Sanctuary Housing Association (202107321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107321

Sanctuary Housing Association

18 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handing of concerns raised by the resident since April 2021 about access to his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 17 June 2020. The property is a bungalow in the middle of a row of three properties. The property is attached on both sides and does not have its own front gate or driveway.
The entrance to the property is accessed through a shared path along the front of the terrace. The resident’s rear garden is accessed by a gated shared path to the side of a privately owned bungalow (referred to in this report as ‘Property A’) which runs through its garden to the property’s back gate. The bungalow (‘Property B’) on the other side of the property is owned by the landlord.
The tenancy agreement refers to ‘the property’ which it describes as meaning “the premises at the address… and includes any garden (but not any communal garden), garage, yard, outbuildings, balcony or other facility or amenity provided by the landlord for the tenant’s exclusive use”. It gives the resident possession and right to occupy the property and shows that he is responsible for keeping “the garden fences, walls or any other boundary structures and any driveway and paved area in good repair and condition and to replace where necessary”.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process where it is required to achieve a “swift and satisfactory resolution” at its front line resolution stage and respond within 20 working days at its final investigation stage. Its related procedure shows that a complaint may not be addressed through this recourse if it has already been considered under, and exhausted, its complaints process. It adds that, in these cases, the “customer will be advised that no complaint has been raised and they will be informed how their concerns or dissatisfaction will be handled”.
The landlord has compensation guidance that allows for staff to identify occasions where financial redress may be offered to a resident due to service failure. It shows that it will consider the impact on a resident, in terms of time, trouble and inconvenience caused, when assessing compensation.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman considered a previous related complaint under case reference 202102360 – this concerned a complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 31 March 2021. The Ombudsman determined on 14 December 2021 that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns over obstructed shared access pathways to the front and rear of the property. It found that the final complaint response “did not clarify the responsibilities of the involved parties with respect to ensuring shared access pathways were kept clear” and it failed to identify that “the issues were likely to reoccur”.
The Ombudsman made orders for the landlord to establish “where responsibility for clearing the shared access paths lies” and pay the resident the £300 compensation that had been proposed in its final complaint response.
The resident requested a review of this determination but the Ombudsman decided on 9 February 2022 that the request did not meet its criteria for a review to proceed. Part of the resident’s request related to evidence he advised he had forwarded to the landlord after its final complaint response and the Ombudsman decided that it could not review the landlord’s handling of this evidence as it had not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 11 February 2022, recommending that it liaise with the resident and raise a new complaint if necessary.
It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted, this report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.

Summary of Events

As referred to above, the landlord previously issued a final complaint response to the resident about his access concerns on 31 March 2021. It provided a copy of the land registry documentation and reviewed its handling of the matter from September 2020, concluding that:
1. it had told the resident in February 2021 that the shared access to the rear of his property was via a pathway at Property A and that access to the front of the property was via a shared pathway to the front of Property A and his property;
2. it was its responsibility as the resident’s landlord to ensure he had right of access;
3. it apologised and awarded £300 compensation for its failure to check, and resolve, the access issue during the void period before the resident’s tenancy began and for not immediately contacting the managing agents of Property A when he reported problems with access;
4. it acknowledged reports from the resident about his neighbour’s parking causing obstruction to the front of the property and confirmed that if the resident obtained permission from the local authority, it agreed for a driveway to be installed subject to the resident completing the works to certain standards and agreeing to maintain it in future.
The resident submitted expressions of dissatisfaction in early April 2021 about the handling of this complaint and these issues were reviewed already by the Ombudsman under case reference 202102360 (it was determined that there had been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint).
The landlord recorded that it contacted the managing agent of Property A on 1 April 2021, requesting an update following an earlier joint visit about clearance of the shared access pathway; it updated the resident accordingly that day. Further contact with both parties was noted on 8 April 2021 when the landlord advised that the agent was waiting for a quote for the works required.
