Camden Council (202004368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004368

Camden Council

30 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 resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s:
1. Offer of compensation to settle a legal disrepair claim.
2. Consideration of a request for a refund of the social sector size criteria (bedroom tax) while the landlord carried out repairs in 2018 to 2019.
3. Delays in carrying out repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property in 2018 to 2019 that were agreed through her legal disrepair claim.
4. Handling of her subsequent report of damp in the property in 2021.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s approach in connection to the resident’s vulnerabilities that the landlord was made aware of.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) and 42(j) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s offer of compensation to settle a legal disrepair claim.
2. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s consideration of a request for a refund of the social size criteria (bedroom tax) while the landlord carried out repairs in 2018 to 2019.
3. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property in 2018 to 2019 that were agreed through her legal disrepair claim.
4. Paragraph 42(f) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The complaint aspects listed below were determined through legal proceedings and the resident may wish to take further legal advice concerning the reported breach of the signed memorandum of agreement following legal action. She may wish to consider contacting an organisation such as Shelter or the Citizens’ Advice Bureau:
  1. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s offer of compensation to settle a legal disrepair claim
  2. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property in 2018 to 2019 that were agreed through her legal disrepair claim
5. Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s consideration of a request for a refund of the social sector size criteria (bedroom tax) while the landlord carried out repairs in 2018 to 2019, falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to take up this aspect of her complaint with the LGSCO. She may also wish to consider an appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who consider disputes from residents who disagree with their housing benefit decision.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat.
The landlord advised this service that it was notified on 26 August 2021 that the resident has vulnerabilities that include physical mobility issues due to sciatica, and mental health issues.
A county court judgement was made in relation to the resident’s disrepair case on 12 October 2018. This followed an earlier memorandum of agreement of 19 April 2018 setting out a schedule of works to be undertaken by the landlord to remedy disrepair in the property including damp and mould.
The resident raised a formal stage one complaint with the landlord on 12 April 2019. In this she referred to the disrepair case and advised that the works were due to be completed by 30 September 2018. However, the repairs were not completed. She advised that the landlord was “in breach contract”. She advised of a serious mental health issue and that she had been “trapped in my front room as the bedrooms cannot be decorated and carpeted”. She had been sleeping in the front room which had “exacerbated my back problems”. She stated that the property “looks under construction” and as such she was concerned about security of the property. She felt like she should be due further compensation “based on the actual work that was required to make my house habitable, compensation for the delays and impact on my health”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 April 2019 acknowledging that it had received the complaint, and this had been passed to its repairs department for comment. It asked if the resident was still being represented by her solicitors. The resident responded on 16 April 2019 to advise that her son was now supporting her. The landlord confirmed on 16 April 2019 that it would be in touch when it received an update from its repairs team.
The resident emailed her landlord on 5 July 2019 to advise that she had not received a response to her complaint that she raised in April 2019. She advised the landlord of her “history of mental health problems” and felt “disappointed and let down”. She detailed a letter from her doctor that advised of the “negative impact on my mental health and sciatica”. She stated that she had wanted to chase this up sooner, however, she was “not well enough to do so”. She advised that she “was already struggling with my physical and mental health”. She stated that she did not think her “disabilities should be used against me and taken advantage of to delay a response”. She wanted to chase up works to the property that she stated had been delayed. She requested a refund of the bedroom tax as she had not had access to a bedroom during works that had been undertaken. The landlord emailed back the same day to advise that it had passed the resident’s email to its repairs team and gave the contact number to the resident. It advised that a different lawyer was dealing with the resident’s case.
The resident chased up the landlord by email on 6 August 2019 to ask when the works would recommence. The landlord emailed the resident in response on 30 August 2019 advising that it was investigating the outstanding disrepair and would get back to her.
