Ombudsman raises concern with PA Housing after double severe maladministration finding

We have made two findings of severe maladministration for PA Housing in two different cases. In one case the landlord left a disabled resident with damp growing in the bedroom with the other case leaving the resident waiting 585 working days for a response to their complaint.

The two findings come just four months after the last severe maladministration finding for the organisation, leading us to raise concerns with the new leadership at the landlord in a meeting earlier this year.

Many of the failings, including leaving residents in unacceptable conditions for nearly two years and not handling complaints effectively, were issues highlighted in the previous case.

In the Case A, the landlord failed to carry out the necessary repairs for 18 months, including having to redo some of the works in relation to damp in the bedroom in which the resident’s child lost his possessions.

Given the resident’s situation disability and the adverse effect caused, the landlord’s multiple failings resulted in a severe maladministration finding that was not adequately remedied by the compensation offer.

The landlord took until its stage one complaint response, some two months after the first reporting of the repairs, to undertake a survey. This is despite the knowledge that the house had been deemed not suitable for the residents’ needs by an Occupational Therapist (OT). The delay in the inspection demonstrated an unreasonable lack of urgency.

Getting a quote for these works then took the landlord four weeks, in which the resident was not kept updated, causing her uncertainty and distress.

Five months after the initial repairs report, the works started but did not finish. An inspection took place to see what further works was outstanding but the resident was not informed about timescales and therefore her distress and uncertainty was unnecessarily prolonged.

Despite being chased by the resident and being informed of new leaks in the bedroom, there were months where no repairs were carried out at all. Records indicate that during this time the landlord still had not considered all of the recommendations from the OT report, including ramp access to the home.

There was no evidence that the landlord has effectively managed the works by agreeing a schedule and sequence of the works, or that there has been effective oversight of the works.

We also found maladministration for how the landlord handled a rehousing request, including whether the landlord has considered her vulnerabilities when assessing whether she should be rehoused.

We ordered the landlord to apologise, pay £2,500 in compensation and consider the resident’s claims over damaged possessions.

In Case B, we found severe maladministration for complaints handling after the landlord provided a stage two response 585 working days after the resident asked to escalate her complaint about a roof defect and some 570 working days outside the 15 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The excessive delay in dealing with the complaint meant that the landlord failed to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and missed opportunities to improve its relationship with the resident.

Further to this, there was no acknowledgement of, or apology for, the complaints handling delays in the landlord’s final complaint response. Neither did the landlord consider the impact that the delay had on the resident and what the landlord might do to address that, or how the landlord had sought to learn from the events that led to the delay.

We also found maladministration for its response to problems with the roof and balcony.

We ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,175 in compensation, inspect the home for any outstanding works and undertake complaints handling training for staff.

In all cases of severe maladministration, we invite the landlord to provide a learning statement.