The landlord recorded on 9-12 April 2021 that the resident had submitted photographs showing the neighbour parking inappropriately across a shared access path. It noted it raised this with the agent on 14 April 2021. Similar emails were received from the resident on 15-19 April 2021 and the landlord again raised the matter with the agent on 19 April 2021.
The landlord noted contact from the resident on 28 April 2021 and that he reported that the neighbour was still parking inappropriately a few times each day but he had given up taking photographs. He raised concern that the agent had no intention of clearing the shared access path and queried if the landlord had a date when it would start legal action or if right of access through Property B could be opened up.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 April 2021 – it said that this was in response to emails from him of 15-19 April 2021. It advised that the matter of neighbours obstructing access to the front of the property had been raised with the letting agent who said they would need timed and dated photographs “showing the wheel of your neighbours car parked on the shared access path”. It added that, with regard to rear access, the agent was “awaiting the outcome of some quotations they have requested” and that the matter had already exhausted its complaints process.
The landlord recorded receipt of more photographs from the resident on 3, 7 and 8 May 2021. It noted that it wrote to him on 10 May 2021, advising that the agent had said they could not accept the photographs unless they had a date and time stamp on them so they could assess the number of incidents occurring.
The landlord noted that it chased the agent on 11 May 2021 for an update on clearance of the shared access path.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 May 2021, confirming he held the required photograph details on his phone and asking when it would take legal action.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2021. It advised that it would not take legal action as it maintained that the resident had reasonable access to the rear of his property across the garden of Property A, according to the neighbour and their agent, and that it had to consider the financial impact of taking legal action. It offered support if the resident encountered difficulty with access and added that it would not take legal action about the way the neighbours parked their vehicle as the occasional encroachment onto a footpath was minimal and there was access using other paths.
The resident contested the landlord’s findings on 18 May 2021. He queried if the member of staff had seen the access herself and raised concerns on the grounds that:
1. the access referred to by the landlord was not legal as it was not the one in the deeds;
2. the access involved negotiating a step, chickens and a dog;
3. the landlord’s position appeared to now be different to that it reached in its final complaint response;
4. the landlord had told him to get date stamped photographs but was now saying these were also being rejected;
5. he wanted a different housing manager to deal with his tenancy.

In a separate email the same day, he asked for a member of the legal team to liaise with him instead of the housing manager and pointed out the discrepancies between its recent comments and the March 2021 complaint response. He explained a fence had been erected in the past that blocked a previous shared access path through Property B and resolving this could be a quicker solution. He asked if this was a continuation of the same complaint or a new complaint.

The landlord responded to the resident on 19 May 2021. It clarified that the issue of a neighbour parking their vehicle on a shared access path had not been considered before and that its final complaint response had confirmed it should have checked the access issue during the void period but had made no recommendations.
A complaint was made by the resident on 19 May 2021 on the grounds that:
1. the landlord was again denying there was an issue with access despite the admissions made in its final complaint response;
2. the landlord had ‘fobbed off’ his suggestion regarding opening up access to a shared path through the garden of Property B;
3. due to a health issue, he needed a clear route without obstructions or steps so the landlord should work to clear the shared access path through Property A.
The officer who issued the landlord’s 31 March 2021 final complaint response wrote to the resident on 20 May 2021, advising that it seemed that the resident’s access issues were new obstructions so she would not intervene.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 20 May 2021. He asked it to pass an offer to the agent for him and the neighbour to clear the bushes from the shared access path. He explained that clear access would help him with moving his bin and invited more officers to visit the site so they could see the issues for themselves. He acknowledged that the vehicle issue to the front was not substantial but said the landlord should use his photographs to apply pressure to the agent.
The landlord replied further to the resident on 24 May 2021. The housing manager refused the request for a new member of staff on the grounds that the landlord’s position would not change and it had already changed officer once. It reiterated its previous comments about access being possible through Property A, added there was no shared access to his property across the rear of Property B and said it would await the Ombudsman’s opinion.