The resident chased up the landlord on 6 November 2019 advising that since the landlord sent its email of 30 August 2019 she received “no further communication”. She advised that she had originally emailed on 12 April 2019 and had no response to her questions. She advised that “this is causing increased anxiety and impacting my mental health”. She advised that the works had been signed off on 25 September 2019 which was over a year past the agreed date. She wished to have an update regarding a request for compensation for the delays. She advised of the impact that this was having on her health and wellbeing.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 29 November 2019. An automatic email was sent to the resident with a complaint reference number. In a further email copied to her councillor she advised of the complaint being raised previously in April 2019 and that the works had been ongoing for over two years. She asked for her councillor’s assistance. She stated “I am really struggling and continually contacting the council because I am being ignored is not helping” (sic). She advised that the overall impact on my condition physically and mentally has been unbelievable”. She asked for an update on the issues she had raised “regards to the disrepair”. She asked “if you are investigating the matter because I have no idea if my case is being looked at”.
The landlord’s internal emails between 11 December 2019 to 27 December 2019 advise that the landlord’s lawyer would respond to the “councillor enquiry”. It stated that the resident had advised that she had raised a complaint in April 2019.
The landlord’s lawyer emailed the resident on 7 February 2020. The landlord advised that “while simultaneously making a disrepair claim for the period of May 2016 you simultaneously made a complaint”. It advised that “without particularisation of your claim I am unable to determine what, if any compensation is payable to you for the alleged delay in completion of the works”. It asked the resident to clarify which rooms she “allegedly” did not have access to during the works, for what dates and for any medical evidence to be sent.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2020 to advise that it would offer a further £100 compensation “in settlement”. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 March 2020 disagreeing with the landlord’s response and restating that she did not have access to a bedroom “for an extended period”. She advised that the compensation ordered covered the period until April 2018 but that works had not been completed until October 2019.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 April 2020 to apologise for the delay in replying and urged the resident to seek independent legal advice.
Between 21 April 2020 to 11 June 2020 a number of emails were sent between the resident and the landlord. The email from the landlord on 11 June 2020 advised that the amount paid was in “full and final settlement of your claim”. It did not accept that the repairs were delayed after the contractor found further defects. It felt that the repairs were carried out “within a reasonable period of time given the nature of the works”. It offered the £100 previously offered as a “goodwill gesture”. It suggested that the resident should seek further legal advice if she considered that there would be a case for more compensation “over and above that agreed and recorded in the court memorandum”.
On 12 June 2020 the resident wrote to her councillor to complain of the landlord’s alleged breach of the agreement due to the delays in carrying out the agreed work. In a subsequent email to the councillor the resident had stated that the repairs had been completed but the issue concerning the “bedroom tax” was not resolved. In an email exchange between the resident and the councillor, the councillor advised that the landlord would be contacted.
The councillor emailed the landlord on 4 July 2020 with the resident’s complaint and asked for the landlord to log a case.
The landlord emailed the councillor on 11 August 2020. It advised the councillor that the settlement was “in full and final settlement of her claim”. It advised that it did not feel that the timescale to carry out the works was unreasonable “given the nature of the works”. It had advised the resident that she may wish to seek further legal advice.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 August 2020 reiterating the issues she was dissatisfied with. This Service advised the resident to make a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident advised this Service on 14 August 2020 that she had made a formal complaint to her landlord. She attached a screen shot of an automatic complaint acknowledgement from her landlord dated 29 November 2019.
The resident contacted this Service on 25 November 2020 and was advised that she would need to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process before the case could be referred. This Service wrote to the landlord on 26 November 2020 to advise the landlord to investigate and log a complaint as necessary. The landlord was advised that if any issues were excluded from the complaints process that its response should clarify why this is the case.
