Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Together Housing Association Limited (202211696)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211696

Together Housing Association Limited

1 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s front door replacement, including the letter box and spy hole.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord, a housing association, owns the building. The landlord was unaware of any vulnerabilities but the resident advised he was vulnerable due to threats of arson.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in early 2023 about the replacement of his front door. He wanted removal of the letterbox. He was dissatisfied with its handling of his safeguarding concerns and colour of the door. He made a further complaint on 27 March 2023 stating he was given incorrect information about choosing the colour of the door.
  3. The resident raised a further complaint via this Service to the landlord on 4 October 2023. He said that he wanted a spy hole fitted in his new front door and repeated his concerns about its handling of his request for no letter box, his safeguarding concerns, and the colour of his door.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 November 2023. It said it had considered his request for a spy hole but due to the type of door it would not be able to fit one as it was concerned about potential damage. It had already replaced the door without a letter box. It had considered his safeguarding concerns but had no reports of arson threats directly or through the emergency services. He had accepted the colour of the door at the time. It offered support with speaking to the police or its own antisocial behaviour team.
  5. The date and details of the resident’s request for escalation of the complaint has not been provided to us but the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 4 January 2024. It mentioned that he was unhappy with its decision not to install a spy hole. It agreed to fit a spy hole on 8 January 2024 and apologised for its poor communication.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He is seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Front door replacement

  1. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to replace his front door with a letter box in August 2022. He said he was vulnerable due to threats of arson. The landlord stated it had no evidence of this but said it could fit a fireproof letterbox as a security measure.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for external doors and letter boxes. Its policies do not detail the specification of any replacements.
  3. The evidence shows that on 16 February 2023 the landlord told the resident it had already dealt with the door issues and provided a stage 1 complaint response. It agreed to no letter box. We have not had sight of the original complaint which led to this earlier decision or its response.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2023. This was about being given two reasons why he could not choose his door colour, its procedure and contract with the manufacturer. He felt that the reasons were inconsistent, and he had been misinformed. He also felt it had ignored his safeguarding concerns. The landlord responded the same day explaining both reasons were correct. It said it considered his safeguarding concerns and agreed to no letterbox.
  5. The resident contacted us to assist him in raising a complaint on 4 October 2023. His complaint included the landlord’s handling of his request for no letter box, safeguarding, door colour and his request for a spy hole. Its stage 1 decision of28 November 2023 confirmed that it had agreed to no letter box even though it had not been provided with evidence of his safeguarding concerns. It repeated that he agreed to the door colour at the time. It said that he had accepted its explanations in its earlier responses. It refused the installation of a spy hole on the basis that potential damage could be caused to the new door.
  6. The landlord’s policies do not set out specifications for the provision of new doors. There was, therefore, no failure in its decision not to grant his request at the time as it had no obligation to provide one. Furthermore, it had not been provided with any evidence to support that this was an adaptation which it must consider on health grounds. It also did not have any evidence that there were safety or security issues to consider, other than the resident’s assertions.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 January 2024. It agreed to provide a spy hole and made an appointment for 8 January 2024 to fit this. It apologised for its poor communication.
  8. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication. Its agreement to fit a spy hole was also reasonable and demonstrates its commitment to resolve the matter and accommodate the resident’s request. Its actions overall indicated that it took his concerns seriously despite the lack of evidence on the reasons for the requests or specific obligation to agree to them.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
  2. When the resident tried to raise a second complaint in March 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its process at this point. However, we recognise that the nature of the issues raised differed from the original complaint and it did ask him to clarify the actual points of his complaint as it was unclear. We have no evidence that the resident did so.
  3. It is not disputed that there were delays with the landlord’s response to the third complaint which the resident raised through this Service. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The resident raised his complaint on 4 October 2023 via this Service. The landlord responded on 28 November 2023, 39 working days later. This is significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised.
  5. As stated previously, the date of the resident’s escalation request is unknown. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to its complaint handling, including its previous complaint responses of early 2023. This has affected our ability to effectively assess the timeline of events and suggests a record keeping failure. Clear record keeping ensures that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It is important the landlord considers measures it should take with respect to effective information management.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 4 January 2024. It apologised for the delay and its poor communication. It said it will learn from the complaint and the importance of clear communication and managing expectations.
  7. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its failings and it demonstrated some learning from the complaint. However, it failed to consider any detriment caused to the resident or offer redress. This, along with its record keeping is a service failure. We have made an order for compensation for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s door replacement, including the letter box and spy hole.
    2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of its compliance:
    1. Pay to the resident the sum of £50 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, for its delay in responding to the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.