The resident asked the landlord on the same date who had been consulted on the decision to refuse a new housing manager and contested that there was a shared path through Property B (which was currently closed off). He added that he had put in a new complaint and he hoped this would change the landlord’s view. The resident wrote further on 25 May 2021, referring to photographs that he said showed the chicken feeders and a step which he said was unreasonable when the “legal access path” was blocked by bushes.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 May 2021, advising that it would await the Ombudsman’s decision on access to the rear of the property before considering further steps and confirmed it would be agreeable for the resident to discuss with his neighbour at Property A the clearance of a path.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2021. He said he had wanted it and the agent to authorise he and his neighbour clearing the path and explained that the Ombudsman was not looking at whether there was ‘reasonable access’ so it should not wait for a decision on this. He added that attached photographs showed an obstructed shared access path and a step and holes in the garden, demonstrating why the shared access path was needed.
The landlord recorded on 4 June 2021 that the resident had written to it thanking it for contacting the agent but reiterating that the landlord should be assisting him in getting access to the legal right of way rather than deciding what is or is not ‘reasonable access’.
The landlord noted receipt of further contact from the resident on 13 June 2021 and a complaint chaser from him on 18 June 2021.
The landlord’s internal emails show that an area manager (whom it had previously agreed in May 2020 would not be managing his communications) made a request on 21 June 2021 for a member of staff to contact the resident to find out which complaint he was talking about.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 June 2021, apologising that it had not directly responded to the form he submitted on 19 May 2021 but indicating it was now awaiting Ombudsman contact given the matter had already been considered through its complaints process. It added that there was a visit planned for 24 June 2021 to assess any work completed to clear the rear path.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same date, advising that this was a new complaint and that the member of staff who had responded should not be involved as it partly related to her actions.
The resident approached this Service on 22 June 2021, advising that his landlord was blocking his concerns from being investigated through the correct policies and procedures and the individual concerned in his complaint was answering it herself.
The landlord’s records show that the planned site visit occurred on 24 June 2021 and established that:
1. the area to the rear had been cleared but not completely with three wooden planters and leaves obstructing the shared access path plus hanging baskets;
2. the area to the front of Property A had not been attended to so was overgrown but the resident had access to the front of his property via a path outside Property B;
3. the resident had made ‘make shift’ steps to the front wall of his property so he could climb over with his shopping which he agreed to remove.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 June 2021, acknowledging he had written to the chair of its group board and that its director of customer experience would consider his correspondence.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 June 2021 – he raised concerns about two members of staff whom he suggested were discriminating against him.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 July 2021. It offered assurance that it was looking into improving its complaint handling service, summarised how it had processed his previous complaint and confirmed that a member of staff would continue to work with him and the neighbouring private owner.
The resident replied to the landlord on 2 July 2021, expressing dissatisfaction with how his previous complaint was handled and pointing to what he regarded as a systemic problem with complaint handling. He added that his new complaint of 19 May 2021 had been overlooked.
The landlord responded on 9 July 2021, advising that it had considered his recent comments but was not of the view that a full review should be undertaken given the Ombudsman was investigating. Nevertheless, it added that it would consider all of his emails and suggestions as part of its efforts to learn lessons.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 July 2021. He again asked for two members of staff to be removed from involvement with his tenancy and claimed that his submission of 19 May 2021 was a new complaint. He added that it was about the lack of progress after the March 2021 final complaint response and queried whether the landlord intended to log a complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2021. He said he had not heard from the previous members of staff he had been dealing with and suggested he had received little help from them. He added in separate correspondence that day that there had been no further progress in the rear garden (providing photographs to this effect).
The landlord replied to the resident on 3 August 2021. It advised that it was not appropriate for it to open a new complaint given the Ombudsman would be looking at the ‘full picture’ and the local housing team should continue working with him about the access and path issues.