The resident contacted this Service again on 20 April 2021 regarding the complaint issues in respect of her legal disrepair case that had been settled and her housing benefit in respect of the ‘bedroom tax’. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day to clarify the position with the internal complaints process. The landlord replied on 23 April 2021 and stated that it had no record of the resident making a formal complaint. It advised that the resident’s complaint issues were likely to fall outside of the scope of its complaints policy. It advised that this was due to the fact that the disrepair was a legal matter and that the housing benefit issue concerning the bedroom tax would be “subject to appeal rights under that legislation”. It “may consider” raising a stage one complaint “where evidence of service failure but this ‘may be suspended until the closure of any legal or statutory appeal process that applies”.
This service wrote to the landlord on 25 June 2021 to advise that the landlord must consider the complaint unless exclusion applies within the landlord’s policy. Even then it must issue final response explaining its position and giving referral rights to this service. It would be for the Ombudsman to determine the jurisdiction. The landlord was requested to respond to the resident by 2 July 2021.
The landlord advised in an internal email of 25 June 2021 it could issue a letter to give the right of appeal to the Ombudsman. Alternatively, it stated that if a decision was made to investigate the complaint it would register and allocate the complaint.
The landlord stated in an internal email of 1 July 2021, that the only outstanding issue was concerning compensation and the request to remove the ‘bedroom tax’. It advised that as this was a legal matter, that a letter should be issued giving the resident the right to appeal to the Ombudsman. The landlord advised in a further internal email of 7 July 2021 that it would contact the resident “inviting her to make a complaint and advising on how we will consider this”. It would then issue its decision giving a right of appeal.
The resident emailed this service on 15 July 2021 and sent in some photographs. She advised that the “damp has come back”.
On 16 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, copying in councillors and this Service, stating “I would like to make a complain regarding my case” (sic). She advised that she suffered from serious mental health issues. She referred to the delay in the landlord carrying out work. She also referred to the issue of bedroom tax and stated the landlord had previously agreed to refund this and then reneged on this agreement.
The landlord’s internal emails between 16 and 17 July 2021 asked who would respond to the resident. The landlord stated that it had no outstanding job or live legal case. It stated that “according to the minimal information that has been recorded” the works were completed and the costs were settled for the disrepair claim.
In a further internal email of 21 July 2021 the landlord detailed the resident’s report that “works have not resolved the damp issue in the property and she would therefore like major works to return and resolve the damp indefinitely”. It suggests phoning the resident to ask how she wished to proceed.
This Service wrote to the resident on 25 August 2021 advising the resident to contact the landlord for its initial response to her complaint.
In response, the resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2021. The resident reiterated her complaint issues. She referred to the effect the pursuit of her complaint was having on her mental health. She requested that the landlord deal with the issues raised as an “urgent matter” and that it “shouldn’t take 3-4 years for this to be resolved it’s beyond ridiculous”.
The landlord emailed the resident in response the same day and apologised stating “if you haven’t had an update on the issues you have raised. It asked the resident if she was “getting any support?” It had “chased officers to give you an update”.
The landlord’s internal emails between 26 August 2021 and 27 August 2021 detailed that it needed to respond to the resident. It advised that the damp works “valued at £47k in 2018” had been completed. It suggested a visit would be appropriate from the housing officer to “follow up on the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction”. It stated that “whether all works were done satisfactorily and whether there is actionable disrepair at the moment will have to be looked into”. If advised that if it is attended to in reasonable time this would not give rise to further damages. It stated that “if works took longer than expected (as she claims) and she paid council tax for rooms she couldn’t use then we should consider a goodwill payment rather than have her go back to litigation” on that particular point.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 August 2021. It advised that the monies paid for the disrepair case took account of “every aspect of your case at the time, including any bedroom tax you may have been paying during the period in question”. It’s legal team had reviewed this when the resident raised as similar enquiry in June 2020. It advised that as the “legal case has been settled” that no further compensation would be awarded. It stated that any further refund would be regarded as “double recovery” which would not be justified. It advised that it was concerned regarding the amount of distress that the resident had referred to and signposted the resident to her GP and to local services for counselling.
