Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202221560)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221560

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

31 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of works in communal areas.
2. Sharing of the resident’s personal data with its contractor.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised issue about the landlord’s sharing of her personal data with its contractor. The Ombudsman has not reviewed these matters within its investigation as they fall outside of its remit. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that this Service may not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The sharing of personal data is a matter that would fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’). The ICO is an expert in the rules concerning personal data and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. The resident may wish to seek independent advice about her options to progress their concerns with the ICO.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a sole assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started on 24 November 2011. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat in a converted house. It is understood the house is comprised of 3 flats.
The resident did not disclose any vulnerabilities impacting her as part of her complaint. The landlord told this Service it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system.

Scope of investigation

The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord about matters distinct to the issues considered in the landlord’s complaint investigation reviewed by this investigation. This other complaint was given a different case reference by the landlord and was the subject of separate complaint responses by the landlord issued in November 2022 and February 2023 respectively. As this was a different complaint, this will not be reviewed as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman may separately investigate the other complaint and has contacted the resident for confirmation of her wishes.
This complaint investigation is about the complaint raised by the resident to the landlord in response to which it issued her a stage 1 response of 15 August 2022 and stage 2 final response on 25 October 2022. Any other complaints separate to this process do not form part of the scope of this investigation.
The resident within her complaint raised allegation that the landlord discriminated against her. This service has not investigated discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and is not able to make a finding on this point. Such a finding would more appropriately be determined by a court. This Service has considered that the resident communicated feeling targeted personally by the landlord’s handling, unrelated to any protected characteristic. This allegation and the landlord’s response have been considered by this investigation.

