Citizen Housing (202227159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227159

Citizen Housing

26 June 2024

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
2. heating and hot water repairs.
3. rent arrears.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 41(c) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. The landlord issued court proceedings in relation to the resident’s rent arrears in February 2023 and a judgement was made in August 2023. Therefore, this matter falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the resident is advised to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since January 2021. The property is a bedsit.

Summary of events

In February 2021, the resident reported that his heating was not working. The landlord raised an emergency works order and recorded this as completed the following day; with a note that the heating was switched off and the operative had gone through the settings with the resident and told him to leave it switched on.
On 18 June 2022, the resident reported that the hot water tank controls were not working properly. The landlord raised a non-emergency works order and recorded this as completed on 30 June 2022, with a note that no access was given.
The same day the resident reported that the water tank was not warming the water property. The landlord raised an emergency works order and recorded this as completed the following day, with a note that a part had been replaced and the tank was left in working order.
On 12 and 14 October 2022 the resident reported ASB to the landlord, including drug use and damage to the block. The landlord contacted him on 19 October 2022 to discuss his reports but noted that the resident declined to discuss his concerns, so it would send an appointment letter to carry out a home visit. The same day the resident contacted the landlord multiple times to provide information about the ASB, and the next day the landlord noted that it had opened an ASB case but that no “ASB mandatory letters” would be sent until it had spoken with the resident.
Between 21 and 30 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to provide information about the ASB. On 1 November 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had declined a home visit and it tried contacting him to discuss the issues that day and the following day, but was unable to speak with him.
On 28 October 2022 the resident raised concerns about staff conduct, including discrimination towards him. The landlord recorded this as “quick resolution complaint” and noted that it tried to contact him on 1 November 2022. The resident responded the same day that he was unable to speak at that time as he was working and, while he may have been harsh towards the member of staff, this was not the first time he had experienced problems and he felt like their approach was that he was the trouble maker. The landlord noted that it tried contacting the resident again on 4 November 2022, and 3 days later the resident responded and said he did not have anything further he wanted to discuss.
In mid-November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the ASB. On 24 November 2022, it carried out a case review and noted that the resident had confirmed the ASB had improved, he had declined to complete an action plan or contact other agencies to report his concerns. The following month the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the ASB and noted that he declined to discuss the matter. The ASB case was closed the same day and the landlord noted that a letter was sent to the resident confirming this.
On 18 December 2022 the resident told the landlord it had failed its complaints procedure in relation to his concerns about a member of staff’s behaviour towards him.
The resident reported that his heating was not working on 28 December 2022. The landlord raised an emergency works order and recorded this as completed the same day, with a note that it was an “old type storage heater system”. It advised him to check with his supplier that the off-peak supply had been set up for the heaters to work and, if it had, an upgrade to the system may have been required.
In early February 2023 the resident reported ASB to the landlord, which it recorded as being drug related. The landlord contacted him 3 days later and he said that things had got worse and he was afraid he would get stabbed. He had been threatened and choked and identified 2 specific addresses involved in drug activity.
On 10 February 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord that he was unhappy with the way his ASB reports had been handled. There was drug use in the block, his property had been damaged and he had been physically attacked several times, but the landlord had taken no action. It had closed down the investigation due to lack of evidence but he had provided this. There were historical repair issues and he had been without heating for 18 months after moving into the property. There was a delay in fixing his thermostat as he had been repeatedly told that he did not know how to use it. This had been fixed on 1 July 2022, but he had been told an inspection of the heating system would be done and this had not happened.
