London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202205988)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205988

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 March 2024 (amended at review)

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s historical concerns about various issues including:
  1. The property’s condition on letting;
  2. The landlord’s handling of adaptations and repairs that were approved in 2016;
  3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s historical reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and estate management issues.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his vulnerabilities and the landlord’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a drainage issue.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
5. 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 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s historical concerns about various issues.
The resident has said he reported various concerns about the property’s condition soon after he moved in. In addition, these concerns included disrepair, damp, and mould. He later told the Ombudsman that the property lacked a functioning kitchen and bathroom when his tenancy began.
In July 2016 the landlord approved a request for works and adaptations to the property. The landlord’s correspondence shows the works included replacing the existing bath with a shower unit. It also shows the resident reported the property needed to be redecorated and there were no kitchen cabinets. The landlord said, having reviewed the resident’s information, it was satisfied the work was necessary and appropriate for his needs.
In late July 2016, the landlord wrote to the resident about an asbestos survey. It said an internal and external inspection was needed before the planned refurbishment and decoration works could begin. It asked the resident to call a number provided to arrange a convenient appointment. The Ombudsman has not seen any information to confirm the resident’s response.
The information seen indicates the resident reported ASB concerns around September 2016. The resident’s timeline of events suggests he was broadly concerned about cannabis use and rubbish dumped on the estate.
In February 2017, the resident raised concerns about parking and the landlord’s estate management. Broadly, he said the block’s communal gardens were neglected and there was a lack of cleaning. He felt the landlord was failing to provide services in line with its service charges. His correspondence did not reference any repair issues at the property.
The resident’s timeline shows he did not raise a related formal complaint with the landlord until 23 June 2020. This was almost 4 years after some of the key events in his complaint took place. The resident has said the landlord’s response 28 days later was “not worth the paper it was written on”. Overall, the evidence we have seen supports the above complaint date.
Paragraph 42(c) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The above information shows the resident’s historical concerns are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because there was an unreasonable delay before they were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint. As a result, this assessment focused on the matters that were in our jurisdiction to consider.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and his tenancy began in June 2016. The property is a 1 bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. They include a musculoskeletal condition, mobility issues, chronic pain, PTSD, anxiety and telephobia (a form of anxiety linked to using the telephone).
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. This includes walls and drains as well as fixtures and fittings for heating and sanitation. The resident is responsible for keeping the home clean and in good condition. He is obliged to: report repairs promptly, allow the landlord access for inspections and repairs, and redecorate as often as required.
The landlord has a vulnerable residents policy. It shows vulnerability can affect a resident’s ability to access the landlord’s services. It also shows the landlord adopts a: think, respond, and record approach to vulnerability. Broadly, the landlord should establish a resident’s support needs and ensure the details are recorded to guide its future actions. Though it refers to reasonable adjustments, the policy does not detail how the landlord should respond to related requests.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. A further 10 working days is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed. The policy does not cover: complaints over 6 months old (unless there are exceptional circumstances), legal liability issues such as insurance claims, or ASB (unless the complaint concerns the landlord’s case handling).

Summary of events

The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s full complaint from 23 June 2020. Nor have we seen the landlord’s subsequent response. The resident’s timeline confirms the complaint was “hundreds of pages” long and the landlord responded. It was noted our records show the resident did not approach the Ombudsman for around 23 months after the landlord replied to this complaint.
The information seen indicates the above complaint would be outside of our jurisdiction if the resident asked us to review it based on paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is because complaints must typically be brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of exhausting a landlord’s formal complaints procedure. Given the above, our assessment timeline begins in May 2021.
The resident has said he emailed one of the landlord’s contractors in May 2021 with the landlord copied in. Though we have not seen his full correspondence, we have seen a generic acknowledgment from a member of the landlord’s executive team. The resident has said neither the landlord or its contractor responded. The contractor’s subsequent correspondence shows it was trying to arrange a suitable appointment for an electrical inspection.
In a letter to the resident on 17 June 2021, the contractor said it had written to him 4 times about electrical testing at the property. Further, its routine checks were “not optional”. The contractor said it had also tried to communicate with the resident by phone. It warned that failure to allow access may prompt legal action by the landlord. It said the resident could contact the landlord by phone if he needed reassurance about the works.
The resident wrote to the contractor 4 days later. Broadly, he denied preventing access to the property. His correspondence referenced a number of recent interactions between the involved parties. The resident alleged the contractor had breached the Equality Act (2010). He asked it to respond to several detailed concerns. He later said the testing was completed in early July 2021. No information was seen to show the contractor responded to his complaint letter.
