Midland Heart Limited (202002627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002627

Midland Heart Limited

27 October 2021

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 resident complained about the landlord’s:

Handling of his stay in its supported living accommodation.
Response to his complaint and request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is vulnerable on account of a health condition and has a learning difficulty (dyslexia). His complaint centres on the time he was a licensee of the landlord from October 2019 to August 2020, having referred himself to the local authority as homeless and been referred to the landlord’s supported housing scheme. He lived at three temporary supported living scheme hostels operated by the landlord. It appears at each hostel he was provided with a room (with bed/fridge/wardrobe) with use of a shared kitchen, lounge and bathroom. Each could be occupied for a period of up to three months, with a possible further six month extension depending on needs. As the Ombudsman understands it, the landlord did not have staff based on site.
Terms of Licence to Occupy: Under the terms of the licence the resident was required to pay a weekly/monthly licence charge comprising an occupation and a service charge. The landlord was responsible for insuring the structure of the property but not the fixtures, fittings or the resident’s personal belongings. The resident was responsible for replacing, repairing and making good any damage to the property caused by himself or his visitors. The licence stated the resident must report promptly any repairs for which the landlord was responsible.
Scope of investigation: In bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident also raised issues with respect to his subsequent property (Property 4) to which he had moved as a secure tenant. This involved his report of a rat infestation, mould, leaks and a lack of insulation. [It would appear the resident has now left Property 4 in April 2021 and is no longer in social housing.] As that complaint had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process it did not come within the Ombudsman’s remit. Consequently, those complaints in relation to Property 4 do not form the subject matter of this investigation.
Property 1: The resident lived at Property 1 between 15 October 2019 and 8 November 2019. He left because the scheme was closing. It would appear that on 23 October 2019 the resident emailed the landlord about rent arrears, support staff, leaks and mould in his shower. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this email from either party or seen any response from the landlord. A ‘room check’ by the landlord on 26 October 2019 and 2 November 2019 found ‘no issues’.
Property 2: The resident lived at Property 2 between 8 November 2019 and 31 March 2020. It appears the landlord received a report from the resident on 5 December 2019 that his fridge had not been cleaned prior to his moving in, that his curtains were in disrepair and needed replacing and of his concerns about his rent arrears. The landlord’s record notes its officer accepted the curtains needed replacing and advised it would order a replacement but that this could take a couple of weeks. It also apologised for not having cleaned the fridge as it should have done. Its record notes room checks on 12 and 19 December 2019 and 9 January 2020 noted no damp or mould.
On 28 January 2020 the landlord’s records note the resident was concerned someone had been in his room, but its investigation found no staff had a key and there had been no forced entry. The landlord advised the resident to request a lock change. It appears he did so on 29 January 2020 and the lock was replaced on 18 February 2020.
The landlord’s records show he also reported a fault with an electric heater switch on 29 January 2020 and that the resident was without heating. An emergency 24 hour repair was raised the same day but, when attending, the repairs team were unable to gain access and completed the repair on 31 January 2020.
On 4 February 20209 there is a note which indicates the landlord received an email from the resident raising concerns.[This email has not been provided.]
On 12 February 2020 the landlord’s records note it completed an emergency repair for the communal light, reported that day, but it appears this subsequently went out again and a repair was completed on 18 February 2020, with the delay being down to awaiting a spare part.
Stage 1 complaint: Between 12 – 24 February 2020 the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord about the condition and cleanliness of Property 2 and its impact on his wellbeing. In summary, he complained:
1. about the fridge having not been cleaned.
2. he had had no reply to his report of mould and a broken light in his bathroom.
3. his arrears were the result of his housing benefit not being paid by the Council and he wanted an explanation of the fluctuating amount.
4. he had had no response to his complaint that his privacy had been breached by lack of a shower curtain and by staff entering his room.
5. despite reporting, his wardrobe rail had not been fixed; his curtains not replaced; his door lock not replaced; the front door lock not fixed.
6. he had only just been contacted about his report of a faulty electrical socket; and had also been left without communal lighting for five days.