The landlord recorded that it attended another site visit on 10 August 2021, wrote to Property A on 17 August 2021 and spoke to the resident on 26 August 2021 (when it noted that the resident reported no improvement and another site visit was planned for 8 September 2021).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2021, advising that he had attempted to use the path that evening but found obstacles in the form of hanging baskets, plants, a wooden cabinet, chicken mess and cables which would cause a problem with moving his bin and taking in deliveries. He wrote to the landlord’s board the following day, reiterating that staff had failed to understand that his current concerns were a new complaint and should be treated as such.
The landlord noted on 7 September 2021 that the resident requested a planned site visit be re-scheduled to 21 September 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2021, following its site visit that day, advising that it would look into ownership of the area at the bottom of the driveway of Property A (which kept being obstructed) and that it would follow up on the removal of hanging baskets and securing of plants. It also signposted him as to how he could obtain an occupational therapist assessment.
The landlord noted that it followed up with the resident on 1 October 2021 but he reported that no actions had been taken regarding the rear shared access path. The resident also reported that his neighbour had been walking across his path at the front of his property.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 8 October 2021 with continued discussion about the possibility of the resident getting his own access through the front wall. It recorded a report from the resident on 13 October 2021 of a disagreement he had with the neighbour about the shared access issues.
The landlord noted a site visit on 15 October 2021 that found the rear shared access path was fully cleared. The resident reported to the landlord the following day that hanging baskets had been removed and plants tidied so the path was now “just about acceptable”. He reiterated though that vehicles obstructing the front access were still a problem and that the neighbour’s guttering was blocked.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 19 October 2021 and said it would close the access issue now albeit it would review the situation in two weeks to check the path was still clear. A follow up visit on 11 November 2021 determined that the path was clear.
Subsequent records during November 2021 show that there was further contact about access to the front of the property, works being undertaken in the neighbouring property, alleged noise nuisance and a request from the resident for assistance with a dropped kerb and property move. The landlord later noted that there were follow-up discussions with the resident about these issues in December 2021-January 2022 and told this Service on 14 December 2021 that the path to the resident’s property was “completely clear front and back” and he was “regularly in communication with his housing officer”.
The landlord noted receipt of an email from the resident on 14 February 2022 where he asked what was happening with his ‘missing’ complaints. The landlord recorded that it responded on 16 February 2022, asking for details of the alleged missing complaints. The resident explained on the same date that he was referring to the complaint that he had been chasing it about during July 2021.
The landlord recorded further correspondence from the resident on 21 February 2022 where he reiterated that his concern was that, following the final complaint response, the landlord had reverted to the position it had taken at the initial complaint stage and failed to follow its own recommendations.
The landlord replied to the resident on 24 February 2022, advising that it would not accept further complaints on the access path issue as this had already been determined upon by the Ombudsman but it was willing to consider any concerns about issues that had arisen since the December 2021 determination.
The landlord noted a home visit on 28 February 2022, recording that shared access pathways were still all clear and accessible and a neighbour’s vehicle was on the driveway and not on any shared access path.
The landlord recorded that it received a further email from the resident on 3 March 2022 where he reiterated that his focus was its handling of new evidence he attempted to submit immediately after the March 2021 final complaint response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 and 9 March 2022, telling him that it remained of the view that it should not review any events that occurred prior to December 2021, offering to speak to him about this and asking what outcome he was seeking.
The landlord noted a follow-up call to the resident on 1 April 2022 – it was recorded that there were no further issues with access.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 13 April 2022, advising that it had not logged a new complaint from the resident since April 2021 as he had not shared any new specific concerns with it since the Ombudsman determined the previous complaint. It added that it was willing to log a complaint if the resident highlighted the specifics that required investigation.
Following communications with this Service during mid-May 2022, the landlord advised that it would investigate the resident’s concerns about the handling of the access path and parking issues since the previous complaint exhausted its process and apologised for its “oversight”.
