London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202204225)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204225

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

16 January 2023

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 complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for large print communications from its contractors;
2. the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a visual impairment of which the landlord is aware.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 May 2021 about the landlord’s contractors failure to provide correspondence in an accessible format to the resident (font size 18).
The landlord has stated that an ‘executive response’ was sent to the resident in June 2021 (no copy has been provided) as the resident had requested the matter be dealt with by senior management, and the complaint was closed. As the resident remained dissatisfied, the case was reopened in August 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 12 November 2021, apologising for the delay in responding (saying that this had been due to a technical issue). It said that it had reminded other teams in the organisation to check the resident’s file before sending correspondence, and noted that in January 2019 it had approved a personal reader and magnifying glass to be provided to the resident, although this was not accepted, and explained it was still able to provide these should the resident wish (the last page of this letter is missing from the copy provided to the Ombudsman).
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint in December 2021. No copy of this escalation request appears in the records, but the Ombudsman understands from internal landlord emails that the resident said that as the landlord employed the contractor, it had a responsibility to ensure that the contractor adhered to equality and diversity, and provide correspondence in size 18 font. The resident also said that the landlord had failed to comply with the Equalities Act 2010, and that the reading device that the landlord had offered was unsuitable.
The escalation request was acknowledged on 16 December 2021, and the resident was advised that there were delays in providing stage two responses due to a backlog. The landlord also acknowledged that the reading device that had previously been offered did not meet the resident’s requirements, and said, ‘I would appreciate hearing from you about what equipment or device you seek which would be of benefit in enabling you to view correspondence.’ The landlord said that it could request contractors provide correspondence in size 18 font and had spoken to the contractor involved about this.
In May 2022, as part of another formal complaint, the resident again noted that a contractor (this time the landlord’s new gas contractor) had written to her in a small font size.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 13 June 2022, apologising for the delay in responding. It stated that it could request that its contractors provide correspondence in size 18 font, and it had spoken to the contractor involved about the matter. It also noted that a Housing Ombudsman investigation into a previous complaint the resident had made (regarding priority given to repairs) concluded that there was no definitive mechanism for eliminating human error, and that it would be impractical and unconstructive to expect the landlord to offer any guarantees against future occurrences. The letter also noted that the landlord had asked the resident about her expectations of a reasonable adjustment, but had not received a response, and had been unable to contact her by telephone to discuss.
The landlord went on to confirm that there was a flag on the resident’s account regarding the need for large print correspondence, and that since this was added all of the landlord’s letters had been sent in large print. However, it acknowledged that the resident had received letters from the landlord prior to this that did not adhere to the requirement, and apologised for the distress and inconvenience this caused. It said that it had reminded its staff to check whether any communication preference had been noted.
The landlord awarded £250 compensation, namely £50 for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter, £100 for the delay in responses being sent, and £100 for the delay in the final response.
The resident replied to the landlord in August 2022, explaining that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered, and with the failure to send correspondence in the right format. She noted that while the landlord stated that its records were up to date with the requirement for large print, she continued to receive correspondence that did not adhere to this. She also acknowledged that a reading device was offered to her, but stated that the landlord did not understand her particular situation, and had not contacted her to ask her opinion on the device. She felt that the landlord’s apologies were meaningless given the same issue kept recurring.
In response on 8 September 2021, the landlord said that it would be happy to reimburse the cost of any visual aids that the resident bought, but confirmed that it would not increase the compensation offered.
In a further email to the resident on 30 November 2022, the landlord explained that its current IT systems did not provide the functionality to allow it ensure all correspondence, both from it directly and its contractors/partners, was provided in large print. It said that while there was a flag on the system, there was no technical connection between this flag and mailouts, data sent to contractors for remedial work, and other areas. As a result, the flag did not prevent the problem from reoccurring. The landlord apologised for this and said, ‘We are in the process of replacing our current housing management system in the next couple of years. Within the new system we will be able to tailor specific needs of our residents…In the interim, we will do our utmost to minimise this from happening, but we must acknowledge that as I have outlined and despite any best efforts, we are limited in the options available to us and we are unable to fully resolve this at present.’

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedure

Under the Equality Act 2010 public sector organisations have to make changes in their approach or provision to ensure that services are accessible to disabled people as well as everybody else. An organisation is not required to do more than it is reasonable for it to do.
The landlord’s Accessible Communications Policy sets out that its purpose is to ensure that it meets the aims of the Equality Act 2010, which require it to make reasonable adjustments, including making information accessible for people with disabilities. It states that the landlord would promote the accessible communications policy, ‘both outside the organisation and to our staff.’ The policy also states, ‘In line with this, where possible, L&Q will provide information in an alternative format when requested. However, there may be times where it is not possible, practical or too expensive to do so. In these instances, L&Q will work with the resident to find the most appropriate solution for them.’

