that it had not complied with the resolution of his March 2021 complaint where it stated that all future communications would be in email.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that his complaints had issues that crossed over which it would like to consider together. It also requested a meeting so that it could discuss his complaint. The resident declined a meeting.
On 16 August 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to Complaint 1. It stated:
1. It did not notify the resident of the recent appointment for the radiator by email for which it apologised. To ensure that it did not happen again it had added service alerts to its systems.
2. It had also alerted the system so that all staff entering the property should wear a clear protective visor and comply with Covid-19 methods of working.
3. All staff and contractors had been updated on the law regarding the protection of service dogs. All staff had been asked to refer to its Reasonable Adjustment policy.
4. In conclusion it upheld the complaint and apologised for the upset and frustration caused.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 complaint response:
1. It was satisfied that the explanation provided in the response of 22 July 2022 was factually correct and addressed the annual gas servicing issue.
2. With regards to the leaking radiator issue which had been raised in the Stage 2 escalation and Complaint 1, the landlord provided its chronology from when the resident made a report of 21 June 2021. It concluded it had carried out visits within the correct timeframes.
3. With regards to the resident’s complaint about disability discrimination, the landlord noted that the resident had clarified that his dog was always harnessed and on a lead when people visited him. It would ensure its contractors would wear face coverings for repair visits with a clear panel to support the resident’s need to lip read. It would also text the resident as requested to confirm attendance ideally 30 minutes, before arrival. It had made contractors aware of the requirements that needed to be adhered to when visiting the resident’s property. The landlord further stated that all contractors and office staff had been updated on the law regarding the protection of a service dog, and all staff had been reminded to refer to its Reasonable Adjustments policy when dealing with residents with protected characteristics.
4. With regards to visits by the member of staff, it would take on board the learning from this complaint and continue to ensure staff had up to date knowledge and understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act including the resident’s feedback about the member of staff.
In summary, the landlord offered £100.00 for the inconvenience caused by the way visits by contractors and the member of staff were carried out and a further £50.00 discretionary sum in recognition that it did not adhere to the resident’s visiting protocols.
On 27 August 2021 the resident queried a rent statement stating he was in arrears. He noted that his rent was paid one month in arrears by Universal Credit around the 5th of each month. On 14 September 2021 the landlord advised that senior staff would consider whether to write off the arrears or adjust the account, and that it would inform him of the outcome.
On 17 and 19 January 2022 the resident submitted a complaint about the handling of his rent account, in particular the fact that the landlord was saying he was in arrears. He forwarded the email of 14 September 2021 showing that the landlord would consider writing off the arrears.
During the week commencing 17 January 2022, the landlord credited the resident’s rent account with £2,485.40 leaving arrears of £352.88, increased to following week to £545.04 with next weekly rent charge of £192.16. On 27 January 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the rent account complaint (Complaint 3). It upheld the complaint accepting there had been no contact since its email of 14 September 2021. It confirmed that the account had been corrected to reduce the arrears to £545 and that it would offer £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The landlord credited the £50 compensation towards the rent arrears. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint stating that he did not have any arrears, his rent being paid monthly in arrears on or around the 5th of each month, the landlord receiving the escalation on 28 January 2022.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to complaint 3. It stated:
1. It agreed with the Stage 1 response that it took too long to complete the change to the rent account and offered another apology. The long delay was due to staff not escalating the request to make the adjustment to the rent account to a senior member of staff who had authority to approve adjustments greater than £1,500. It increased the gesture of goodwill to £100.
2. It was a condition of the rent account that the rent was paid weekly in advance. Monthly payments needed to be paid monthly in advance. It asked the resident on or around 5 March 2022 to pay £1437.28 to cover the rent due on 28 February 2022 plus the rent for the next four weeks (less the £100 goodwill payment). The landlord stated that if this was not affordable, it could provide support or arrange a repayment plan.
Following further correspondence on 7 March 2022 the landlord confirmed it did not decide when Universal Credit would make payments and its position remained that the rent should be paid in advance.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s annual gas service