Summary of events

On 27 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord by email. She advised having been disturbed before 9am by 2 men attending the property who said they wanted to conduct a communal survey on behalf of the landlord. She recalled that when she queried the arrangements, the men told her in a flippant manner that it was not their problem as it had been arranged by the landlord. Due to their tone, the timing of the visit and lack of prior notice, the resident said she refused access.
The resident raised issue to the landlord about attendance being organised without notice and her details being used to facilitate access when alternatives existed. The resident asked the landlord to confirm other upcoming works for the building and arrangements made to prevent disturbance. The landlord’s repairs and other records of this date show no reference to any visit to the property.
On 13 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord forwarding her previous email. The landlord replied the following day and apologised that she was disturbed before 9am. It told her an internal enquiry had been raised to find out who attended and asked for further information about the men. The resident replied the same date with a description of their physical appearances and repeated that they said they were there on behalf of the landlord.
On 23 June 2022, the landlord sent an email to the resident with an update that it was still awaiting the result of the internal enquiry. It apologised for the delay and promised to let her know by 29 June 2022.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord confirmed by email that there were no further works intended to the building. The resident replied the same date asking for clarification about the 2 men from 27 May 2022. She requested advance notice of any visits to the building and that contractors produce identification. She asked this on the basis of being a woman living on her own. She also communicated her expectation that access for communal works be managed by the landlord, referring to communal keys. The landlord replied on the same day and advised it was awaiting information about who attended and would update her.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord updated that it was still trying to find out who attended to complete the survey and would let her know once it was aware.
On 5 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord a list of its maintenance contractors. She requested confirmation of which company employed the 2 men from 27 May 2022 so that she could make a direct complaint. The resident raised concern about the time the landlord had taken to find out.
On 25 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She described her previous report and concerns about the 2 men attending her home on 27 May 2022 and the confirmation requested. She expressed dissatisfaction that she was still awaiting answers. She highlighted the landlord’s awareness that she was a woman living on her own and concern for her safety due to the landlord’s handling of her details and contractors. She asked when to expect a response and confirmation of what stage ‘this complaint’ was being considered at.
The landlord replied by an email of 27 July 2022 explaining it was ‘still checking with another department’. It expected to be in a position to confirm the next day. It apologised for delay.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed having no record of any visit being made to the building on 27 May 2022. It apologised if she had been disturbed. The landlord also explained that its appointment times ran from 8am, meaning its contractors were permitted to attend properties this early. It said it would always try to let the resident know what date and time slot it would attend.
Later on the same date, the resident submitted a request for her complaint to be escalated by the landlord. She raised issue with the following:
1. The lack of record of the persons attending her home on behalf of the landlord.
2. The landlord’s delay of over 2 months to confirm it had no information.
3. Unknown persons attending on the landlord’s behalf before 9am without her permission.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a complaint investigation. It advised having raised a formal complaint and details of the assigned lead officer. It gave an expected written reply timescale of 18 August 2022.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord provided to the resident a formal complaint response, sent by email. Its response said that:
1. It had opened her ‘original’ complaint on 14 June 2022. It was sorry it took so long to look into the resident’s report of workers attending. It explained the delay with reference to an officer having time off and said it was changing future process to enable quicker response times.
2. It was sorry it had been unable to confirm who attended her home. It described having checked with internal teams and ‘exhausted all possibilities’. It was sorry if it had failed to log the visit on its system and acknowledged it should have been able to provide confirmation.
3. Its appointment slots ran from 8am meaning it was permitted to knock on resident’s doors before 9am.
4. It apologised if the 2 men were rude.
5. It did not find that there had been a lack of care for the safety of the resident.
6. It was possible when accessing communal areas that it needed to contact residents and knock on doors for access. It accepted that it should have provided warning of visits.
On the same date, the resident sent a reply to the landlord setting out request for escalation of her complaint. She made the following points:
1. She did not feel reassured by the landlord’s complaint response. It lacked detail and reasons and did not give her confidence that the issues experienced would not recur.
2. The landlord had mismanaged record keeping of the visit to her home by the 2 men.
3. The landlord had not appropriately managed its contractor.
4. The landlord had showed a ‘pattern of incompetence’ by its poor communications.
5. The circumstances caused her disturbance, inconvenience and stress.
6. The repeat failings by the landlord impacting her specifically were what she described as ‘discrimination’ against her.
On 17 August 2022, the resident sent the same representations to the landlord in the form of its review panel request form. The resident added details of the outcomes she was seeking. This included compensation, confirmation of her rights to advance notice and prior consent for contractor attendances and updated procedures for accessing her building. The resident confirmed she would like ‘involved customers’ to be part of the review of her complaint.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request. It gave details of a review panel meeting due to be held on 19 September 2022 and the panel members.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to notify her it had rescheduled the review meeting to 4 October 2022 and asked for confirmation if she would like to attend. It explained that the meeting was being rescheduled due to the original date being a bank holiday to mark the funeral of HM the Queen. The resident replied to ask whether she needed to provide further information to the review panel. She declined to attend the meeting. The landlord replied she was not required to submit further information and gave an expected final response timescale of 18 October 2022.
On 3 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by email. It informed her the review had been rescheduled to 17 October 2022 due to staff sickness preventing information reaching the panel.
On the following day the resident asked for the review panel to address a further incident of that date. She reported being disturbed by operatives attending to a leak in the communal area without prior notice. The work led to her water being turned off without notice. She raised issue with the lack of prior notice and the landlord’s management of the works.
On 17 October 2022, the landlord updated the resident to expect the review panel response to her complaint by 31 October 2022.
On 19 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord raising issue with a further attendance of work persons completing noisy work in the communal area without prior notice or information. She described this impacting her ability to work from home. She expressed concern that the work would not be cleaned up afterwards.
On 25 October 2022, the landlord sent to the resident its final response to her complaint, further to its review of 17 October 2022. Its response letter found that the resident’s complaint was not upheld and set out the following:
1. It was unable to identify the team that arranged the survey requested on 27 May 2022. It aimed to keep full and accurate records of all visits and was sorry the resident had been let down by its inability to confirm who attended.
2. Details of recent works in the communal areas of the house. It explained that not all of its contractors had access to the communal key.
3. The lack of obligation on the part of the landlord to provide prior notice or seek consent to do works to communal areas. It would only do so if works were major and likely to cause inconvenience for an extended length of time. Its appointment times ran from 8am in line with policy and it considered contact before 9am acceptable.
4. It was sorry that the resident felt discriminated against.
5. It planned to install a key safe outside the house to enable contractors to gain access to communal areas and prevent disturbance when access was required.

Post-complaint

On 7 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and said it was unsure of the works to which she referred on 19 October 2022 and said she needed to provide evidence of these taking place. It confirmed its position that it was not required to give notice for works in communal areas. It reminded the resident it was installing a key safe with aim of preventing disturbance. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman for further escalation of her complaint.
A key safe for the communal entrance door was installed in November 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. 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.

