Worthing Homes Limited (202403697)

Decision
Case ID	202403697
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Worthing Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house owned by the landlord. He has mental health vulnerabilities. There was a house fire at the property in June 2023 which resulted in significant damage to the property. The resident was moved to temporary accommodation until the property was ready for his return. The resident’s complaint involves events prior to the house fire of ASB and issues relating to the landlord’s handling of the house fire including the landlord’s communications throughout the events.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The house fire including associated expenses, repairs, and communications.
   3. The resident’s reports about damaged personal possessions.
   4. The resident’s request to stay at the temporary accommodation.
   5. The repossession of the property.
   6. Conduct of staff and the resident’s report of landlord discrimination.
   7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
4. There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of communications relating to the house fire.
5. There was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the reports of damaged personal possessions.
6. There was no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request to stay at the temporary accommodation.
7. The landlord’s handling of the repossession of the property is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
8. There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the conduct of staff and the resident’s report of landlord discrimination.
9. There was reasonable redress in relation to the complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

10. Some of the issues raised by the resident have not been through the landlord’s formal complaints process. Where this applies, we have explained why certain aspects cannot be investigated.
11. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about damaged personal possessions by apologising and offering £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
12. The landlord dealt appropriately with the resident’s report of staff conduct issues, and there is no evidence to support the resident’s allegations of discrimination by the landlord.
13. The landlord identified failures in its communication. While it committed to improving its communications, it did not recognise the adverse impact caused to the resident.
14. The landlord identified delays in its complaint handling, apologised and put things right for the resident in its compensation offer.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 (including £200 already offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	16 January 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
1.The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in relation to its complaint handling failure as offered during the complaints process.
2.The landlord should provide the resident with advice on whether he can submit a claim via its public liability insurance for the resident’s reports of damaged personal possessions caused by the removal company.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
May 2024	On 10 May 2024 the resident made a complaint about several issues, including: The conduct of a member of staff Poor communications Alleged discrimination by the landlord Removal of possessions from the property after a fire The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024, addressing each point as follows: Staff conduct The landlord did not have a recording of the call in which the resident alleged a staff member was “rude” The staff member denied the allegation, and without the recording, the landlord could not investigate further It explained that previous issues with poor call quality had now been resolved A review of the staff member’s email correspondence confirmed that the tone and language used were consistently professional The landlord admitted that the complaint should have been investigated independently of the staff member involved and issued an apology for this oversight Communications The landlord reviewed email correspondence from July 2023 to May 2024 It stated that while there had been regular communication, outbound messages were limited and not always sent promptly The landlord acknowledged this issue and committed to improving communication in the future Damaged possessions (including carpets) The landlord advised the resident to submit a claim through his contents insurance for the damaged items, including carpets The landlord confirmed that the removal was not carried out by a professional removal company. It apologised for this and for any damage caused to the resident’s belongings Discrimination The landlord acknowledged some failures in how the complaint was handled but reassured the resident these were not related to his disability It recommended that any future discrimination complaints be investigated by the appropriate manager Rehousing The resident requested to remain in the temporary accommodation on a permanent basis The landlord accepted that the fire was not started deliberately but stated its position that the fire resulted from cannabis cultivation in the roof space Due to the seriousness of the incident, significant property damage, and safety risks to neighbours, the landlord intended to seek possession of the property It considered this response reasonable and proportionate For these reasons, the request to remain in temporary accommodation was refused The landlord recognised its failures in handling the issues and offered him £300 compensation as follows: £200 damaged belongings £100 complaint handling delays
May 2024 to July 2024	The resident escalated his complaint around 29 May 2024, and the landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 2 July 2024, stating: Staff conduct The landlord was satisfied with how it handled the staff conduct complaint at stage 1 It confirmed that it had acknowledged and apologised for its failures Rehousing The landlord reiterated its position that the case would proceed to court for possession of the permanent home After consulting its solicitor, it confirmed that remaining in the temporary accommodation was not possible. Carpets/floor coverings The landlord had advised the resident to claim for damaged items through his contents insurance It acknowledged that its communication on this issue could have been clearer As the resident did not have contents insurance and the costs were not covered under building insurance, the landlord agreed to replace the floor coverings once all repair work was completed The landlord apologised for the failures it had identified throughout the events
Referral to the Ombudsman December 2024	The resident referred the complaint to us due to his dissatisfaction with various aspects of the landlord’s response in relation to: Insufficient compensation for damaged items Landlord communication remained poor Concern of previous issue with the neighbour Repair issues including water pressure, kitchen installation Utility bill issues relating to the move