The resident added the handling of the annual gas servicing to Complaint 1, initially because the contractor arrived without an appointment on 5 July 2021. Although the landlord has advised it sent a letter dated 21 June 2021 to advise of the appointment, a copy has not been provided to this Service and the resident has advised he did not receive the letter.Given that the resident could not necessarily communicate easily with all visitors, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not seek to confirm the appointment before sending the contractor, for instance by checking receipt of the letter by email. This would have ensured the visit was not unexpected.
It is reasonable and common practice for landlords to send automated letters when an initial appointment for the annual gas safety servicing has not been kept, for whatever reason. The annual gas servicing is a legal obligation and the landlord must demonstrate to the court that it has made formal attempts to carry out the works before when seeking an injunction. However, the landlord accepted in its Stage 2 response, it should have also emailed the resident under its No Access Policy. This was particularly necessary given the short timeframe the resident had in which to confirm or rearrange the appointment.
The resident has stated that the landlord agreed to email him when responding to his complaint of March 2020. The copies of the complaint responses of this time as seen by this Service does not state that the landlord made a definite commitment to always email the resident. Nonetheless, it is fair that it does so (and also explore using other messaging services) so as to ensure that it can communicate with the resident in an immediate manner when necessary similar in the way that can make immediate contact with other tenants.

The landlord’s handling of radiator repairs

Following the resident’s report of 27 May 2021, the landlord did not take any action on the repair until 21 June 2021 when it made an appointment for 24 June 2021. It therefore did not take the necessary steps to meets its target to attend to routine repairs within 5 working days. Moreover, as the resident was reliant on email communication and could not chase up the repair by phone, he was left uncertain whether the repair would be attended to until the landlord’s response of 21 June 2021. As repeat visits were required before the landlord completed the repair by installing a new radiator, it also failed to meet its target to complete the repair within 20 working days.
With regards to the failed appointment of 6 July 2021 to install the new radiator, the landlord after took steps to ensure the repair was completed in line with its repair obligation by finding a contractor who was comfortable working with dogs and arranging an appointment for the repair on 12 July 2021. When initially responding to the report of the visit of 6 July 2021 it was reasonable that the landlord cited health and safety considerations which are legitimate reasons why a repair may be disrupted. However, its statement that “not all people like animals” was unnecessary and inflammatory especially given the resident’s need for his dog.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the radiator repairs was also inadequate as it did not address the resident’s concerns about the visit of 6 July 2021, in particular the resident’s contention that the contractor had attempted to “impede” the access of the resident’s service dog and that the contractor had stated that “the law does not apply to me”. This was a significant omission as the resident was alleging that the contractor was unaware or dismissive of the disability legislation and insensitive to his needs. It is noted that the landlord offered compensation for the way visits were carried out in the Stage 2 response of Complaint 2; nonetheless, as it did not investigate the particular report about the conduct of the contractor who attended on 6 July 2021, and did not offer compensation for the delay in the repair, the award was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account