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement between the parties to this complaint requires that the landlord does not interfere with the resident’s right to ‘quiet enjoyment’. This mirrors the resident’s rights as implied into the contract by common law allowing them to live in their home without undue interference. Disturbances from the landlord or anyone acting on their behalf may constitute a breach of this contractual right.
The resident is obliged by the tenancy agreement to allow the landlord or its contractors access to their flat for the purpose of inspections and repairs at any reasonable time. The landlord promised to give the resident 24 hours’ notice. This contractual right to prior notice applies only to accessing her flat; the tenancy specifies this does not include repairs or work to communal areas.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated that available repair appointment times ran from 8am up to 5pm Monday to Friday.
The landlord operated a contract management procedure for how it would monitor third parties carrying out work or services on its behalf. Its contractor spot check form required that workers attending on its behalf wear ID badges. The landlord also had a supplier code of conduct and expected behaviours expected to be followed by its contractors.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy was updated during the period of this complaint investigation, at the end of September 2022. The policy in force at the beginning of this period defined a complaint as when its service had failed and its customer expressed unhappiness with the standard of its service, or what it had failed to do. It stated it would try to first to resolve a reported issue outside of its complaint process.
The policy detailed a subsequent 2 stage complaint process if its customer remained unhappy with its handling of the matter. At stage 1, the landlord would provide its formal response within 10 working days. If more time was needed to complete its investigation, it would update the customer. At the second stage, the resident’s complaint would be subject to review by a panel.
The landlord’s complaints resolution procedure gave further details of the steps it would take during its handling of a customer’s complaint. It referred to early efforts to resolve the issue(s) outside of the complaint process as ‘the informal stage’. Where an ‘informal complaint’ was unresolved within 20 working days of receipt, then the case was to be escalated to a ‘formal complaint’. At review (second) stage, the landlord said it would provide the panel’s decision within 10 working days of the panel meeting. The procedure allowed for extension of this timescale. If it needed to extend more than 20 working days, it would provide reasons to the resident and seek to agree a new date.
The landlord also had a policy and separate procedure about it making offers of compensation. Its policy gave a list of reasons it may make offers for service failings; failure to repair, quality of repair and missed appointments. The policy excluded compensation for communal repairs or short term disruption from repairs or building works. The compensation procedure detailed factors it would consider when assessing the appropriate level of offer. These included where a failing had been aggravated by it being repeated or a matter not being dealt with at the right stage. The procedure allowed for discretionary payments at a standard level of £50, rising to £250 in exceptional cases.

The landlord’s handling of works in communal areas.