On 9 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s housing services team. He said an external blockage was causing sewage water to backfill into the kitchen sink. Further, urgent cleaning was required to address the foul smell. He also said he needed email communication for health reasons and his previous correspondence to the same mailbox had not been answered. He made a formal request for email communication as a reasonable adjustment.
Tenancy notes from 24 August 2021 show the landlord was unable to contact the resident about a maintenance request. They said the landlord had left a message on his mobile phone and sent him an email. Further, it was also unable to contact the resident on his home phone number. As a result, the notes said the request was cancelled and the landlord would wait for the resident to get back in touch about the drainage issue.
On 20 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. His complaint email raised concerns about several aspects of the landlord’s operations. In an accompanying letter, the resident explained his vulnerabilities and referenced his 2016 request for email contact. He made related allegations around harassment, victimisation, and discrimination. Broadly, the resident said he had been marginalised by the landlord’s communication failures.
In his letter, the resident referred to his recent interactions with the contractor, along with his drainage report. He also referenced various historical issues. He said he was seeking an apology and damages for “injury to feelings, and delays to repairs”. He suggested that various works to the property and fair compensation would amount to a reasonable settlement. He also said the landlord should arrange an inspection from an independent surveyor.
The resident emailed the Chief Executive again on 28 October 2021. He said the landlord did not respond to his previous complaint. The email broadly reiterated the resident’s previous concerns. The landlord issued a generic acknowledgement on the same day. It said the Chief Executive was on leave but their emails were being monitored. There was a significant gap in the evidence at this point. However, no information was seen to suggest the landlord responded to any of the resident’s complaints at this time.
On 10 May 2022 the resident reported a leak. The information seen suggests it occurred after 10pm at night. The resident has said there was water ingress into the property’s kitchen, bathroom, and living room from an upstairs flat. Further, water leaked into the electrics and personal items were damaged. In addition, he had to “muster the courage” to call the landlord’s repairs service.
Repair records show the property’s lighting was made safe the following day. They also show an operative asked the landlord to arrange a supervisor’s inspection because the bathroom was in poor condition. Subsequently, a portion of the bathroom ceiling collapsed due to the water damage.
The parties’ records and correspondence shows the following events occurred between 12 May and 7 September 2022:
1. The landlord raised a repair order to renew the bath and panel, replace flooring, and complete tiling works.
2. The landlord’s contractor texted the resident about the repairs. The text message confirms it was due to visit the property on 30 May 2022. The resident chased the contractor on this date by replying to the text. The parties agree the text related to a supervisor’s inspection that the contractor failed to attend.
3. The resident has told us he experienced a panic attack on 31 May 2022 that lasted over 8 hours. In addition, he ultimately called Samaritans due to the level of distress he experienced.
4. A further text on 4 June 2022 said the landlord would attend the property within 4 hours. The landlord’s contact notes show the resident subsequently called the landlord to chase the repair.
5. The resident approached the Ombudsman with multiple concerns around 2 weeks later. He subsequently told us he raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2021. No information was seen to show he previously complained to the landlord about the leak.
6. On 7 September 2022, we relayed the resident’s concerns to the landlord. Our correspondence referenced repair and complaint handling delays, damp, mould, disrepair and cold, the lack of a functioning kitchen and bathroom, damaged items, and window repairs.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there was a service failure and upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised and confirmed it would consider compensation when the necessary repairs were complete. However, it did not clearly explain the failure the landlord had identified. Other key points were:
1. Following the operative’s visit on 11 May 2022, a repair order was raised to address various bathroom works. The landlord had contacted its contractor for an update. (This information suggests the landlord upheld the complaint based on delayed repairs).
2. The landlord operated a reactive repair service. It relied on residents reporting repairs. It could not see the resident previously reported damp and mould, or window issues.
3. Repairs should be reported using the contact details provided (including an email address). However, the landlord had arranged a damp inspection on the resident’s behalf. A specialist contractor would contact the resident soon.
4. The resident should contact the landlord’s insurance team about his damaged personal belongings. A contact email address was provided along with details of the supporting information required.
Repair records show the landlord was unable to access the property on 8 September 2022 to complete the various bathroom works. The repair order was marked “Complete No Access”. The landlord’s subsequent correspondence suggests it wrote to the resident the next day and asked him to rearrange the repair.
The parties exchanged emails on 27 September 2022. The landlord said it could raise a new bathroom repair order with the resident’s agreement. However, it would close the complaint if he did not respond in the next few days. The resident replied its stage 1 response was insensitive and lacked detail. He said he would escalate his complaint in due course. However, he was currently unwell and staying away from the property. He also said he would not respond to the landlord, or its contractors, until it had reviewed his complaint.