7. since being in the temporary accommodation he had not been visited by a support worker and although he did not need this he had been told to expect one.
On 19 February 2020 a room check noted no damp or mould. On 2 March 2020 the landlord’s record indicates it ascertained housing benefit was in payment but that as of 25 February 2020 arrears were £158.60 because no service charge had been paid.
Informal complaint response: On 7 March 2020 the landlord’s independent living manager wrote to the resident in response to his complaint:
1. Rent concerns/fridge/curtains – She said she had received his complaint on 5 December 2019 and spoke with him the following day. She had explained that the property was being repurposed and he would be made an offer of a move if his rent account was up to date. She had apologised for the fridge not having been cleaned. She noted he had rehung his curtains and although she had said she would order new ones and he would be contacted, this had not been done.
2. Unauthorised access of room – When visiting him on 28 January 2020 he said he had raised a complaint about this. While staff had confirmed they had no key he had not accepted this. She had told him to request a lock change, and that this was fitted on 18 February 2020.
3. Faulty electric heater socket – This was reported as an emergency repair and attended on 29 January 2020, but as contractors could not get access, this was rearranged and completed on 31 January 2020.
4. Communal lighting – He had said this was broken for 5 days. She explained that despite its weekly checks, as the site was unstaffed it was reliant on residents’ reports. The fault was reported on 12 February 2020 and resolved the same day; and repaired again on 16 February 2020.
5. Front door – This was put through as an emergency repair and resolved within the hour. [This concerned the main front (fire) door locking behind him after entering.]
On 30 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report his ongoing concerns about the condition of the property (and other matters). This was referred for a response and the landlord told the resident if he had not had a phone call by the following day he should call back and it would be escalated as a complaint. [The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of a return call or subsequent escalation.] He left the property on 31 March 2020.
Property 3: From 31 March 2020 to 24 August 2020 the resident was at Property 3, before moving on to a secure tenancy at one of the landlord’s general needs properties (Property 4). [He has now left that property.] On 1 April 2020 the landlord’s record notes the resident called to report he had no fridge or cooker. On 10 April 2020 the support worker called the resident for a wellbeing check.
On 14 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord about rent arrears and to report he had had no laundry facilities for two weeks or a hob cooker or freezer. On15 April 2020 he reported a broken fridge/freezer, and missing curtains. The same day the landlord delivered a fridge/freezer and noted he had done his washing. The following day the landlord delivered a small cooker and shower curtain and when its support officer checked with him on 17 April 2020 he reported he was okay.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord made a wellbeing call to the resident. The record then notes on 3 June 2020 that it had contacted the resident but on three occasions he had refused to complete a ‘risk and needs’.[The purpose or relevance of this is not known.]
By 8 July 2020 the resident had emailed the landlord complaining of a rent arrears warning and reporting a broken bed. [A new bed was delivered on 23 July 2020.] The landlord explained the rent arrears were the result of delayed housing benefit payments. The resident also reported feeling unsafe as a result of the suspicious behaviour of people outside the property. The landlord advised him to call the police about any antisocial behaviour by people other than residents or their visitors.
Meanwhile, on 3 July 2020 the resident contacted this Service, unhappy with the condition of the three properties and the landlord’s response. This Service referred his concerns to the landlord and it registered the matter as a formal complaint. [If unable to resolve a complaint informally, the landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a Stage 1 investigation, the outcome of which it aims to report within 10 working days.]
Stage 1 complaint response: On 28 August 2020 the landlord responded to the individual aspects of the resident’s complaint:
1. Moving – It apologised it had not made clear at the outset that he would need to move so soon from Property 1, but the scheme there was closing and so it offered him Property 2. The scheme there was due to close in April 2020, so he had had to move again, to Property 3.
2. Condition of Property 1 – It apologised if he had not found the room to standard, but the room was always cleaned prior to letting and checked for repairs. It had no record of him having raised reports to its support staff at the time and owing to the time that had since elapsed it was unable to investigate further.
3. Condition of Property 2 – including no fridge; missing curtains; damp and mould in bathroom; lights in communal area; broken bed; fault with front door; cooking facilities; worn carpet; and laundry facilities

Fridge – Its officer had apologised for the fridge not having been cleaned.