The resident’s complaint raised issue with the landlord’s lack of prior notice or information about the purpose of visits when seeking to access communal areas of the building. The landlord appropriately identified in its final response that it was under no specific legal obligation to give advance notice of standard works to communal areas. The resident’s contractual right to advance notice related only to access to her flat or major communal works. However, by adopting a position based solely on its access rights, the landlord failed to take into account other considerations relevant to the reasonableness of its response to the resident’s concerns. Simply because the landlord had a right of access without notice, did not mean it was reasonable to exercise it in every individual case or that there were no other competing rights to which it should reasonably have had regard to.
There is no evidence the landlord took particular account of the arrangement of the resident’s building. Her flat was 1 of only 3 within what was originally a house. The area within which any communal work or inspections would be completed was inevitably smaller and in closer proximity to the resident’s home than if the flat was based in a purpose built unit. This would in turn reasonably have an impact on any associated noise and the proximity with which the resident would experience the presence of work persons.
The landlord’s assertion of its strict right of access also failed to account for the potential impact to the resident caused by its then partial dependence on gaining entry by knocking. This would reasonably cause disruption to one or more resident’s of the building being interrupted without notice and having to leave their flat to open the communal door. Unexpected visits could plausibly cause alarm or greater disruption in circumstances where these took place at less sociable hours of the day. The resident told the landlord that she found unexpected visits requiring her to open the communal door before 9am disruptive. She also raised discomfort on multiple occasions of being met unexpectedly by men at her home and that this made her feel unsafe as a woman living alone.
The landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint about lack of prior notice did not take into sufficient account the particularities of the resident’s case, for example the layout of the building and resulting proximity to works and her individual safety concerns. It was through the limited lens of access rights that it reviewed its prior handling. It failed to reflect appropriately on whether its fixed approach was appropriate, whether there was detriment to the resident and whether it was possible to find a mutually agreeable way to account for her individual concerns. While it did identify a helpful further step of a key safe to manage door interruptions, this measure alone did not show reflection of other individual factors.
In response to the resident’s concerns around timings, it identified its published appointments times, however, did not seek to engage with the resident’s particular concerns about 8am visits, simply reciting its policy to her. This was a failure to give adequate regard to the resident’s individual concerns.
The landlord also failed to show it had regard to the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment. The landlord was not permitted by law to exercise its access rights in a way that amounted to undue interference with the resident’s use and enjoyment of their home. This Service does not consider that during the period of investigation, the interruptions and works carried out were of such degree or level so as to reasonably amount to interference of a significant level. However, the landlord would reasonably be expected to be mindful that a pattern of such disturbances, eg repeat visits and interruption to services without notice, could do so and be considerate of its actions within a wider context. The landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to try to minimise interference with its tenant’s use of their home, for example by giving appropriate notice and seeking solutions to try to minimise disruption. Apart from the key safe suggestion, there is no other evidence the landlord had regard to the resident’s competing rights when evaluating how it would address circumstances moving forward and by adopting a strict right of access stance.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s concerns about lack of prior notice for communal access was inconsistent. Within earlier email exchanges with the resident at ‘informal’ complaint stage, the landlord expressed regret for lack of notice and gave assurances that future notice would be provided. This position was repeated within the landlord’s stage 1 response and a formal apology given for failing to provide prior notice. In contrast, the landlord updated its position by its stage 2 final response. It asserted strict access rights and failed to acknowledge the prior recognised failing for lack of notice. By changing its communicated approach to the resident about prior notice for accessing communal areas, it failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations or provide clarity. Although it altered its communicated position, the landlord’s final response failed to address or accordingly offer any redress for the potential confusion or disappointment its change may have caused the resident.
The landlord was unable to provide information to the resident about the visit of 27 May 2022. It fed back having checked its internal records. It apologised within its ‘informal’ complaint correspondence, its stage 1 response and stage 2 decision that it did not have a record of the visit. Within its final response, the landlord gave a frank apology that the resident had been ‘let down’ by its failure to confirm who attended. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged to the resident an apparent failure in its record keeping. Without a maintained record of the visit, the landlord was not reasonably in a position to provide the resident with the details requested or provide an explanation about the associated lack of evidence.
The lack of record also left the landlord unable to fully investigate the resident’s assertions about the conduct of the men reported at her door. The landlord showed consideration for the resident’s experience by offering an apology if the men had been rude. A failure of record keeping reasonably prevented the landlord from being in a position to look further into this report of misconduct.
Although the landlord recognised a record keeping failing for which it apologised, it did not offer any other form of redress to the resident. While its compensation policy largely related to repair related failings, the landlord had the option of making ‘discretionary’ offers of financial redress. It is unclear why the landlord did not exercise its discretion. The landlord had acknowledged its failing. It was evident from the resident’s correspondence that its inability to confirm who visited her home caused her distress and fear for her safety. The lack of record also prevented investigation of her conduct allegations. In these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered its discretion and offered financial redress that took account of individual detriment caused.