The same month the landlord had contact with the Police about the ASB. It agreed to carry out a joint visit to all properties in the building, including the resident, to complete a questionnaire, discuss any ASB concerns and encourage reporting, which it noted that it did a week later, on 21 February 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 February 2023. The resident explained the ASB he was experiencing. However, when the landlord asked about outstanding repairs, offered support and enquired about his wellbeing, the telephone notes shows that the resident shut down the conversation. The resident called the landlord on 28 February 2023 and asked to speak to a manager. The call note indicates that the resident felt that on the previous call he was being talked down to and he was unhappy that the landlord asked if he had mental health issues. A manager called the resident back the same day. A call note from 1 March 2023 shows that the resident was unhappy with the call as they found the landlord staff member ‘intimidating’. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 6 March 2023, the landlord stated that the resident had been abusive and the manager had ended the call.
In late February and early March 2023 the resident raised further concerns about staff conduct and the landlord’s failure to progress a complaint about this previously, a breach of data protection and the property being uninhabitable because of ASB and repair issues. He asked for these issues to be added to his complaint and for support to be offered, which the landlord noted it did by referring him to its tenancy sustainment team.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023, which said:
1. It apologised it had not responded to his complaint within the required 10 day timescale.
2. It apologised if he felt staff had been disrespectful as this was not their intention. It wanted to understand the impact of the ASB and discuss any help or support it, or other agencies, could offer.
3. He should report incidents of assault to the Police for investigation and provide the crime reference numbers to the landlord, so it could follow these up. It was working closely with the Police to deal with the ASB and drug dealing in the block. It would discuss his allegations with the individual addresses mentioned.
4. He had declined to complete diary sheets to record the ASB and it asked him to reconsider, as this was an important method of gathering evidence to enable it to take action.
The resident replied the same day. He was unhappy with the complaint response and felt that the serious ASB issues he had raised had not been addressed. The resident stated he felt that the flat was dangerous and he was at risk of being stabbed. The following day the landlord confirmed that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord noted that it opened an ASB case for the resident but that a “vulnerability assessment matrix” (VAM) and action plan were not completed with him and referred to a phone call on 24 February 2023 as the reason for this. The landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the ASB report and asking him to complete diary sheets and provide any crime reference numbers.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service in early March 2023 and a letter was sent to the landlord on 27 March 2023 asking it to provide a complaint response regarding heating and hot water repairs, ASB and staff conduct.
The following day the landlord contacted the resident and discussed his concerns at length. He confirmed that his heating and hot water were working and had been since December 2022, when it was last repaired, but this had taken 2 years to fix. He had asked to make a complaint about a member of staff last year but this was ignored. This member of staff had since breached data protection by mentioning his name to one of the neighbours causing the ASB. He reported he had been attacked by a neighbour on one occasion but had sorted this himself. He had been threatened with knives and there was drug use in the block.
The landlord reviewed the ASB case at the end of March 2023 and noted that the alleged perpetrator needed to be spoken to and it would do a home visit with the Police, which it did 3 days later. There were lots of general reports but no independent evidence from other agencies and residents were unwilling to report specific incidents, so it would not meet the threshold for enforcement action at that stage.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which said:
1. It had completed the relevant safety check before letting the property to him, to ensure the heating and hot water were in working order, and no issues were identified. It had attended within the required 24 hour timescale following reports regarding the heating and hot water not working, and offered solutions to the issues.
2. He had confirmed that the heating was working since December 2022 and it asked him to confirm whether he had checked with his supplier that the off-peak supply had been set up for the storage heaters to work; as an upgrade of the system had been recommended if this was the case.
3. He had reported that the property was not fit for purpose and there were lots of issues to resolve. It confirmed there were outstanding repairs for the kitchen window with an appointment on 19 April 2023 and the kitchen waste with an appointment on 17 April 2023. These repairs were later recorded as completed on 20 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 respectively.
4. Regarding the ASB, it had not received any reports following its visits to all properties in the block in February 2023. It had visited one address to discuss the allegations and agree an action plan to prevent further nuisance. It explained that its safer neighbourhood and tenancy sustainment officers intended to visit the resident shortly.
5. It would only take action to evict someone for ASB if the behaviour was serious and persistent and all other interventions had failed. It needed substantial, relevant and timely evidence, and it could be necessary to keep diary sheets for a considerable period of time. It had followed its ASB policy and procedure in response to his reports. He could ask the local authority for a formal review by activating the community trigger and provided a website link for more information about this.