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

15. The resident has raised his reports of ASB to the landlord. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this aspect of the complaint through its complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had chance to put things right first.
16. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, he should first raise his concerns with the landlord through its internal complaints procedure.

Complaint	The handling of the house fire including associated expenses, repairs, and communications
Finding	Service failure

17. The resident told us his health has been impacted by the landlord’s handling of the events referred to in this complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal health claim for any impact caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any impact and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can however decide if the landlord should pay compensation for any landlord failures causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
18. The tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities of both the landlord and the resident. In the event of a fire, it is the landlord’s responsibility to make a claim under its building insurance policy. This insurance claim falls outside the scope of our investigation because it is not considered a housing activity. However, we can review and assess the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout these events.
19. The resident complained to the landlord about poor communication, particularly regarding updates on repairs following the fire. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in May 2024, stating that it had reviewed its correspondence from July 2023 to May 2024. It acknowledged that, although there had been regular communication, there were delays and its responses were reactive rather than proactive. The landlord apologised for these failures and committed to improving communication in the future.
20. While it was positive that the landlord recognised its shortcomings, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident, who was often left uncertain about the status of the property. This lack of recognition was inappropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
21. The landlord did not address the communication aspect of the complaint at stage 2, likely because the resident did not pursue this issue further. Nevertheless, the landlord had already acknowledged its communication failures but did not recognise the adverse impact these failures had on the resident. For these reasons, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation, given that the issues persisted for approximately 10 months. This amount is consistent with our compensation guidance where there has been adverse impact caused to the resident.

	The resident’s reports about damaged personal possessions
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The landlord’s repairs handbook advises tenants to obtain home contents insurance to protect their personal belongings. This position is also communicated on the landlord’s website. Additionally, the landlord partners with an insurance provider to offer contents insurance, giving tenants the option to take out cover with flexible payment instalments.
23. The resident asked the landlord to contribute towards the cost of his personal possessions damaged in the house fire. He also reported that the landlord’s removal company had caused damage to his furniture.
24. In its stage 1 response in May 2024, the landlord advised the resident to submit a claim through his contents insurance. This initial response to the report of fire-damaged items was appropriate.
25. The resident informed the landlord that he did not have contents insurance and escalated the complaint. In its stage 2 response in July 2024, the landlord reiterated that it was not responsible for replacing personal possessions damaged in the fire. It acknowledged, however, that its communication on this issue could have been clearer.
26. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord agreed to replace the floor coverings. This response demonstrated a human-centred approach, recognising the resident’s distressing circumstances. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably.
27. The landlord informed the resident that the company used for the removal was not a professional removal firm. It apologised for any damage caused to his belongings and awarded £200 compensation, covering both the damaged items and the distress and inconvenience experienced.
28. The extent of damage to the resident’s furniture is unclear. The landlord reported that the resident had provided photographs showing “minor scuffs, dirty marks, and general wear and tear”. The landlord told us that in these circumstances it would normally arrange cleaning and repairs of damaged items where possible. However, the resident had disposed of most of the damaged items, so it could not inspect them. As a result, the landlord agreed to pay £200 compensation, which it considered proportionate to the anticipated costs of cleaning, repairs, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
29. In these circumstances, while the landlord’s approach was reasonable, we cannot assess the level of compensation it offered for damaged items as we do not have the evidence. Neither would it be appropriate for us to investigate this aspect of the complaint as it is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the landlord’s public insurance. However, we recognise the landlord’s positive attempts to resolve the matter and for these reasons we have found reasonable redress in its offer of compensation in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
30. We have recommended that the landlord provide the resident with advice on whether he can submit a claim under its public liability insurance.