Curtains – These had been present but apologised they had not been hung correctly. [The resident had then rehung them himself.]

Electric switch repair – A contractor attended the day he had reported it on 29 January 2020, but he was not in and so it was fixed on 31 January 2020. [This was registered as an emergency repair.]

Unauthorised room access – Although it conducted weekly room checks for health and safety reasons, it had no spare key for his room and confirmed no one had accessed it. It had agreed on 29 January 2020, the day he had reported the access, to change the [bedroom] lock and this was completed on 18 February 2020 within its 28 day service response time

Communal light – It had addressed the lighting fault the same day he reported it on 12 February 2020. [The landlord registered this as an emergency repair.] A further repair was completed on 16 February 2020. [The lights had apparently gone off the day after first being fixed and parts were awaited.]

Mould in bathroom – He had only raised this in his complaint but not to its staff during their monthly room checks, and these checks found no evidence of damp or mould in the bathroom.

Front door – Its staff were not onsite daily and were reliant on issues being reported. A repair resolved the fault on 11 March 2020, the same day it was reported. [The landlord registered this as an emergency repair attended to within the hour and it found the door had been double opened from the outside, setting the latch, and that this was rectified with no other issues.]

Wardrobe – It apologised he had been inconvenienced by the fact that despite him reporting a missing wardrobe rail it had failed to replace it.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB) – Although he had said in his complaint that he had suffered ASB while at Property 2 it had no record of him having raised this with staff at the time and asked if he had evidence of having done so to enable it to consider.

Property 3 – It explained his need to move properties was the result of closing many of its supported living schemes. It had written to him on 5 August 2020 about this and his housing options and asked that he engage with it so if could offer him appropriate support. It addressed specific aspects in relation to the condition of the property:

Bathroom curtains missing – It would not put curtains in a bathroom but for additional privacy it had, on 16 April 2020, provided a shower curtain.

No fridge – It apologised this was only provided on 15 April 2020, two weeks after he had moved in.

No cooker – There should have been a tabletop cooker provided but accepted it did not deliver one until 16 April 2020.

Broken bed – A new bed base and mattress was delivered on 23 July 2020.

Wardrobe door missing / worn carpet – It would inspect both items and identify a solution.

Bathroom mould/water leak – Its contractor would attend within 14 days to treat the mould but was still awaiting details from him about the leak so it could raise a repair. [Regarding the mould the landlord has said an inspection had noted there “…may be a bit…” but confirmed no mould treatment was ultimately carried out.]

Laundry – It noted his concern at being able to do laundry only once a week. It explained this was as per its agreement with the building from which his property was annexed, as that building was for female residents who needed to know when this was happening. It asked that he let his support worker know if he needed additional laundry so it could consider this.

Rent arrears – It was sorry if its automated rent arrears letters caused him concern but noted its rent team and rent team manager had spoken to him about this and that he should contact them if he wished to discuss further.
New tenancy – With respect to his wish to be rehoused it noted he would be signing a new secure tenancy on 25 August 2020.
It upheld his complaint, apologised for the difficulty in having to move homes without the additional issues he had experienced. It awarded him £100 compensation for inconvenience and said it was taking action to resolve the issues. [This compensation was declined by the resident.]