6. It understood that it was frustrating if he could not speak to a member of staff at the time he made contact or did not receive an immediate response. It prioritised enquiries based on risk to health and safety. It apologised that he felt unsupported regarding the ASB and would ask the Police to review his case and work with him on a resolution.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident to arrange a visit on 5, 18 and 21 April 2023. The landlord noted that it was either unable to get hold of the resident or he was unable to confirm a convenient date and time. The landlord attended a partnership meeting in May 2023 with the police, council and a care leaver support organisation to discuss the case. A final offer of a visit from its safer neighbourhood and tenancy sustainment officers was made to the resident on 12 June 2023 and the resident refused as he stated he now just wanted to move out of the property.
In May 2023 the resident told this Service that the landlord’s final response did not match the current situation and there were issues that had been missed. He had been without heating and hot water for a period of time; however, the landlord has since told this Service that it has no record of the resident being left without heating or hot water for an extended period.
The resident contacted the landlord support officer in July 2023 and a home visit was arranged for 6 days later to discuss the ASB, which went ahead. In August 2023, the landlord noted that it tried calling the resident but was unable to speak with him. A letter was sent telling him that he had not reported any further ASB incidents since its visit last month and it was closing the case, as there was no further action it could take due to a lack of evidence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about drainage repairs and unsafe electrics in the property, which were responded to at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure in October 2023. However, these issues have not been considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure and therefore fall outside of the scope of this investigation (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether he wants these issues to be escalated to stage 2 for a final response to be provided.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord breaching data protection. The Ombudsman would not investigate whether there had been a breach of data protection by the landlord as these matters are more appropriately investigated and dealt with by the Information Commissioners Office (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). However, the Ombudsman has considered and assessed how the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns about this issue.
The resident has told the landlord that these matters have negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s ASB reports

The resident’s reports of drug use, damage to the block, threats and physical violence would be defined as ASB in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which gives examples of ASB as violence or threats of violence, damage to property and selling, supplying or possession of illegal drugs. The landlord’s ASB procedure says that it will complete a VAM within 1 working day for residents reporting violence or serious threats of violence and within 3 working days for reports of drugs.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure says that it will make prompt contact with residents when they report ASB and send an acknowledgement letter. In this case it did make prompt contact when the resident made reports in October 2022 and February 2023 as it contacted him in 5 and 3 working days respectively. The records show that an acknowledgement letter was sent in March 2023, but not in October 2022. However, the records show that the landlord considered this at the time and decided not to send the letter until it had spoken to the resident, which was a reasonable decision to make.
The records show that the landlord made a number of attempts to speak with the resident about his ASB cases between October and December 2022 and February and April 2023, which were not always successful through no fault of the landlord. This understandably impacted the landlord’s ability to manage and progress the cases as it was limited inbeing able to agree and review an action plan with him, which is committed in its ASB policy and procedure. The landlord records show that it considered the requirements of its policy as it made reference to being unable to complete an action plan with him on a number of occasions. In addition to phone contact, the landlord offered and completed home visits to the resident, which was appropriate to engage with him regarding the concerns he had raised, and showed that it was taking these seriously.
The resident said he felt unsupported by the landlord regarding the ASB; however, the records indicate that the landlord made attempts to speak with him regarding the issues to offer support, referred him to its tenancy sustainment team, signposted him to other agencies, and visited him at home to discuss his concerns. All of these steps were appropriate and showed that it wanted to support him with the issues he was experiencing. However, the landlord could also have suggested specific victim of ASB support from organisations such as Victim Support or Supportline.
Having reviewed the communications log, it is notable that the resident at this time was receiving communications from the landlord relating to his rent arrears. A warning of court action was sent on 2 February 2023, an application to court letter on 28 February 2023 and possession pro forma on 24 March 2023. The resident’s call on 1 March 2023 confirms that the rent arrears was causing him a great deal of distress.