The landlord wrote to this service the same day to advise that it had registered a complaint at “local resolution stage” and would reply by 10 September 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 September 2021. She advised that she had no support from the landlord. She referred to the complaint issues she had raised previously. She stated that she had “photos of it coming back” referring to the damp.
The landlord’s internal emails between 20 September 2021 and 21 September 2021 chased up the complaint response. It believed that the repairs side of things had been settled and that it was awaiting a decision regarding the reimbursement of the “bedroom tax”.
The resident contacted this service again on 27 September 2021 referring to the complaint issues she had raised with the landlord. This service agreed to chase up the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
This service wrote to the landlord on 27 September 2021 with a second request for the complaint to be actioned and for a response to be provided by 4 October 2021. The landlord was advised that it would still be required to provide a final complaint response to the resident where legal proceedings exclude a complaint from its process. It was advised to explain this and to set out the resident’s referral rights to this service. The landlord’s internal email of 27 September 2021 detailed that the Ombudsman had requested that a response be sent to the resident within 5 working days.
The resident emailed the landlord and her councillor on 20 October 2021 referring to the landlord’s lack of response to her complaint. She stated that “there is still damp in my house”. She chased up the landlord again on 9 November 2021.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord raised a works order for a damp survey to be carried out. The survey was completed the same day. The damp report was dated 19 January 2022. It detailed the resident’s concern that staining on the bath panel may have been caused by a recurrence of a previous leak. However, the damp report’s meter readings evidenced that the “bathroom was dry, and low humidity readings confirm there is no underlying problem”. It advised that “no further action is required”.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s councillor on 15 February 2022 advising that “full and final settlement of £5,000 was agreed in April 2018”. It stated that it had also paid legal costs to the resident’s solicitor. It had consulted its legal team in 2020 who “concluded that agreeing a rent reduction would result in double compensation”. It had offered the resident an additional £100 “without prejudice goodwill payment” which was declined. In respect of the delay in completing the repairs that were undertaken as a result of the disrepair claim of 13 months, it offered a further £1,477.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 February 2022 reiterating the points made to the councillor and offering the £1,477 further compensation for the 13 month delay in completing the required works as a result of the disrepair case settlement.
The resident contacted this service again on 22 March 2022. This service wrote to the landlord on 7 April 2022 with a final request for action on the resident’s complaint. A response was requested by 14 April 2022 otherwise a Complaint Handling Failure Order would be issued.
The landlord emailed this Service on 8 April 2022 to advise that no formal stage 1 complaint had been issued to the resident.
The landlord issued its final complaint response at stage 2 to the resident on 14 April 2022. It detailed:
1. The complaint was not upheld.
2. No further action would be taken following the damp survey. “However, if the damp has returned”, it advised the resident to contact again. It would then liaise further with the repairs service”.
3. It apologised for the delay in providing its formal response to the resident’s complaint last year. It offered £150 compensation to the resident.
4. It sent as a response to the resident’s complaint issues the following emails:
  1. 11 June 2020 – the response from its lawyer.
  2. 27 August 2021 – a response from its neighbourhood manager.
  3. 19 January 2022 – a copy of the damp survey undertaken in respect of the resident’s report of further damp.
  4. 15 February 2022 – a response to the resident’s councillor.
  5. 18 February 2022 – a further written response to the resident.
5. It gave referral rights to this service.
The resident contacted this service on 28 October 2022 and advised that she had not seen the landlord’s final response. This service sent a copy of the landlord’s final response. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint brought to this service was initially made prior to exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, as there is evidence of complaint-handling failure and stage 1 was not completed, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timeframe. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timeframe. For the purpose of this investigation the timeframe considered is from 6 months prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 12 April 2019.
The resident has mentioned both to the landlord and this service the effects of the issues referred to in her complaint have had on her health. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has the health issues described. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused any deterioration of the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). However, this service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure.