On 22 November 2022 the resident submitted a detailed escalation request. He included the Ombudsman in his correspondence. There were 50 separate evidence files attached to his email. The evidence included several alarming pictures of the property. They appeared to show: kitchen and bathroom walls stripped back to the plasterwork, mould, damage to a ceiling and carpet, and dirty bathroom sanitaryware (bath, basin, toilet). The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement the following day.
In mid-December 2022 the landlord raised the resident’s case internally. It said the complaint was extensive and it covered multiple areas of concern. It said a meeting with the resident would help to address many of the issues raised. However, the meeting would need to take his vulnerabilities into account. The landlord noted there were no related warning markers on its repairs system. Overall, the landlord wanted to understand the conditions inside the property.
Around the same time, the landlord notified the resident it needed further time to investigate his complaint. This was on the basis the was a significant amount of evidence and extensive investigation was needed. It said it would respond to the complaint by 6 January 2023 (10 working days after the initial deadline).
Within days, the landlord emailed the resident a range of available inspection dates between 5 and 26 January 2023. It said the inspection would be completed by a repairs leader. It also said it wanted to arrange the inspection as soon as possible. No information was seen to suggest the resident replied. The landlord subsequently chased him by email and letter in early January 2023.
On 6 January 2023 a contractor responded to the landlord’s request for information. It said a supervisor previously texted the resident about an appointment. However, the appointment did not go ahead and there were no records to explain why. The contractor apologised for its lack of communication. It also said a more recent appointment had failed even though it was arranged with the resident beforehand.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on the same day. This was in line with its extended deadline. The response was over 40 pages long and it quoted around 50 separate complaint points made by the resident. Many of them were wide-ranging. For example, “Excuses allowed (the landlord’s) employees and contractors to remain in their uncomfortable comfort zone, dodge conflict by avoiding honesty both with others and themselves, dodge accountability, and cast themselves in a better light…”. For readability, the following is a summary of the key points from the landlord’s response:
1. The landlord’s complaints policy did not cover matters that were over 6 months old unless there were exceptional circumstances. Many of the resident’s concerns were “far outside of this period”.
2. The resident’s evidence files showed there were issues that needed immediate attention. However, some contained standard communications from the landlord and external publications. Some of this information predated the resident’s tenancy.
3. The resident had referred to “certain incidents (that) occurred around (the property that were) perpetrated by adult men”. The landlord was unsure what he meant and it needed more information to investigate. If the matter was serious, the resident could alert the police.
4. Several issues were not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. In addition, no examples or supporting evidence had been provided. As a result, the landlord lacked the necessary information to investigate. Its complaints process was evidence based. The resident could raise a separate complaint to address the new issues and he should provide accompanying evidence.
5. Another new issue raised by the resident referred to “threatening” correspondence from the landlord’s contractor in June 2021. Although the matter was not part of the landlord’s current investigation, it had passed the details to its contracts leader for further investigation.
6. Repair records showed the resident did not report any repairs between November 2016 and August 2021. At this point, he reported water backfilling into the kitchen sink. Though a repair order was raised, it was ultimately cancelled because the landlord was unable to contact him by email or phone.
7. There was also evidence of recent contact issues. The landlord’s specialist damp contractor tried to call the resident 4 times between 20 September and 1 October 2022 (a supporting screen shot was included). The landlord subsequently told the contractor not to phone him. Another repair order was raised and an email notification was sent to the resident on 16 December 2022.
8. The landlord had images of the property that were taken a few weeks before the resident moved in (its response included undated images which appeared to show a kitchen and bathroom that were decorated and in a reasonable condition). The landlord noted the contrast between its images and the resident’s own pictures.
9. In relation to the leak, the landlord relayed the contractor’s information about the text exchange and its apology for not attending the corresponding appointment. While it was unable to speculate on the supervisor’s motives, the landlord agreed their conduct was unacceptable. It had alerted its contract manager to the situation.
10. There was no evidence the resident had reported damp, mould or cold temperatures in the property. He was obliged to report repairs promptly and allow the landlord access for inspections and repairs. The resident’s evidence implied he stayed with family from 11 May 2022. The landlord was unsure when he returned to the property.
11. The resident said he arranged his own contractor to clean mould from the property, replace flooring, and complete decorating works. Further, the works cost him around £2,800. The landlord noted his bank statements did not show a payment to a contractor. The resident had confirmed that, after the leak, the landlord promptly advised him to report any losses to its surveyor. He also said insurance was discussed at this point.