The landlord spoke with the resident at length on 28 March 2023. He informed the landlord of the ASB he was witnessing and experiencing within the block. This was now the second time that the resident had spoken for a long period with the landlord and provided detailed explanations of the ASB. On both occasions, the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment or agree an action plan with the resident. It is accepted that during the call on 24 February 2023, the resident was unwilling to respond to some questions; however, the call on 28 March 2023 appears to have been a missed opportunity. When the landlord contacted the landlord again in April 2023, the call notes indicate that he was now more concerned by the forthcoming court appearance in relation to the rent arrears than his ASB reports.
If the landlord did not feel that it was appropriate to complete a risk assessment/agree an action plan on this occasion, it could have explained its importance and agreed another time to contact the resident to complete these. The landlord failed to complete a risk assessment and action plan until June 2023. Given the serious nature of the resident’s reports and the threat of physical violence, the landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment or action plan is a significant shortfall in its handling of ASB.
It is concerning to note that the landlord has recorded that it is unaware of any vulnerabilities for the resident. The correspondence provided by the landlord indicates multiple references to the resident being a care leaver. Care leavers, particularly those under 25, are recognised as a particularly vulnerable group. The Government’s Care Leaver Strategy highlights that care leavers have a greater risk of homelessness as around a quarter of those living on the streets have a background in care.
The multidisciplinary meeting in May 2023 included an organisation run by Coventry City Council that supports care leavers. As such, it is clear that the landlord was aware of the resident’s status as a care leaver. However, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge that this meant the resident was potentially vulnerable. The landlord is required to provide training to ensure its staff identify and record resident vulnerabilities in future. The resident’s potential vulnerability made the need for a timely risk assessment all the more pressing. A safeguarding concern was raised in May 2023 following the multidisciplinary meeting; however, the landlord should also have prioritised a risk assessment at this time.
A risk assessment is the assimilation of information to determine the risk of harm being posed to an individual. It is completed following a conversation with the victim. Best practice is for the assessor to undertake the assessment without reference to the scores and associated levels of risk. Made up of carefully structured questions, the assessment highlights risk at an early stage and prioritises it according to the level of severity. Once the level of risk has been identified, the assessment will then guide the case handling officer towards the appropriate and necessary steps to try to protect the victim from further harm. The outcome of the assessment is shared with all agencies involved with the case to provide adequate support to the victim.
At an early stage, the landlord should have considered the vulnerable status of the resident as a victim of ASB. This includes a consideration of any safeguarding concerns. ASB can have a significant impact on its victims. There are both direct and indirect impacts ranging from physical injury to emotional and/or psychological harm. A risk assessment is not merely a bureaucratic exercise, but integral to the management of an ASB case. This is because its identification of high-risk or medium-risk victims guides the subsequent handling of the case. These factors underline the importance of the landlord undertaking a risk assessment and ensuring that the resident is supported as early as possible.
The action plan should have been agreed and shared in writing with the resident soon after his reports were logged. A lack of understanding of what steps are being taken contributes to residents feeling that their ASB case is not being dealt with efficiently or effectively. Clarity for residents of what actions are going to be taken, and by when, improves understanding and sets realistic expectations. Written action plans can also help the landlord as a case management tool. On this occasion, the landlord’s debt recovery action only exacerbated matters. He felt that the landlord was only focused on chasing his rent arrears instead of tackling the ASB. Some coordination between the landlord’s debt recovery and its ASB officers could have ensured a short-term hold on further debt collection was in place in the hope of encouraging the resident to better engage with its service.