Policy and procedures

According to the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to pay the rent due, to advise the landlord of any repairs and to provide access “at all reasonable hours” to inspect the property, to carry out gas safety inspections, to repair, alter or improve the property”.
According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to keep in repair and in good working order “the structure and exterior of the premises, the services supplying water, gas, electricity, sanitation and space and water heating; and appliances for delivering these which we have installed”. This sets out the landlord’s repairing obligations as required by Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs policy details that the landlord is responsible for repairing the external structure such as “doors and windows”, “rainwater goods”, “roof repairs, repairing brickwork, damp-proof work” and “repairs and maintenance of gullies and drains”, the “walls and floors” (excluding “internal decoration), the “communal and shared areas”, and the “heating, hot water, electrical and plumbing”. No timescales are provided within its policy which is contained within a tenant’s guide and as such for the purpose of this investigation a timescale of 28 working days is considered reasonable for routine repairs.
The landlord’s remedies policy sets out its approach to compensation which it states is based on the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. It will consider:
1. £25 per month for “failure to provide a service”.
2. £100 – £300 (“Severe and prolonged up to £1,000”) for “distress”.
3. £100 – £300 for “time and trouble”.
4. £20 per month for “delay”.
5. £150 – £350 per month for “unsuitable accommodation”.
6. Up to £500 for “risk of harm”.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “when someone lets us know that they are unhappy with our service and they want us to take action to resolve it”. The policy details that it has 2 complaint stages, with stage 1 being a “local resolution stage” and stage 2 being a “review or appeal stage”. It describes a stage 3, however, this is a referral to the appropriate Ombudsman. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It will reply at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will reply within 25 working days. The policy states that a complaint should be submitted within 12 months after the date of the incident and a stage 2 review request should be made “within 28 calendar days of the stage one response”. Exclusions apply including where legal proceedings are pending or “where the court has made a decision about the subject of the complaint”.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of her subsequent report of damp in the property in 2021.

In respect of the resident’s subsequent report of damp in her property, the landlord stated that it was aware of this report in its internal email of 21 July 2021. This email detailed the resident’s report that the works undertaken through her disrepair claim had not resolved the damp issue. As the resident had made a further report of damp, it would be expected that the landlord should investigate the matter and phone the resident as suggested. However, the Ombudsman has not seen a record of a phone call being made to the resident at this point. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to talk to the resident to fully understand the issue being reported so that it could take appropriate action which was a failing.
The evidence shows that the landlord only responded by email to the resident after the resident emailed again on 26 August 2021. In this email the resident’s mental health issues were evident. At this point the landlord appropriately asked the resident “are you getting any support”. In its subsequent email of 27 August 2021 to the resident, the landlord then signposted the resident to local services for counselling. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident, however, it also needed to consider any referral that it would need to take considering the serious content of the resident’s email. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any referral was made, or any home visit or welfare check carried out as would be expected.
The resident once again referred to damp resurfacing in her emails of 18 September 2021 and 20 October 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen any record that the landlord responded to the resident following these reports. Its communication was therefore inadequate, and it failed to take account of the serious nature of the resident’s vulnerabilities in providing timely responses to her enquiries. This was a considerable failing of the landlord.
The landlord failed to raise a works order to investigate this further report of damp until 14 January 2022. This took the landlord 124 working days to take any definitive action on the resident’s report which was unreasonable. There is no evidence seen that the landlord explained to the resident that it would instruct a further damp survey to be carried out to keep her updated of actions that would be taken. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord gave any explanation to the resident on the reason why this survey was not completed until 19 January 2022. This again was unreasonable and given the nature of the resident’s emails with regard to her mental health, would have caused a greater detriment to her than a resident without these vulnerabilities.