The resident first requested from the landlord details of the reported attendance on 27 May 2022. She repeated and chased this request on numerous occasions until the landlord apologised by email of 28 July 2022 that it had no record. This was a significant delay in the provision of information that should reasonably have been readily accessible, easily checked and the necessary response formulated quickly when it became apparent no record existed. While some time was necessarily required to check with contractors/ internal departments in the absence of appropriate records, this does not reasonably explain a period of just over 2 months.
It is noted that the landlord maintained some interim contact with the resident and apologised at these stages for its ongoing delay. The landlord also apologised specifically within its stage 1 response for taking ‘so long’ to look into her report. It was appropriate that an apology was offered by the landlord where it had accepted a service failing. It also showed a willingness to transparency and learning by explaining a link to staff absence and the steps it would take to internal processes to improve response times. However, despite identifying that it failed to provide its expected level of service, it did not offer remedial action outside of an apology. As noted above, the landlord had the option of ‘discretionary payments’ by its compensation policy. Having recognised unreasonable delay to the resident, its remedy failed to reasonably account to her for the detriment caused. The resident was seen put to time and trouble repeatedly chasing an update. While the landlord did provide interim updates, this alone could not reasonably remove or reduce sufficiently the inconvenience caused awaiting a response for 2 months. The landlord failed to offer a suitable remedy that put matters right and recognised the individual detriment to the resident.
Whilst the landlord’s complaint responses served the principal purpose of detailing its investigation, findings and any remedial action, they were also an opportunity for it to provide reassurance to the resident about its future approach and show its learning from identified failings. As noted above, it did make the resident aware of changes it would make to better response times and the key safe installation. It did not give any assurances specifically about the steps it took or would take to ensure compliance by its staff or contractors with relevant codes of conduct, or its risk assurance processes that may have been relevant to the safety concerns raised. It gave no suggestion of the steps it would take to prevent the recognised record keeping issue. The landlord failed to show appropriate reflection and learning from the failings it identified by its complaint responses. It also missed a reasonable opportunity to seek to restore the landlord and tenant relationship by engaging further with the resident’s concerns to seek to reassure her.
This Service has seen no evidence that the failings in the landlord’s handling of works in communal areas were deliberately aimed to the resident or part of any wider specific course of action/inaction to cause her detriment. The failings rather present as incidental or negligent mishandling and not occurring with the specific aim of making matters difficult for her. The landlord engaged to a very limited degree with this allegation; it simply apologised that the resident felt that way. It did not engage fully with her concerns to seek to respond to them or reassure her. This reasonably may have been helpful to seek to rebuild trust in the landlord and tenant relationship and prevent the resident feeling her complaint was unanswered.
The above identified failings of the landlord’s handling of works in communal areas amount to maladministration. The failings adversely impacted the resident. She did not receive appropriate acknowledgement from the landlord; its admissions did not cover the full extent of its failings. The landlord also failed to redress individual detriment caused. Its apologies alone did not go far enough to account for the impact to the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award between £100 to £600 where maladministration is found and there has been adverse impact to the resident. This Service had noted that the failings identified were of lower level impact, however failings have been found in more than one aspect of its handling. An award has been made to account for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the totality of the landlord’s above failings.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the issues identified in this investigation are specific to this case only, or whether similar issues are likely in other cases. With this in mind, the Ombudsman has decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme for the landlord to review its policies or practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
This Service found that a strict policy position of asserting contractual access rights failed to allow regard or discretion for other relevant considerations when determining access arrangements. This was of particular relevance in view of the type of property concerned; a converted house where the communal area was very close to the resident’s home. The landlord is ordered to review its policies and procedures on accessing communal areas for non-urgent works in such buildings. It should give consideration to a prior assessment of factors relevant to the layout of premises and the needs of the residents in situate to inform appropriate access arrangements for works and or inspections.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised expressions of dissatisfaction repeatedly to the landlord in her emails between 27 May 2022 and end of July 2022. She referred to her reports as ‘this complaint’ on more than one occasion. However, her representations were not treated by the landlord as a complaint requiring a formal written response until after her email of 28 July 2022. The landlord dealt with them by way of its ‘informal’ complaint process from 14 June 2022, as defined by its then complaints resolution policy and procedures. The informal resolution process did not result in a detailed investigation of her raised concerns or a detailed written response that showed the landlord had carefully reviewed her issues with reasoning for its findings.
This treatment of the resident’s concerns by the landlord ran contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The current version of the Code came into force in October 2022, at the end of the relevant period of investigation. However, the previous Code defined a complaint similarly, as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction……made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf….’ and was clear that the word complaint was not required to be used in order for it to be treated as such. In the resident’s case, she raised clear and repeat expressions of dissatisfaction, however her ‘complaint’ was consciously kept outside of a 2 stage complaint process by the landlord in line with its then policy and procedure. This systemic treatment of a complaint was out of line with the Code.