The landlord’s records show that it met with the resident on 26 May 2022 but this was unsuccessful as it told him that it was only willing to look at the car parking issue. It subsequently confirmed to him on 31 May 2022 that it was looking at events since April 2021 but asked him to confirm what he wished to be included.
The resident supplied the landlord with a handwritten list of his complaint concerns on 1 June 2022.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails in mid-June 2022 regarding the scope of the landlord’s investigation with agreement that the complaint investigation would be suspended pending confirmation of the complaint subjects; the resident advised that the access path remained a problem due to his neighbour’s animals.
The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 24 June 2022 and he reported that a neighbour was using his pathway at the front of the property. He added in correspondence of 27 June 2022 that neighbours were walking across his property which made him feel “trapped psychologically” and he wanted the landlord to issue them a warning letter.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 June 2022, confirming it had written to his neighbour about refraining from using the pathway outside his property.
The resident approached this Service again during June 2022, explaining that his concerns were that:
1. the landlord gave conflicting advice about whether the vehicle issue was considered through its previous complaint investigation;
2. his complaint attempt of 19 May 2021 was overlooked;
3. the landlord’s May 2021 responses followed what its findings had been at the initial complaint stage rather than complying with the outcome of the final complaint response;
4. he suspected that staff who he had previously asked not to be involved in his tenancy were drafting the landlord’s responses;
5. the head of complaints had failed to assist during July 2021 to February 2022 and a complaint meeting in late May 2022 had been unsuccessful.
The landlord advised this Service and the resident on 11 July 2022 that it would log a new complaint but would not revisit matters that occurred prior to the March 2021 final complaint response. The resident provided the landlord with the same complaint points referred to in his June 2022 correspondence to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s records show that it met with the resident on 3 August 2022 to discuss the complaint.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 August 2022. It said it could not comment on the handling of the complaint that exhausted its process in March 2021 but concluded that:
1. it was preferable for local housing teams to investigate stage one complaints as they are better placed to do so but it would pass on the resident’s feedback as part of its wider complaints handling review;
2. it did not have access to the email he had referred to but, although the resident had asked for an area manager not to be involved in his tenancy, it was reasonable that members of staff consult with their managers;
3. there was a lack of evidence that members of staff were writing responses for colleagues to cover up who was actually responding to his complaints;
4. information was offered as to how online complaint forms were generally dealt with;
5. it offered for the local housing team to go through a mediation process with him to improve their relationship.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 and 11 August 2022 – he expressed continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that the initial complaint response was very short and had not answered all of the points on his list. He suggested in separate correspondence of 30 August 2022 that someone senior to director level should answer the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 September 2022, providing it with details of telephone conversations he said he had with the officer who issued the March 2021 final complaint response. He and the landlord also conducted a remote meeting on the same date.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2022. He reiterated the discrepancy between the landlord’s complaint responses in early 2021 in that it had initially said he had reasonable access but then confirmed that the shared access path should have been cleared.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 23 September 2022. It said that it could not assess matters related to the previous complaint (which exhausted its process on 31 March 2021), particularly as these had been considered by this Service, but concluded that:
1. it could not corroborate the resident’s allegation that other members of staff – instead of the officer who signed off correspondence – had been involved in complaint responses;
2. it agreed that it could have been more open to discussion with him about his ongoing access concerns after the end of the previous complaints process in March 2021;
3. it apologised if correspondence submitted by the resident in August 2021 had not been acknowledged;
4. it agreed, after reviewing correspondence exchanged between it and the resident during August 2021 to February 2022, that elements of the complaint could have been managed more effectively although it did not agree this had been deliberate;
5. its stance on “taking legal action to enforce the clearance of the shared path/access area did not change” as, although there were occasions where “objects presented access issues”, it was dealing with this through communication with his neighbour;
6. having listened to a recording, it agreed that some specific points raised in the complaint meeting on 3 August 2022 had not been addressed in the stage one complaint response and it would speak to the relevant manager accordingly;
7. it made a compensation offer of £250 in recognition of its failure to record his concerns as a complaint earlier and the time and trouble caused to him;
8. it also mentioned that it would work on a mediation proposal and would contact him about this further;
9. it was reviewing how it communicates at all stages of its complaints process and feedback such as that the resident had offered about clarification of the process and barriers caused by having “local teams investigate cases initially” were being considered as part of this process.