Stage 2 review request: The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s request for escalation, although it appeared he remained unhappy with the compensation; disputed his arrears; and was unhappy with the landlord’s delayed complaint responses. [Under its complaints procedure the landlord undertakes to provide its Stage 2 review response within 20 working days.]
Prior to issuing its final response, the landlord’s record indicates its review found the accommodation should not have been let in the condition it was, some of the buildings were dated, and that pre-void checks may not have been completed. It found the resident ought not to have been moved so many times. It considered it could take more learning from the complaint were it still involved in the supported living schemes.
Stage 2 review response: On 27 October 2020 the landlord provided its final response. It said although it no longer operated many of the supported living schemes it had taken on board the resident’s comments regarding repairs, property conditions and its staff’s previous responses. It apologised that it had been a long and difficult time for him and having reviewed the compensation it offered him an additional £70 for its overall service failure, in addition to its previous £100 award for inconvenience.
Stage 2 follow up response: Following the resident’s referral of his complaint to this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2021, explaining it had previously upheld his complaint about its overall service and his experience at the time and wanted to fully resolve his complaint. Taking the separate aspects of his complaint it explained:
1. Missing bathroom window curtains (Property 3) – It understood his privacy was important and had requested a shower curtain for the window. He had moved in on 31 March 2020; reported it 15 April 2020 and it was delivered 16 April 2020.
2. Time taken for fridge to be delivered – Accepted delay from him moving in 31 March 2020 and fridge being delivered 15 April 2020. Appreciated he would have been limited as to amount of shopping he would have been able to store during this time.
3. Absence of cooking facilities – He had reported this on 1 April 2021, a small cooker was ordered and delivered on 16 April 2021. Appreciated he would have been limited as to what he was able to cook during this time.
4. Broken bed – He had reported this to its rent team on 8 July 2020, and a new bed was delivered on 23 July 2020. Accepted it should have checked this before he moved in and took the time it did to be delivered.
5. Missing wardrobe door – Acknowledged this had been missing when he moved in and neither repaired nor replaced while there.
6. Worn carpet – It had decided not to replace the carpet prior to him moving in as the scheme at the property was to close soon after he moved in. It had, however, asked that the carpet be inspected to ascertain if it could be improved by cleaning but he had moved out before that was actioned.
7. Bathroom mould/leak – Monthly and weekly room checks recorded no damp or mould, but once reported it ought to have completed a course of treatment.
8. Laundry facility only once a week – Property 3 was annexed off a main building housing female only residents hence an informal agreement between himself and staff to only access laundry facilities once a week to ensure residents were aware he was there. Accepted this restriction would have been inconvenient.
9. Arrears letters – His arrears were caused by late payment of housing benefit, which automatically generated arrears letters. It noted its rent team manager had looked into it/supported him and that he had cleared any arrears prior to moving to Property 4.
10. Appreciated his frustration at the persistent problems and his having to move three times, resulting in inconvenience and possibly also moving costs. It apologised for the time taken to send him a response.
11. It had reviewed its earlier compensation offer and revised it to an award of £505 comprising: £70 delays; £100 inconvenience; £35 bathroom window; £50 cooking facilities; £50 not able to store clothing; £50 broken bed; £50 worn carpet; and £100 towards moving costs.
In November 2021 the resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that although it has acknowledged and accepted all elements of the resident’s complaint as service failure, the resident declined its compensation offer, in part because it did not cover the cost of his repeated moves. It said it had referred the matter to its insurers to consider what amount would be appropriate as the amount indicated by the resident was more than could be considered under its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has not been told the outcome.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that following the resident’s complaint it has stepped away from providing supported accommodation, but that it has taken on board the resident’s comments to help improve its services.