On 14 September 2021 the landlord accepted that the resident’s rent account was incorrect, and it would look into the error. The resident had also periodically previously queried that he was in rent arrears. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the resident’s rent account until January 2022 when it made a credit on the rent account, and only after the resident made a formal complaint. As such there was an unreasonable delay in correcting the rent account by any standard.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay in making the adjustment, explained the delay and offered £100 compensation. This was a discretionary payment that was in line with the guidance in its Compensation Policy. Whilst being informed that he was in arrears would be concerning to the resident, the evidence provided to this Service that he queried the matter intermittently. As such the landlord made an offer proportionate to the circumstances of the case and, therefore, it took reasonable action to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord maintained that he was in arrears. The resident is charged a weekly rent as set out in his tenancy agreement and extracts of rent statements provided to this Service confirms that his rent will have fallen into 4 weeks arrears at the time Universal Credit is paid which will then bring the account to balance. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that his rent account fell into arrears between payments.
Over and above stating that the resident was in arrears the landlord requested that the resident pay one month rent in advance. Landlords typically request advance payments as part of a process to reduce accounts falling further into arrears. In this case, it was a condition of the rent account that the rent was paid weekly in advance. However, the resident paid his rent monthly (in arrears). As such in a monthly advance payment would ensure that the resident’s rent account was in credit or balance during all weeks of his payment cycle, and therefore that he would never be in arrears in line with the tenancy agreement. Therefore there were reasonable grounds that the landlord asked the resident to make a monthly advance payment.
That said, although entitled to request rent in advance, registered social landlords do not need to enforce this and must be mindful of its wider aims to reduce rental arrears and sustain tenancies. In addition, any policy and practice on rental collection must not be discriminatory and sensitive to the potential financial vulnerability of tenants. Therefore the Ombudsman makes a general recommendation that the landlord takes into account all the circumstances of a case when offering support to and making repayment plans with tenants who are in arrears and/or being asked to make payments in advance.
The compensation payment of £100 offered during Complaint 3 was credited on the resident’s rent account. However, with the adjustment having been made to the resident’s rent account, the arrears that showed were solely due to the Universal Credit being paid monthly. Therefore given the wording of the Compensation Policy and Procedure, which does not take into account whether rent should be paid in advance or not, the payment should have been paid directly to the resident. It was still to the resident’s benefit that the landlord paid the compensation onto his rent account. Nonetheless, as he wished for the payment to be made directly to him and the Compensation Policy and Procedure allowed for this, the landlord made an error in not doing so.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling of Complaint 1, the Stage 1 response of 19 July 2021 was sent within 10 working days of the resident adding to his complaint on 6 July 2021. The Stage 2 response of 16 August 2021 was sent within 20 working days of the escalation of 19 July 2021.
With regards to the handling of Complaint 2, the landlord sent the response on 30 July 2021. Although this was slightly outside the 10 working day target from logging the complaint on 13 July 2021 this was not a significant delay. However, the response was dated 22 July 2021, differently to the covering email, which affected the resident’s confidence in the integrity of the landlord. The landlord is therefore reminded to ensure that the dates of correspondence correlate with the dates that they are sent. The Stage 2 response of 27 August 2021 was sent within 20 working days of the escalation of 30 July 2021.
With regards to Complaint 3, the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 27 January 2022 was sent within 10 working days of receipt. The Stage 2 response of 25 February 2022 was sent within 20 working days of the escalation received on 28 January 2022. Therefore, in summary, with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord followed its Complaints Procedure and there were no significant delays that changed the course of events to the resident’s detriment.

Staff entering home without permission

In the landlord’s response of 19 July 2021, the landlord advised that a member of staff would attend the appointment for the radiator repair. On 22 July 2021 the member of staff attended the repair. It was at the landlord’s discretion to decide which member of staff would attend, taking into account the role and responsibilities of its staff members and the overall management of its resources and operational needs. It did not have a particular obligation to name the staff member prior to the visit; however, given the communication requirements of the resident, it missed an opportunity to inform the resident of the staff member prior so as to consider any feedback to ensure that the visit proceeded as smoothly as possible.
The resident complained that the member of staff attended his home without agreement on 22 July 2022. The landlord did not consider the resident’s statement that he had emailed the member of staff before the visit without receiving a reply. However, in the Stage 2 response of Complaint 2 the landlord accepted that it did not adhere to visiting protocols and offered compensation of £150. This included an amount intended to provide redress for this complaint. The award was in line with its Compensation Policy and Procedure and proportionate to the circumstances therefore together with the landlord’s acceptance of inconvenience caused and assurance of learning from the complaint, it provided reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments because of their disability