12. The landlord’s contractors had been unable to access the property in relation to leak and mould repairs. In addition, no follow-up communication was received from the resident. The landlord noted the resident was responsible for redecoration and floor coverings. As a result, it was unlikely the landlord was obliged to cover his related expenses.
13. The landlord’s insurance team would have investigated the resident’s damaged items. Having liaised with this department, the landlord was told he had not raised any claims since he moved in. Overall, the landlord’s investigation showed he had not followed the correct process in relation to his damaged belongings.
14. The landlord had requested a full survey of the property. It had also passed on the resident’s requests for adjustments to the property. It noted he mentioned difficulties using the bath, toilet and taps. A relevant colleague had been asked to ensure the resident’s vulnerabilities were correctly recorded in the landlord’s systems.
15. The resident said he had previously reported a number of slow leaks that were damaging the property’s ceiling. The landlord was unable to find his related reports. Its records indicated there may have been leaks in 2016 and 2019. However, these issues “would have been dealt with through (the resident’s) neighbour”.
16. The resident said there were no door handles when he moved in. The landlord was unable to substantiate this due to the time that had passed. However, door handles were a landlord responsibility and the matter would be considered during its full inspection of the property.
17. It was clear communication was a problem between the parties. The landlord was unsure if the resident had used the correct channels for some of his previous contact. Its response contained email addresses for the landlord’s key departments including its repair, ASB and complaints teams.
18. The landlord was sorry the resident felt his concerns were unfairly overlooked. It was unable to comment on previous interactions because it could not see where his correspondence was sent. Unless told otherwise, he should avoid contacting named individuals directly.
19. The landlord noted the resident felt its stage 1 response failed to reference his vulnerabilities. It also noted there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident in one of its key systems. It had seen the resident’s evidence from 2016 (which indicates he alerted the landlord to his telephobia at this point), but it was unable to establish if the interaction related to one of its employees.
20. The landlord was sorry for any frustration caused by the above identified issue with its stage1 response. It was also sorry if any vulnerability information had not been documented. As mentioned, it would contact the resident in due course with a view to correcting its records. The resident’s concerns had been fed back to the stage 1 complaint handler’s supervisor.
21. The landlord had offered the resident a range of inspection dates. It noted one of these dates had now passed. The inspection was necessary to determine the next steps. The landlord needed the resident’s help to address matters and a decant may be required. The landlord would consider the resident’s needs in its related decisions.
22. It was clear that “not all of the resident’s correspondence (was) replied to within the expected timescales”. The landlord was sorry that some of his concerns and queries had not been answered. It recognised that delays would have added to the resident’s anxiety levels.
23. There was no evidence to show the resident had been purposely victimised or that the landlord had acted with malicious intent. Nevertheless, there were clearly areas where communication had broken down. The resident should report any issues as soon as possible. He should also use the correct channels and, in relation to ASB, alert the police where appropriate.
24. Due to the resident’s lack of reporting and its inability to access the property, it was difficult for the landlord to make a fair assessment of the situation. On that basis, it would review its compensation award following the necessary inspection. It would notify the resident if any additional compensation was due.
25. In the meantime, the resident was awarded a total of £860 in compensation. Its calculations were based on the period between 10 May 2022 and the end of January 2023. The compensation comprised: £450 for inconvenience, £360 for distress and £50 for time and effort. A cheque would be issued within 28 days.
26. The landlord would await contact from the resident in relation to the inspection. It would also monitor the case to ensure its agreed actions were completed accordingly.
The resident responded on 9 January 2023. He felt the landlord had tried to make him seem uncooperative. He said he often received medical treatment away from the property, or stayed with relatives. He reiterated his concerns went back to 2016. He disputed the landlord’s description of events following the recent leak. For example, he said he made a further report to the landlord after the bathroom ceiling collapsed. He also disputed he had denied the landlord access to the property in September 2022. Other key points were:
1. The landlord should “hold off any future visit(s) by employees or contractors until” the resident got in touch again to confirm the appointment.
2. There were currently no cooking facilities at the property. As a result, the resident often stayed elsewhere. Due to his health, travelling was difficult for him.
3. The resident disputed the landlord’s comments around discrimination. He felt he had been deliberately “violated” by the landlord’s failure to follow its relevant procedures.
4. The landlord’s images of the property were misleading and it failed to engage with some of the resident’s key evidence.
The landlord’s records and correspondence shows the following events occurred between 13 and 19 January 2023:
1. The landlord’s stage 2 handler briefed colleagues about the inspection and asked for a report detailing the inspection findings.