The delays in completing a risk assessment and action plan are evident of maladministration. It is acknowledged that the resident was uncooperative during some conversations with the landlord; however, it is clear that the landlord could have done more. There was a missed opportunity to complete a risk assessment and action plan in March 2023. As the landlord’s attempts to speak to the resident were unproductive, it could have explained in writing why it was important that it completed a risk assessment and action plan and that the resident’s input was important to this process. The landlord also failed to identify the negative effect on the landlord-tenant relationship of its continued debt recovery action on a vulnerable resident who felt that his ASB reports were being ignored. This only impaired its ability to encourage the resident to engage with its ASB investigation.
An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the importance of formal risk assessments in ASB case handling and the process for doing so, in line with its current ASB procedure, even when residents are not fully engaged in the process.
The landlord adopted a multi-agency approach to the ASB by working jointly with the Police, which was in line with its ASB policy that says it will liaise with partner agencies. Due to the nature of the issues being reported, it was sensible for the landlord to engage with all residents in the building and encourage reporting. It also took steps to speak with the individual addresses identified by the resident as being involved in the behaviour, which is in line with its ASB procedure.
The actions taken by the landlord to gather evidence and address the behaviour were reasonable but, despite this, it noted that residents were reluctant to make specific reports and the threshold for enforcement action had not been met. Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the landlord to carry out an additional site visit to assess whether there are any practical steps it can take to gather evidence or deter the ASB. A written update should be provided to all residents of the block confirming the outcome of the visit and what, if any, actions it will take to provide reassurance that it is continuing to resolve the issues.
It was reasonable that the landlord encouraged the resident to report his concerns to the Police and keep a record of incidents using diary sheets. These actions are set out in the landlord’s ASB policy as expectations of its residents. When the resident declined to do this, the landlord explained why they were important as part of its complaint responses, which was appropriate to ensure he understood why it was asking him to do them. While the resident may have had his own reasons for not wanting to report to the Police or complete diary sheets, his decision to decline them will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to progress the cases.
The records show that the landlord carried out reviews of the resident’s ASB cases; however, these were not always done in line with the committed 30 day timescale set out in its ASB procedure. Particularly, in the case opened in March 2023, the records show that the case was reviewed at the end of that month. However, there is no record that any further reviews were carried out, despite the case remaining open until August 2023.
When the landlord closed the ASB cases in December 2022 and August 2023, it wrote to the resident and explained why, which was in line with its ASB policy that said it would fully explain its reasons for closing a case. The reason given was that there was insufficient evidence to progress action and, while frustrating for the resident, this was a reasonable assessment and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says its actions may be limited where there is not enough evidence. In response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its decision, it signposted him to the local authority community trigger, which was sensible and showed that it was being open and transparent in its decision making.
The resident raised concerns about staff conduct in the landlord’s handling of the ASB, including a breach of data protection, discrimination and unfair treatment; and he asked for these issues to be addressed as part his formal complaint. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate allegations of staff misconduct, but to assess the landlord’s response to any allegations of this nature.
In this case, the landlord’s response to these concerns lacked detail and failed to address all of the specific issues raised. While it acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with staff conduct, it did not indicate that any investigation had been carried out or provide any outcome, it simply asserted that staff had acted with the best of intentions. While this may have been the case, it was important that the landlord investigate the resident’s specific concerns and its failure to do so left him feeling ignored and only strengthened his belief that the landlord was treating him unfairly.
This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of his ASB reports and pay him £300 compensation. A further order has been made for the landlord to review this matter and provide a written response to the resident about his specific concerns regarding staff conduct.

Handling of heating and hot water repairs

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the heating and hot water system under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which says it is responsible for repairs to installations for space and water heating. The landlord’s guidance on its website says that a complete loss of heating and hot water would be treated as an emergency repair. Therefore, it was appropriate that it raised emergency works orders in February 2021 and December 2022 when the resident reported that he had no heating. On both occasions, it responded in line with the committed response time of 24 hours, for emergency repairs, set out on its website.