Assessment and findings

It should be explained at the outset that this investigation has been hampered by the incomplete information and records provided by the landlord. In order to reach its decisions the Ombudsman is reliant on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties. In the absence of documentary evidence to support either account, it has been necessary for the Ombudsman to rely on the accounts provided by the parties with reference to any supporting documentation where it has been made available.
That is less than ideal. The Ombudsman has an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. The Ombudsman has requested specific information from the landlord in the course of its investigation which it has not provided and as a result the Ombudsman has been unable to establish a full picture of what has occurred in this case. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, that it is able to provide a comprehensive audit trail of its actions, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
The lack of information is particularly apparent with regard to the resident’s stay in Property 1. Although there is a note that he had emailed about certain issues while at the property, the Ombudsman has not been provided with specific detail as to what those concerns related and what, if any response the landlord made to that. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman notes that it was open to the resident to submit a formal complaint at that point if he was unhappy with any response to his reports and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that he did so. But the landlord did subsequently (in its Stage 1 response) apologise for the fact that it had not given him notice of how short his stay at the property would be. The Ombudsman considers the fact of the short stay and lack of notice would have been understandably upsetting and disruptive for the resident.
Turning to Property 2 and 3, the resident’s complaint was centred on the condition of the properties, the lack of essential facilities, and the landlord’s response to his repair requests. The landlord has accepted it failed to ensure the adequate condition of the properties both in terms of repair, facilities (fridge, cooker, bathroom curtain), or cleanliness (fridge). It has not, however, provided an explanation for its service failure.
In determining what went wrong and why, the Ombudsman would ordinarily consider the landlord’s procedure for checking void properties prior to reletting, its system for its regular ‘room checks’ and its records in relation to these. It would then be able to establish what should have been done, and if not why not, and the lessons to be learnt from this to prevent it happening again in the future.
Although the landlord’s records reference ‘room checks’ having been conducted, the landlord has failed to provide details of what a room check entailed or the records of its rooms checks for the resident’s properties. Although its Stage 1 response explained it always cleaned accommodation prior to letting and checked for repairs, it has provided no evidence of this. It has provided details of what its general void check prior to reletting a property would entail (although not specifically in relation to the resident’s properties) but these are focused primarily on health and safety issues such as gas and electrical installation, condition and operation of the structure of the property, including its windows, ceiling and floors and plumbing. These void checks – perhaps other than the electrical socket fault – were not relevant to the nature of the resident’s concerns. Nevetheless, on any reasonable measure the Ombudsman considers the properties ought not to have been let to the resident with broken, missing or unhygienic items and the landlord appears to have accepted as much.
Having let the properties in a less than acceptable condition, the landlord ought then to have done what it could to at least mitigate the impact of its original service failure on the resident. Its failure at one point to provide the resident with fridge and cooking facilities for approximately two weeks, in the Ombudsman’s view, will have exacerbated, not mitigated the impact on the resident.
A further appropriate way to help mitigate the impact would have been for the landlord to have identified the need for action with respect to certain issues during the course of its room checks. There is no evidence that it did so or that the room check itself was intended for this purpose.
The landlord was, however, obliged to respond to the resident’s subsequent repair requests in accordance with its repairing obligation. For his part, the resident complied with his obligation to promptly report a repair to the landlord as and when identified. For the landlord’s part, the Ombudsman has had regard to whether, when reported, the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair request was an appropriate one.
The evidence indicates that when the resident reported a fault or repair requiring an emergency 24 hour callout the landlord responded appropriately. The resident’s report of the faulty electrical socket and the front door’s locking mechanism would fall within the category of emergency repair. Under the landlord’s publicly available service standards, this required a response within 24 hours. The evidence indicates that when an emergency repair could not be resolved within 24 hours this was either the result of awaiting spare parts (ie communal lighting) or being unable to access the property on account of the resident not answering his phone (as with the electrical socket). On both those occasions the resulting delay amounted to 2 – 3 days before the repair was eventually completed. Although not desirable, the Ombudsman does not consider the delay of a few days to have been significant nor the result of service failure on the part of the landlord.