The resident replied to the landlord on 27 September 2022, asking that the £250 compensation award be paid into his rent account but expressing continued concern that most of the core aspects of his complaint were missing from the landlord’s final complaint response so he would escalate this further.
The resident reverted to this Service in October 2022, confirming he remained dissatisfied as:
1. the landlord had not directly addressed his specific complaint and had not shown evidence to support its conclusions;
2. the landlord was incorrect to say that the Ombudsman’s previous report had included any events after March 2021;
3. the access issue was not resolved in August 2021 as the landlord claimed because there was still the issue of the dog in his neighbour’s garden;
4. he was still concerned about the landlord’s approach to allow individuals to investigate complaints about themselves and for junior officers to investigate the actions of more senior colleagues.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

This Service has already assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and consideration of the substantive issue of access to the property up to 31 March 2021 so this investigation has not focused on these matters. However, the issue of access via the shared paths was still ongoing at the end of, and following, the landlord’s complaints process and so the resident continued to make reports over subsequent months.
The resident has alleged that some of his reports between April-May 2021 were new concerns and that the landlord should therefore have logged a new complaint when he escalated them. The resident attempted to raise a new complaint on 19 May 2021 and the record of contact between him and the landlord up to this point shows that the below new issues (that were not investigated through the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in March 2021) were indeed raised:
1. the resident’s requests from late April 2021 that the landlord open up a shared access point that went behind Property B;
2. the landlord’s decision in mid-May 2021 not to take legal action to enforce access through the shared path to the rear of Property A (which he said was contrary to its earlier findings in March 2021);
3. the resident’s reports from mid-May 2021 that there were hazards in him using the garden of Property A;
4. the landlord’s decision in mid-May 2021 that it would not act upon the minimal obstruction caused by the parking of vehicles outside the front of Property A;
5. the landlord’s assessment in mid-May 2021 that the resident had ‘reasonable access’ (which the resident again said was contrary to its earlier findings in March 2021).
Given these matters had not been part of the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in March 2021, it was inappropriate that the landlord failed to log a complaint in May 2021.
In mitigation, the issues being raised by the resident were part of the same substantive matter of access to the rear and front of his property and the landlord’s complaints procedures allow for it to reject concerns that have already exhausted its complaints process. However, it noted in its correspondence of 19 May 2021 that the resident had raised a ‘new issue’ and by the time it acknowledged the resident’s complaint attempt on 22 June 2021, the resident had reiterated that there were new issues, including:
1. the landlord’s refusal in late May 2021 to change the officers responsible for his tenancy;
2. the resident’s concern in late May 2021 that the ongoing Ombudsman investigation was not looking at the issue of ‘reasonable access’.
It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to identify these matters had not been considered through its complaints process already even after senior management reviewed their handling of the case during July-August 2021. The landlord’s decision not to log a complaint meant that the resident went to unnecessary time and trouble attempting to demonstrate why his concerns were ‘new’. It was not until May 2022 that the landlord agreed to log a complaint about the matters that the resident had initially asked it to review in May 2021 – this meant that there was an unnecessary delay of more than a year in the resident being able to access the complaints process on these issues.