The resident reported a number of repairs on 18 June 2022. This included that the hot water tank controls were not working properly. The landlord’s communication records show that it texted the resident on 18 June 2022 to confirm appointments as follows:
1. Electrics repair – 30 June 2022
2. Carpentry repair – 28 July 2022
3. Carpentry repair – 9 August 2022
The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate that it responded to the resident regarding the hot water tank repair. The landlord’s website clearly notifies users that, to inform it about emergency repairs, residents should call. The website also explains its definition of an emergency repair. Assuming that the website was just as clear in June 2022, the landlord appropriately communicated its policy.
However, it is concerning that this policy is not suitable for all residents. The landlord should have a fail safe in place to ensure emergency repairs are not overlooked when logged via an incorrect channel. On this occasion, the resident appears to have incorrectly assumed that the flurry of text messages he received meant that all his repairs were logged and would be taken care of. A fail safe whereby residents are called within 24 hours of logging an emergency repair online would prevent the potential for emergency repairs to be missed. Without this fail safe, there is the potential for serious harm to occur, particularly to vulnerable residents.
Ultimately, the resident raised an emergency repair and the landlord did not respond. Although I accept that this was raised through the incorrect channel, it should still have prompted some action from the landlord. The landlord should also consider the accessibility of its repairs service for residents who are unable or experience difficulty using the telephone to communicate. An order has also been made below for the landlord to provide staff training to its front-line repairs team on its repair timescales and how to identify emergency repairs.
The landlord recorded that the resident did not give access for the repair to go ahead on 30 June 2022. The available evidence indicates that he was informed of the appointment in advance. The landlord is therefore not responsible for this failed appointment.
When the resident raised the hot water supply repair again on 30 June 2022, the landlord appropriately responded to this as an emergency repair. However, as the resident had reported this issue 12 days earlier, the landlord’s failure to respond amounts to maladministration and meant that the resident did not have an adequate supply of hot water for a period of nearly 2 weeks.
Following the landlord’s visit on 28 December 2022, it noted that the resident had been instructed to check details of his supply set-up with his energy supplier. It was sensible of the landlord to ask the resident to check this, but it should also have followed up with the resident to confirm the outcome, particularly as it had noted that if the supply was set up correctly, the system may require an upgrade.
There is no record that the landlord followed up regarding this until the stage 2 response, 4 months later, which was after the resident had made a formal complaint and escalated to this Service. It is noted from more recent records that an upgrade of the heating system has since taken place, meaning no further follow up regarding this issue would be required.
In his initial complaint in February 2023, the resident raised concerns about his heating and hot water. It is noted that the landlord attempted to speak to him about outstanding repairs on 24 February 2023, but it failed to address this issue in its stage 1 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the issues for the resident at an earlier stage and left him feeling that he was not being listened to.
The resident said in his complaint that he had been left without heating and hot water for a period of 18 months; however, the landlord has said there is no record of the resident being left without these services for an extended period. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident was left without heating and hot water for an 18 month period but, as set out above, he was left without an adequate supply of hot water for around 2 weeks. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of this issue and pay him £200 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 17 working days, which was over the committed response time of 10 working days, set out in its complaints policy. It acknowledged the delay and apologised for this in the stage 1 response, but did not consider whether any other redress was required.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided in 21 working days , which was again over the committed response time of 20 working day, set out in its complaints policy. However, as this was only 1 day late, it was a very minor delay.
When the resident told the landlord that the property was uninhabitable because of outstanding repairs, it responded setting out the outstanding repairs it had raised. While reasonable that the landlord would check this, it would also have been appropriate for it to consider carrying out an inspection of the property as a way to offer reassurance to the resident that it took his concerns seriously. This was particularly important as the resident had indicated that he was expecting an inspection of the heating system but this had not happened and so arranging an inspection to assess the condition of the property as a whole, would have been appropriate to ensure that the resident’s concerns were fully addressed. Its failure to do this left the resident feeling ignored and let down.