Although the survey of 14 January 2022 did not identify any underlying damp issues. It would be expected that the results of the survey would be communicated to the resident at the time. This would have alleyed the resident’s concerns that the damp was reoccurring. However, the Ombudsman has not seen that this happened. The landlord delayed advising the resident of the results until its final complaint response of 14 April 2022, almost three months later. This was further evidence of a lack of effective communication with the resident to address her concerns of further damp arising in the property.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe to the resident’s reports regarding further damp in the property that the landlord was aware of on 21 July 2021. The landlord failed to communicate effectively or update the resident to take into account her vulnerabilities that were known to the landlord. It failed to take any action on the matter until it instructed a damp survey on 14 January 2022. This was 124 working days after it became aware of the issue. This was unreasonable and no record has been seen of any explanation given to the resident of the reason for this delay. The survey was completed on 14 January 2022, however, the Ombudsman has not seen that the results were shared until the landlord’s final complaint response of 14 April 2022. Given the resident’s emails referring the impact on her mental health, the landlord’s lack of updates had a more detrimental effect to her than to a resident without these vulnerabilities. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the remedies guidance (available on our website).

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling of the resident’s associated complaint, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response timescales, its record keeping, its communication with the resident and its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident’s formal complaint was submitted to the landlord on 12 April 2019. Whilst the landlord emailed the resident at the time stating it had passed her complaint to its repairs team it did not give a response. This then led to the resident having to chase up the landlord on several occasions before she submitted a further formal complaint on 29 November 2019.
The resident sent this service a copy of a screen shot showing an automatic acknowledgement on receipt of her subsequent complaint of 29 November 2019. It was therefore clear that this complaint had reached the landlord. However, there is no record of a formal stage 1 response being sent to the resident as per the landlord’s policy, nor an acknowledgement to state when a response could be expected. The resident’s councillor also asked the landlord to log the resident’s complaint on 4 July 2020, however, the Ombudsman has seen no record that this happened. The resident emailed the landlord again on 16 July 2021 specifically stating that she wished to make a complaint. Again, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint. This was unacceptable and outside of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord clearly received the resident’s email of 16 July 2021 as it discussed internally on 17 July 2021 who would respond to the resident. It also referred to there being minimal information available on its system indicating that the landlord’s record keeping was not adequate. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of its residents and its properties. This can enable a landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. It is not clear whether this contributed to the lack of complaint response being issued to the resident, however, incomplete records would not have assisted the landlord. This service has recently published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management that allows a landlord to keep both a building and people safe, now and in the future as a tool to manage buildings. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
It was not until 23 April 2021 that the landlord advised this service that it ‘may consider’ raising a complaint at stage one. However, it did not raise a formal stage one complaint until 27 August 2021. This meant that it took 605 working days for the landlord to raise its stage one complaint. This was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. It was therefore unsurprising that the resident advised the landlord on 26 August 2021 it “shouldn’t take 3-4 years for this to be resolved it’s beyond ridiculous”.
It was more concerning, as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and this should have warranted more effective communication with the resident and a timely response. The landlord advised this service that it was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities on 26 August 2021. However, the evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord knew of the resident’s mental health issues at a much earlier point, as seen in the resident’s email of 5 July 2019. This highlights the issues of poor communication and record keeping referred to above. At this point the resident felt that the landlord was deliberately delaying a response due to her disabilities and her concerns were understandable given the lack of response. The landlord is obliged under Sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments. A reasonable adjustment can be changes to a “provision, criterion or practice”, for example, policies and practices that “puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage”. The landlord should have ensured that it adapted its approach to its complaint handling so as not to disadvantage the resident and to provide appropriate updates and responses. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to this, and this was a serious failing.
In one of the landlord’s internal emails of 26 August 2021 a reasonable suggestion was made of a home visit by the resident’s housing officer, but the Ombudsman has not seen any record that this happened. The Ombudsman has not seen any records of additional support given to the resident other than signposting to 2 local services in an email from the landlord of 27 August 2021. Given the content of some of the resident’s earlier emails to the landlord, the landlord needed to consider its response and whether any further action or referral was needed to support the resident as mentioned. The landlord should therefore review its approach to dealing with residents with vulnerabilities.