In so far as the condition of the properties was concerned, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s response to the resident’s non-emergency repair requests. This included the wardrobe rail, wardrobe door, broken bed, curtains, and mould. Although the landlord has not provided information in relation to its repairs policy, it did refer in its Stage 1 response to its obligation to respond to a repair within 28 days. The Ombudsman has therefore had regard to this and what it would consider to be a reasonable response in all the circumstances of the case.
Despite the resident having raised the issue of the missing wardrobe rail at Property 2 and missing wardrobe door at Property 3 his reports were not addressed by the landlord and his having to live without a fully functioning wardrobe at either property was understandably frustrating and inconvenient for him. As was being without a new bed (to replace the broken one) for approximately two weeks. And while the resident had himself rehung his curtains after having reported their disrepair, the landlord failed to follow through on its undertaking to replace them. As the Ombudsman sees it, although the resident had attempted to rectify the problem with the curtains by rehanging them, the fact that the landlord had said it would order new ones indicates it considered replacement curtains to be necessary. Consequently, its failure to do so would have been a further source of inconvenience and frustration for the resident.
More importantly perhaps, the resident considered there to be evidence of mould in his bathroom at both Properties 2 and 3 and reported this to the landlord. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of a response from the landlord to the resident’s report of this at Property 2 and has confirmed no mould treatment was carried out. With respect to Property 3, it appears that having raised the issue, the landlord conducted some form of inspection and found evidence of some mould. It then failed to make good on its undertaking to carry out a treatment for this. This failure, together with its earlier lack of response to the issue at Property 2 indicates to the Ombudsman an overall failure by the landlord to treat the issue with due seriousness and will have compounded the resident’s sense that his concerns were not being heard.
Moving on from repairs, the landlord has accepted that the fridge at Property 2 ought to have been cleaned, but had not been. It also accepted it ought to have provided a fridge, cooker and shower curtain at Property 3, hence it subsequently ordering such. But this still meant the resident was without these facilities for approximately two weeks, which would have been of considerable inconvenience for him.
As to whether the resident’s weekly access to laundry facilities was unreasonably restrictive, the Ombudsman notes this had been arranged for valid reasons by the landlord and although inconvenient, a fact acknowledged by the landlord, the Ombudsman does not consider the level of inconvenience to have necessitated the landlord finding an alternative arrangement in the absence of the resident himself pursuing the matter further.
Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that the landlord’s checks of the properties prior to the resident moving in, in whatever form those checks took, were not sufficiently comprehensive or rigorous to ensure Properties 2 and 3 were let to the resident in a fair and reasonable condition. It was then slow to respond to some of the resident’s non-emergency repair requests, and failed to respond adequately to others (ie mould, wardrobe). Having been responsible for this cumulative failure, the Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to have taken the opportunity accorded by its complaints procedure to appropriately acknowledge its failures and provide the resident with reasonable redress for this.
The Ombudsman’s review of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, however, shows that aspects of its complaint handling further aggravated the stress and inconvenience he had already experienced in being moved consecutively to accommodation of insufficient condition. The Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable and in accordance with its complaints procedure that the landlord attempt initially to informally resolve the complaint with its response in March 2020. This response appropriately summarised its action taken on the complaint at that point, including its investigation of whether there had been unauthorised access of his room, acknowledging a degree of service failure for which it apologised. Although there is evidence the resident raised further issues in the following months, despite being told he could escalate his complaint, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence he did so at that time.
Until, that is, July 2020 when he first referred his complaint via this Service to the landlord for a formal response. But it then took almost two months (3 July – 28 August 2020) for the landlord to provide its Stage 1 response. That delay was considerably outside the 10 working days the resident was entitled to expect under its complaints procedure. Furthermore, by this stage the resident was complaining about issues in relation to his next property – Property 3 (including his report of mould, and there being no fridge or cooker) – in respect of which the landlord was acknowledging yet more service failure. Despite this acknowledgement, the landlord failed, in the Ombudsman’s view, to give adequate consideration to the issue of redress. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation failed significantly short of what was appropriate for the extent of its service failures and the stress and inconvenience this had caused the resident.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord then had an opportunity to reassess its offer at Stage 2. In the event though, the landlord increased its offer to just £170 which, in the Ombudsman’s view still fell considerably short of providing the resident appropriate tangible recognition of the impact on him of its service failures.