Following the resident’s complaints, the landlord held a meeting to consider the resident’s need for reasonable adjustments. The landlord has advised this Service that it has updated its systems to state the following:
1. “Resident is a vulnerable tenant and is being supported by ‘One Support Service- GLA Move On Support Service’.
2. Resident has an Acute Hearing Impairment – Please communicate via text, email or letter only.
3. Anyone visiting the resident’s accommodation should have:
  1. A pre-arranged appointment
  2. Please ring the resident’s mobile when they arrive at the front door
  3. Send a text message stating that you have arrived/are at the front door.
4. The resident has a ‘Support Dog’ at the property which supports the resident and remains with the resident at all times”.
These alerts are intended to make staff aware of the needs of the resident and were in line with his requests. Aside from updating its systems the landlord has provided evidence to this Service by way of its internal correspondence that it has ordered a stock of clear face masks to facilitate lipreading, and with regards to the works complained about, arranged for a contractor to attend who was comfortable working in the presence of the resident’s dog. Taken altogether, the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
However, the Stage 2 response to Complaint 1 stated that the landlord had updated its systems to state all staff should wear a clear protective visor. Whilst the landlord’s correspondence confirms that staff should use a clear facemask when visiting the resident, the landlord has not informed this Service of what alert has been put on its systems and whether the alert is still in place given changing guidance on Covid-19. It is therefore recommended that the landlord provide clarification on this point.
The resident also noted that both the contractor who attended on 24 and 25 June 2021 and the member of staff who attended on 22 July 2022 did not speak in a way that he could lipread. The landlord did not specifically address these concerns. It is therefore recommended that the landlord provides staff with guidance on the way they speak to the resident, such as being mindful of the pace of speech, choice and emphasis of words, mumbling, shouting and other factors that may affect the ability to lipread.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s annual gas service.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of radiator repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord by the landlord in its administration of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident that resolved his complaint about staff entering his home without permission satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of and response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments because of his disability.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s annual gas service

It was unreasonable that the landlord did not seek to confirm the first gas safety appointment of 5 July 2022 before sending the operative to ensure the visit was not unexpected. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not email the resident under its no access policy.

The landlord’s handling of radiator repairs

The landlord delayed in both attending to the repair in the first instance and in completing the repair. The landlord also did not adequately investigate the concerns raised by the resident about conduct of the contractor who attended on 6 July 2021. As such the compensation offered in the Stage 2 response of Complaint 2 was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account

The landlord offered redress for the delay in making an adjustment to the resident’s rent account. It was also reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that his rent account fell into arrears between payments and that it asked him to make a monthly payment in advance. However, the landlord did not follow the wording of the Compensation Policy and Procedure as it credited the compensation awarded in Complaint 3 onto the rent account.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord followed its Complaints Procedure and there were no significant delays that changed the course of events to the resident’s detriment.

Staff entering the resident’s home without permission

The landlord accepted that there was inconvenience to the resident and that it did not follow visiting protocols. It offered compensation within the Stage 2 response of Complaint 2 that was intended to provide redress for this complaint. The award was in line with its Compensation Policy and Procedure and proportional to the circumstances. This provided reasonable redress when taken together with the landlord’s acceptance of inconvenience caused and assurance of learning from the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments because of his disability

The resident has updated its systems to state the resident’s needs. With regards to the repairs complained about, it ordered clear face masks to facilitate lipreading and arranged for a contractor who was comfortable in the presence of the resident’s dog to carry out a repair. Taken altogether, the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the annual gas servicing.
3. Pay the resident the £150 offered within the Stage 2 response of Complaint 2 if it has not already done so.
4. Pay the resident a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the radiator repairs.
5. Pay the resident directly the £100 compensation awarded at Stage 2 of Complaint 3. (The resident is advised to note that this may mean a corresponding adjustment to his rent account).

Recommendations

Within the next four weeks the landlord is requested to confirm its intentions regarding the following recommendations:
1. It provides clarification to the resident on what alert has been put on its systems regarding PPE and whether the alert is still in place given changing guidance on Covid-19.
2. It provides staff with guidance on the way they speak to the resident.
3. The landlord takes into account all the circumstances of a case when offering support to and making repayment plans with tenants who are in arrears and/or being asked to make payments in advance.