The resident also contacted this service to pursue her complaint. Even when this service contacted it on several occasions, the landlord failed to log the resident’s complaint and issue its response. It was not until there was a threat of Complaint Handling Failure Order that the landlord then logged a complaint. Even if the matters of complaint were excluded from its complaint process, the landlord should have advised the resident of its position in a formal response as requested by this service. It failed to do this.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 14 April 2022, which was 766 working days and just over 3 years after the resident’s complaint was made on 12 April 2019. In this response, the landlord acknowledged that no formal stage 1 response had been given. It enclosed copies of emails that it had sent to the resident from 11 June 2020 in answer to the resident’s complaint issues. It did not confirm its compensation offer of £1,477 set out in the email of 15 February 2022 was still in place. It would have been confusing that it offered compensation of £150 but did not clarify if this was in addition to the £1,477 or in place of this offer. A combined offer of £1,627, however, would not, in the opinion of this service, provide adequate redress, considering the lengthy time (over a period of 3 years) the landlord took to respond to a vulnerable resident’s complaint.
It is not clear why the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaints. However, evidence suggests that there are wider systemic issues in the landlord’s complaint handling. Whilst the evidence shows the landlord’s internal communication about how the resident’s complaint should be responded to and by whom, there was little follow up unless pressured by the resident and this Service. As detailed in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord needs to recognise that complaints should be viewed positively as an opportunity to resolve disputes and to introduce positive changes in service delivery. Such changes can benefit other residents as well as the landlord.
The evidence shows that the lack of response caused considerable detriment to the resident as well as the time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This would have had a greater impact on the resident due to her vulnerabilities than a resident without these vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s complaints policy had a notably longer timescale for responding to a stage 2 compared to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which was first published in July 2020. However, at the time this was a policy that covered the landlord’s responsibilities as a local authority as well as its landlord function. The landlord will need to comply with the Code which is now on a statutory footing.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its own policy and log and respond to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. Despite the attempts by the resident and this service to request the landlord to log and respond to her complaint it failed to do so. Evidence suggests that there are wider systemic complaint handling issues. It took the landlord 605 working days to acknowledge and log the complaint and in total it took 766 working days before the landlord’s final response was sent, which was unreasonable. The landlord in its lack of communication and response to the resident, failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities that it was made aware of in 2019. It failed to make any reasonable adjustments in its approach and consider whether any further support or referral was required in light of the content of the resident’s emails. Evidence shows that the landlord’s communication and record keeping was not adequate. The failure of the landlord to deal with the resident’s complaint caused unnecessary detriment to the resident, along with the time and trouble in pursuing the matter. These issues combined amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made in line with this service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of her subsequent report of damp in the property in 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was severe maladministration with regard to the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
For the reasons set out above, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the scheme the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s offer of compensation to settle a legal disrepair claim is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the scheme the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s consideration of a request for a refund of the social sector size criteria (bedroom tax) while the landlord carried out repairs in 2018 to 2019, is outside of jurisdiction.
For the reasons set out above, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the scheme the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs to remedy damp and mould in the property in 2018 to 2019 that were agreed through her legal disrepair claim, is outside of jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written letter of apology to the resident from a director level or above for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident directly £650 in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of her subsequent report of damp in the property in 2021.
3. Pay the resident directly £2,177 compensation in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint comprising:
  1. £1,477 previously offered to the resident on 15 February 2022.
  2. £150 offered in its final response of 14 April 2022.
  3. £550 in respect of the detriment and time and trouble caused to the resident over the extended period in providing its final response.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities. It must produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this service and the landlord’s governing body and residents’ panel, outlining as a minimum:
1. Its intentions and a timescale to carry out a self-assessment of its record keeping practices using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website).
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its policies for responding to vulnerable residents.