The landlord’s treatment of the resident’s complaint caused her a lack of clarity over how it was being handled in the complaint process. Her email of 28 July 2022, at a time when it was still placed at the ‘informal’’ stage, asked that the complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord’s early failure to review the complaint in line with its 2 stage process and the Code also created delay. The resident’s opportunity for a detailed investigation and a written response was pushed back while it was handled outside of the 2 step process. She did not receive a formal response to her complaint for around 2 months as a result. The delay also set back the landlord’s opportunity to take on board the limited learning points it identified by its investigation.
Further delay was experienced by the resident awaiting the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She requested escalation of her complaint on 15 August 2022. The landlord’s review panel did not meet until 17 October 2022 and then issued a final response decision on 25 October 2022, some 10 weeks later. This was a further delay of over 2 months against the Code advised timescale of 20 working days.
The Code set expectation if further time was required, the landlord would provide explanation with a new timescale that would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. There was an adjournment of 2 weeks for the review panel to meet due to the unexpected death and associated bank holiday for the funeral of HM the Queen. The delay attributed to this matter could not reasonably be avoided by the landlord. It was also noted that the landlord did maintain contact with the resident to provide interim updates concerning its delay.
However, there is no apparent reason from the records produced to reasonably explain the landlord taking the full 10 weeks to issue the resident her stage 2 response. The only other explanation it provided for the length of delay was staff sickness preventing issue with review paperwork. It is of concern that the landlord did not make alternative cover arrangements for an administrative task to ensure the panel could proceed where it was aware the resident had already encountered repeat delays. It is a reasonable expectation that the landlord would operate suitable processes and cover systems to support compliance with key dates in the absence of a single staff member.
This Service noted that the landlord’s then complaints resolution policy and procedures gave no specific timescale within which its review panel would meet to reach a decision, in line with the Codes expected timescale. It simply said reviews would be held on certain dates of the month. The potential for delay against Code timescales was therefore in-built by the landlord’s process as it had no working timescale to guide timely resolution of stage 2 and avoid unreasonable delay. The landlord did apologise in its complaints handling correspondence for the delay in reaching its final stage. However, this was not recognised within its formal response, nor any formal apology or other redress offered for the detriment caused to the resident by the length of her wait.
This Service finds the landlord responsible for maladministration arising from its complaint handling failings. Compensation is awarded to account for the detriment caused by the delay experienced by the resident across the course of her complaint.
This Service considered the landlord’s then compensation policy when reviewing the relevant framework for its complaint handing. It had a very limited focus upon repair related failings. The only provision offering possibility of financial redress for any other form of service failing was for discretionary payments. These were set at a standard level of £50. The landlord’s policy prevented parity of financial redress for non-repair related failings and consideration of individual detriment factors. This was out of line with the Code’s guidance that remedies should have reflected the extent of any and all service failures as well as the level of resulting detriment. The limitations of the landlord’s compensation policy are likely to have impacted its failure to appropriately recognise and consider reasonable financial redress for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord is ordered accordingly to review its compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the allocation of housing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of works in communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord adopted a strict position of adherence to its access rights without appropriate focus on individual factors or competing rights that should also reasonably have informed its approach. It communicated an inconsistent position to the resident about advance notice during the course of its complaint. Whilst the landlord recognised and apologised for record keeping failings and unreasonably delayed communications, it failed to offer any form of financial redress even though the resident was put to evident time and trouble and inconvenience. This Service found no evidence that the failings noted were deliberately aimed at causing the resident detriment, the landlord’s engaged on a very limited basis with this allegation by the resident. The landlord’s failure to provide additional assurances, engage with the resident’s concerns and give greater reasoning for its findings represented a missed opportunity to seek to rebuild trust in the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with requirements of the then Code. The landlord’s use of an ‘informal’ stage left her waiting 2 months for a formal response. Once she requested escalation, she had to wait another 2 months for a final decision, 1 month of which was caused by unreasonable delay on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s complaint resolution procedure did not support the landlord to meet the expected Code timescales. The landlord’s failings caused undue delay and inconvenience to the resident that its response failed to reasonably redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation comprised of:
  1. £350 to address the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of works in communal areas.
  2. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a review of its policies and procedures on accessing communal areas for non-urgent works or inspections in properties converted from a single occupancy house into multiple occupancy flatted accommodation. This review should:
  1. Be conducted by a senior manager.
  2. Focus on the option of a prior assessment to inform appropriate access arrangements. Relevant factors for consideration must include regard to the layout of premises and the particular needs of the building’s residents.
  3. Identify any necessary updating staff training or shared awareness required arising from its findings or recommendations.
2. Undertake a review of its compensation policy and procedures that considers whether these provide sufficient scope and guidance for redress of service failings outside of repairs within the home or missed appointments.

A copy of the above ordered reviews and any associated updated policies or procedures should be provided to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations related to the landlord about its complaint handling approach and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders or recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord self-assess its approach to compensation as detailed within its compensation policy against this Service’s remedies guidance.