When the resident raised concerns about staff conduct in October 2022, the landlord raised this as a “quick resolution complaint”. In addition to the formal 2 stage process, the landlord’s complaints policy says that a complaint will be investigated by a manager of the relevant service area within 3 working days, if it cannot not be resolved at the first point of contact. Where a more in-depth investigation is required, action will be taken in line with its formal complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. However, it is not appropriate for landlord’s to have extra named stages in its procedure, as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. While the landlord does not have an extra named stage set out in its procedure, the records in this case indicate that in practice it does have an additional stage that it refers to as a “quick resolution complaint”, which is not in line with the Code and goes against good complaint handling principles.
In this case, while the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns raised in October 2022, this was done informally, rather than via the formal complaints procedure. This did cause confusion for the resident as in follow up contact with the landlord in December 2022, February 2023 and March 2023, he made reference to his previous complaint not being progressed, which made him feel ignored and caused him to lose faith in the landlord. This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling and pay him £250 compensation.
The Ombudsman has decided to issue wider orders under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, for the landlord to review its complaint handling practices in relation to an issue identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. ASB reports.
2. heating and hot water repairs.
3. complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete a VAM or action plan in the timeframes set out in its ASB procedure. The resident’s potential vulnerability made the need for a timely risk assessment all the more pressing. It is acknowledged that the resident was uncooperative during some conversations with the landlord; however, the landlord could have done more.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of heating and hot water repairs in line with its committed response times. It appropriately identified a number of the repairs were emergencies; however, in June 2022 it failed to respond to the repair because it was raised by the resident online. This meant the resident was left without an adequate supply of hot water supply for around 2 weeks. The landlord failed to address the heating and hot water issues as part of its stage 1 response, despite the resident raising this as part of the initial complaint, which left him feeling like the landlord was not listening to him.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the minor delay to its stage 1 complaint response but failed to consider whether any other redress was required. When the resident raised concerns about staff conduct in October 2022, the landlord dealt with this as a “quick resolution complaint”, which is not clearly set out in its complaints policy and goes against good complaint handling principles, set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The use of this informal stage caused confusion for the resident and left him feeling as though his concerns had been ignored, which caused him to lose faith in the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out an additional site visit to the block, to speak to residents about ASB and consider any practical steps it could take to help gather evidence or deter ASB. A written update to the be provided to all residents of the block confirming the outcome of the visit and what, if any, actions it will take.
2. Apologise to the resident for its handling of his ASB reports, heating and hot water repairs and complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident £750 compensation, made up of £300 for its handling of his ASB reports, £200 for its handling of heating and hot water repairs and £250 for its complaint handling.
Update its records to include reference to the resident’s care leaver status as a potential vulnerability.
Introduce a fail safe within its repairs procedure to ensure emergency repairs that are logged online are not ignored. The landlord should also consider the accessibility of its emergency repairs service for residents who are unable or experience difficulty using the telephone to communicate.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on:
1. The importance of risk assessments in ASB case handling and the process for completing these in line with its current ASB procedure, even when residents are not fully engaged in the process.
2. Repair timescales and how to identify emergency repairs, to its front-line repairs team.
3. Identifying and recording resident vulnerabilities.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a review at senior management level of its complaint handling practices with specific focus on the “quick resolution complaint” process. The outcome of this review to include:
1. Clarification of why this additional stage is being used in practice but not clearly referenced in its complaints policy.
2. Identification of how many “quick resolution complaints” it has dealt with in the past year and a review of at least twenty percent of these cases to be carried out to identify whether the use of this process successfully resolved the resident’s concern. Where it did not, contact to be made to the resident to assess whether a formal complaint needs to be raised.
3. An assessment of whether its complaints policy and practices need changing to ensure compliance with the Code.
4. A plan for staff training that focuses on the difference between a “quick resolution complaint” and the formal complaints process.
The landlord to provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 12 weeks of the date of this report, including timeframes for follow on actions to be completed.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether he wants his concerns about drainage repairs and unsafe electrics to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, for a final response to be provided.
The landlord to confirm its intentions regarding the above recommendation to this Service within 4 weeks.