The resident has alleged that the landlord’s refusal to log a new complaint during this time was due to an intentional attempt to block his access to the complaints process and represented corruption and a cover-up by it. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to consideration of whether a landlord has acted in a discriminatory manner as this is not an area upon which the Ombudsman is qualified to make an assessment. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the decision not to log a complaint was made due to the involvement of particular members of staff (who had been complained about by the resident in the past) or that there was a co-ordinated approach to “cover up” any failings. There was an occasion in June 2021 when a manager, who it had previously been agreed would not communicate with the resident, asked a member of staff to contact him; the manager’s actions appear to have been limited solely to requesting the officer liaise direct with the resident to understand his concerns, rather than making a decision about his complaint or the substantive issue, so there was no service failure on the part of the landlord in this regard.
Although the landlord was at fault for failing to investigate the resident’s submissions during May 2021 to May 2022 as a new complaint, it did continue to liaise with him on the substantive issues, particularly on use of the shared rear access path. It conducted site visits, liaised with the neighbours and their agent, retained open communications with the resident and completed follow-up visits until it noted that the path was cleared from obstacles in October-November 2021. This demonstrates that, although it had not logged a new complaint, the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about access seriously and took reasonable steps to try to resolve these by working with other involved parties to open up the rear access path behind Property A.
Following the landlord’s change of stance about the complaint in May 2022, the landlord did review its actions through the complaints process. In its September 2022 final complaint response, it acknowledged that there were failings as it did not remain willing to discuss the resident’s concerns after the March 2021 response, did not log his complaint during the following months and generally failed to offer clear communications to him. It also noted that there were inadequacies with its stage one complaint investigation. In recognition of these failings, the landlord awarded £250 compensation, said it would use the case to learn lessons about its complaints handling and offered to engage in mediation with the resident to improve their relationship.
This level of compensation was within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for situations where there has been maladministration that has had an adverse, but not permanent, impact on a resident. Although there was not a permanent impact on the resident and he was able to access the property throughout, given the situation affected his ability to fully access his rear garden (for example, to use his bin) and the time and trouble caused to him in having to consistently chase the complaint, this was a proportionate level of compensation to offer. In combination with the landlord’s review of its complaint handling and offer to co-operate with the resident through a mediation exercise, this would have been a reasonable offer of redress in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to fairly acknowledge failings, put things right and learn lessons.
However, the resident had raised concerns at least as early as June 2022 that, although the landlord had previously decided that the access path was clear, he was experiencing difficulty in using it due to the presence of his neighbour’s animals. The landlord remained silent on this issue in both of its subsequent complaint responses and has advised this Service that it took no action in regard to the substantive access issue since then. The landlord’s failure to address these ongoing concerns from the resident about his ability to negotiate the rear access path was unreasonable and meant that it failed to fully put right its earlier failings. The Ombudsman has made orders below for further compensation to be paid given the landlord’s delay in addressing this remaining concern and for it to consider further steps it can take to resolve the situation.
In summary, the landlord initially failed to recognise that the resident’s complaint in May 2021 contained new concerns that had not been considered through its previous complaint investigation and its decision not to log a complaint was therefore inappropriate. Although it took reasonable steps during May-November 2021 to try to resolve the access problem and later acknowledged its failings, it did not put this right as it overlooked continued access concerns raised by the resident from June 2022.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of concerns raised by the resident since April 2021 about access to his property.

Reasons

The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s reports since June 2022 of continued rear access difficulties meant that it did not put right its earlier unreasonable delay in logging a complaint.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failure identified in this report;
2. if it has not already done so, update him on the mediation proposal it made in its September 2022 final complaint response.
The landlord to consider the resident’s reports since June 2022 about difficulties he has using the rear access path due to the presence of his neighbour’s animals; it should review what actions are open to it to ease the resident’s concerns, taking legal advice if necessary, and write to him to confirm how it intends to resolve the matter.
The landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £75 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to him by the service failure in its handing of concerns raised by him since April 2021 about access to his property (in addition to the £250 it paid in September 2022).

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider whether an additional procedure is required for its local housing team to consult with its case resolution team before refusing a complaint in order to avoid complaints being incorrectly rejected in future.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.