It was not until May 2021, after the resident had referred his complaint once again to this Service that the landlord revisited its offer of compensation for stress and inconvenience. Firstly, it ought not to have been necessary for the resident to have escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman in order to get the landlord to focus on what compensation was specifically due for the individual aspects of its service failures. While the landlord’s (follow up) response in May 2021 did provide this breakdown, it still resulted in an offer (£505) which fell short of redressing the impact on the resident of its service failures.
As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord’s offer of compensation ought to have taken account of the cumulative impact on a vulnerable resident of its service failures. In particular, the fact that the resident had been moved between three properties in the course of ten months. On each occasion, he had had to raise with the landlord the condition of the accommodation, and despite doing so matters had not always been resolved (ie mould, wardrobe) or he had been left waiting for essential items (ie fridge, cooker, curtains). It is evident that the resident found the condition of the accommodation upsetting and his having to repeatedly raise the issues with the landlord frustrating and inconvenient. All of which was compounded by the landlord’s delayed complaint handling and failure to sufficiently consider redress during the course of his complaint, which he then had to escalate to this Service. None of which ought to have been necessary had the landlord gave the issue adequate consideration from the outset, and was clearly inconvenient and disappointing for the resident, particularly in light of his dyslexia.
The Ombudsman recognises compensation for stress and inconvenience being considered here is distinct from what appears to have been a claim by the resident for damages/compensation to the landlord’s insurers for, amongst other things, costs associated with his repeated moves.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any detailed information in relation to this, but the landlord’s referral to its insurers was not unreasonable. In his complaint the resident has also referred to the impact of the service failures on his mental wellbeing and physical health. A determination of causation between what happened and the resident’s health is not for the Ombudsman to determine, but for those professionally qualified to assess medical matters such as this. The Ombudsman does not know if the resident’s claim to the landlord’s insurers included an element of personal injury, but that would be the appropriate route for the resident to take if he wished to pursue that aspect of his claim.
Finally, although the landlord no longer runs the accommodation schemes that were the subject of the resident’s complaint, it has explained that it has still looked to take learning from what went wrong in this case. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to have done so as the importance of an effective checking system to ensure accommodation is clean and free of repair needs prior to re-letting is relevant to its other areas of operation. In learning from the complaint in this way the landlord can help prevent a recurrence of some of the problems experienced by the resident in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s stay in its supported living accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord failed to ensure the accommodation it let to the resident (Properties 2 and 3) was of a sufficient standard so as to not immediately necessitate his having to request essential items and repairs; and other than for emergency repairs, its response to his routine repair requests fell below a reasonable standard. The Ombudsman finds that having to raise repair requests and being without essential facilities caused the resident stress and inconvenience which has yet to be sufficiently recognised.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably delayed at Stage 1 and it failed throughout the complaints process to give adequate consideration to reasonable redress for the stress and inconvenience to the resident of its service failures in both its handling of his stay in its accommodation and failures in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £800 compensation for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s stay in its accommodation.*
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.*

[ * These payments are in place of the landlord’s offer of £505 which was declined by the resident.]

Conduct a review of its record-keeping in order to identify the failures which resulted in it being unable to provide the information specifically requested by the Ombudsman in this case. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with written confirmation of the outcome of its review and expects the review to include the identification of any need for further guidance and training to staff.
Write to the resident (and copy in the Ombudsman) to explain the lessons it has learnt from his complaint and what it will now do differently in order to help avoid the risk of accommodation being let with outstanding repairs and/or in an unclean condition.

Recommendations

If not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord notify the resident of the outcome of his claim to its insurers, with a full explanation of its decision, or – if appropriate – notify him of any further information it requires from him in order to assess his claim.