Request for large print

In line with both the Equality Act and its own Accessible Communications Policy, when made aware of the resident’s need for a reasonable adjustment, the landlord was obliged to consider this. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s requirements a number of years ago. The landlord seemingly accepted the request for size 18 font correspondence as reasonable and took action to ensure that it made this reasonable adjustment itself. However, the resident’s complaint was specifically about the landlord’s contractors failing to adhere to this. As such, the landlord should have investigated this issue and provided a full response to the resident.
The stage one response, while acknowledging that the complaint was about letters sent from contractors, did not address this issue, simply stating that it would remind landlord staff to check the resident’s file, and reoffering the device that the resident had previously not accepted. The landlord’s subsequent December 2021 acknowledgment letter did say that it could ask the contractors involved to use size 18 font, and had contacted them about this. However there is no evidence to support this position, and no indication of what exactly was asked of the contractor.
Similarly, the stage two response simply repeated that the landlord had spoken to the contractor involved about the matter. Again, there is no evidence of this or what was said. The landlord’s further comments about action it would take in relation to its own staff did not address the resident’s concern about communication that she was receiving from contractors.
While the previous Ombudsman investigation from 2018 noted that there may be no definitive mechanism for eliminating human error, the landlord has not claimed in this case that the contractors letters were due to human error. And while it may be unrealistic for the landlord to offer a guarantee that future correspondence from contractors was always in large print, there is no evidence of it taking steps to at least try and provide this, other than stating that it had contacted to the contractor.
The landlord could reasonably have been expected to have entered into discussions with its contractor regarding the issue, highlighting the reasonable adjustment that the resident had requested, and directing the contractor to provide this. This would have been in line with its policy of promoting the accessible communications policy ‘outside of the organisation’. If the contractor indicated that it was unable to provide this adjustment, the landlord could then have communicated this to the resident and explored other options to assist. There is no evidence of any discussion with the contractor. Further, there is no indication that when the landlord changed contractors, it advised the new contractor of the resident’s requirement for large print.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did offer the resident a reading device, but the resident had said that this was not suitable. It was therefore appropriate (and in line with its Accessible Communications Policy) that the landlord asked the resident what equipment would be of benefit in enabling the resident to view correspondence: This does evidence the landlord attempting to resolve the issue and work the resident to provide a resolution. However, the resident had already advised what she required – size 18 font. As such, the landlord should have taken action to provide this in the first instance, rather than seeking an alternative adjustment. If, after taking steps to provide this adjustment, it was found that it was not possible for contractors to adhere to the request, the landlord could have explained this and then entered into discussions about alternatives.
It was not until the landlord’s November 2022 email, which appears to have been provided outside of the formal complaint process, that the issue was more comprehensively addressed, 18 months after the resident raised her initial complaint. The landlord explained that with its current system, it was limited in the options available and unable to fully resolve the matter of correspondence being sent in the incorrect format. While it was appropriate that the landlord addressed and acknowledged this, it should have done so at the outset, so as to manage the resident’s expectations. There is no indication that, having now identified that it was not possible to provide the reasonable adjustment via the ‘flag’, steps were taken to work with the resident to find an appropriate solution.
Overall, there was a significant failing on the part of the landlord here. The landlord’s contractors act on the landlord’s behalf, and as such, the landlord should have taken more robust action to address the resident’s concerns, and to respond to these concerns via the complaint process. The landlord did not do enough to put things right for the resident, or to learn from outcomes in this case.
The landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s concerns has caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter, as well as distress and inconvenience. The resident has informed this Service that she continues to receive correspondence from the landlord’s contractors that is not in the correct format. As such, orders for remedy are made below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord will issue a stage one response within ten working days of receiving a complaint. Where an escalation is requested, the landlord will issue a stage two response within 20 working days. If delays are expected, the landlord will update the resident explaining the reasons for the delay. In this case, it took the landlord six months to issue its stage one response. While it references an executive response being sent in June 2021, there is no evidence of this. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 13 December 2021, and the landlord issued a stage two response six months later
There is no evidence that the landlord provided regular updates to the resident in relation to the delays in its handling of her complaint. Having said this, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delays, and offered £250 compensation for these.
Overall, while there was a failing here, the landlord took appropriate action to ‘put things right’ and provide reasonable redress for the resident by acknowledging its failings, apologising, and providing compensation. The £250 compensation is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for large print communications form its contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £300 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s request for correspondence to be in large print from its contractors.
2. Contact any relevant contractors to discuss the resident’s need for large print communications, to determine whether it is possible to provide this. A record should be made of this contact. The outcome should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
3. If it is found it is ‘not possible, practical or too expensive’ for contractors to provide large print correspondence, the landlord must work with the resident to find the most appropriate alternative solution for them.
4. Provide an update to the Ombudsman and the resident regarding the replacement of the current housing management system, and confirm that this should mean that it will be able to tailor to specific needs of residents in terms of accessibility.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 offered in relation to the complaint handling failures, as the determination of ‘reasonable redress’ was made on this basis.