	Repossession of the property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

31. The resident has raised a complaint to us about the landlord’s handling of its decision to seek possession of the property. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this aspect of the complaint through its complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had chance to put things right first.
32. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, he should first raise his concerns with the landlord through its internal complaints procedure.

	The resident’s request to stay at the temporary accommodation
Finding	No maladministration

33. The landlord’s decant policy applies in situations where a property requires major works, demolition, or in emergencies where the property becomes uninhabitable.
34. The policy also addresses cases where a temporary decant may become permanent, for example, “if the extent of works required is so great that the landlord deems it appropriate to sell the property.” However, the landlord does not consider it appropriate to use the decant process as a way for tenants to move permanently for reasons other than those identified as grounds for decanting.”
35. The resident asked the landlord if he could remain in the temporary accommodation permanently, explaining that this would be better for him and his family due to ongoing neighbour issues at his original property. The landlord refused the request, stating that it intended to seek repossession of the permanent home because of cannabis cultivation. For this reason, it could not agree to the resident’s request.
36. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. In its stage 2 reply in July 2024, the landlord explained that it had consulted its solicitor and confirmed that, given the circumstances and its intention to seek repossession of his permanent home, it could not agree to the resident’s request.
37. The landlord informed the resident that the property was ready to move back into around mid-August 2024. It told him it would allow time to organise the move until 2 September 2024, giving him 3 weekends. The resident asked the landlord for more time, however the landlord refused the resident’s request. It is unclear on the reasons for the refusal so we cannot make a finding on whether the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the landlord does have wider resource implications in relation to managing empty homes and this along with the resident’s individual circumstances would need to be factored into its decision making in relation to the move.
38. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to stay at the temporary accommodation was appropriate and in line with its decant policy. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remain in the temporary accommodation.

	Conduct of staff and the resident’s report of landlord discrimination
Finding	No maladministration

Conduct of staff

39. The resident complained that a staff member was “rude” during a telephone call. The landlord investigated the complaint and confirmed that it had spoken to the staff member, who denied the allegation. It reviewed the written correspondence between the resident and the staff member and found the tone and professionalism to be appropriate. The landlord explained that it could not review the call itself because it was not recorded. The landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.

Report of landlord discrimination

40. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can decide whether a landlord failed to take account of its duties under the Equality Act and followed its own related policies and procedures.
41. It is unclear what the resident’s discrimination allegations were based on, however, he felt he was being unfairly treated based on his disability. It appears this related to the landlord initiating repossession proceedings on his permanent home.
42. The landlord informed the resident that it had not discriminated against him on the grounds of disability, and its response had been fair and proportionate in relation to its intention to seek possession of the property. It acknowledged a complaint-handling failure, noting that any complaint involving discrimination should have been managed by a senior manager, however, it was clear that this did not affect its overall finding.
43. We have reviewed the resident and landlord communications and all evidence presented to us. We have seen no evidence to support the resident’s claim of landlord discrimination. Overall, the landlord’s response to the conduct of staff and landlord discrimination was appropriate. We have therefore found no maladministration.

	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

44. The resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 14 May 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. This did not comply with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which requires landlords to log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. The landlord recognised these delays, apologised, and offered the resident £100 compensation. We consider this an appropriate remedy to put things right.
45. The resident escalated his complaint, which the landlord acknowledged around 29 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 July 2024, slightly exceeding the 20-working-day timeframe set out in the Code.
46. Overall, we consider that the landlord recognised its delays and provided reasonable redress by apologising and offering the resident £100 for its failures in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Communication

47. The landlord should review the complaint to identify and implement communication improvements alongside our Spotlight report on repair and maintenance – repairing trust May 2025).