2. A works order for mould washing throughout the property was marked “Complete No Access”.
3. During internal correspondence, the landlord said the resident’s request to halt any inspections until further notice was concerning. It said the property was uninhabitable and urgent access was required.
The parties exchanged emails on 24 January 2023. The landlord said it did not intend to make the resident seem uncooperative. Further, his safety and wellbeing were paramount. As a result, it was discussing suitable next steps with its safeguarding and housing teams. In addition, a decant was needed due to the extent of the disrepair in the property. The resident replied he would not respond to any further communication until the Ombudsman had reviewed his complaint.
Within days, the landlord referred the case to its internal safeguarding team. In reply, its safeguarding colleagues acknowledged the information and asked to be kept updated. Subsequently, on 21 February 2021, the landlord raised the case with senior colleagues internally. It asked for advice around the landlord’s position on access. It reported the “neglect/damage to the property (was) quite alarming”.
In April 2023, the landlord raised the case again. At this point, an operative reported they visited the property several times from January 2023. Further, some of the visits took place at night. However, there was no indication the property was occupied. Around the same time, the landlord said it should seek legal advice about access. It also sought to establish if the resident was known to local NHS services.
The landlord emailed the resident the following month. It said it had not heard from him and it wanted to arrange an inspection. It asked him to reply so it could begin to address matters. No information was seen to indicate the resident responded. On 18 May 2023, the landlord reported its findings from a visit earlier that day. It said the resident and a neighbour did not answer the door. However, the utility meters indicated the property was occupied.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 28 June and 17 October 2023:
1. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 June 2023. It said it tried to visit him recently and left a calling card. It acknowledged his preference for email communication before asking if the resident was open to a meeting.
2. In mid-July 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 handler raised the case internally. They asked if it had been referred to the landlord’s legal team.
3. Within days, the landlord reported that, during a recent visit, neighbours had advised the resident was living at the property. The operative said they had emailed the resident and left a calling card.
4. In mid-October 2023, the stage 2 handler raised the case with the landlord’s executive team. They said the resident was “extremely vulnerable” and his images of the property were shocking. Nevertheless, they felt no progress had been made following the landlord’s stage 2 response.
5. Subsequently, the landlord’s safeguarding team told the stage 2 handler that they failed to follow the correct reporting process in January 2023. It said, in the first instance, the referral should have been passed to a neighbourhood housing leader in line with the landlord’s policy.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in early November 2023. His email included around 14 evidence files and a document detailing his position on the landlord’s stage 2 response. Some of the files contained new information. The evidence both parties provided indicates the landlord has not seen the new information. For example, there were images of recent lighting and rubbish issues around the estate. The resident also alleged the landlord had sent “thugs” to threaten him because he complained. His other key points were:
1. The resident disputed the landlord’s assertion he did not raise issues as they occurred. Instead, he said the landlord had ignored his communications and failed to record issues properly.
2. He suffered “great mental pain” as a result of the landlord’s ongoing “harassment”. He had not communicated with the landlord directly after 22 June 2022. He felt his subsequent contact with the Ombudsman made the landlord more hostile.
3. Given this hostility, the resident would not have been comfortable with an inspection whilst he was alone in the property. He would have asked for another party to be present.
4. Following the leak on 10 May 2022, the resident stayed away from the property and only visited periodically. Given he was “sofa surfing” for most of this time, the landlord’s inconvenience related compensation was unreasonable.
5. Overall, the resident wanted an apology from the landlord, along with additional compensation for “delays in disrepair and refit”, emotional distress and injury to feelings.
The parties updated the Ombudsman in early March 2024. The following is a summary of the key points:
1. The landlord provided information that showed it made further visits to the property following the events described above. This was with a view to contacting the resident. The information suggests it had not started any enforcement proceedings to access the property.
2. We encouraged the resident to facilitate a surveyor’s inspection by the landlord as soon as possible. This was on the basis we wanted to progress the repairs while we investigated the complaint. The resident replied he would prefer to receive our decision before contacting the landlord. He also said ASB issues were ongoing and he felt the landlord was involved.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows he has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities over a prolonged period. The parties broadly agree that the property is in a poor condition. The landlord also has concerns about the resident’s welfare. The Ombudsman shares these concerns. Where we find failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity.
Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or belongings. Similarly, since we cannot reach legal findings, we are unable to establish if a landlord has breached equalities legislation. However, we can consider whether a landlord gave due consideration to its obligations under this legislation. It is understood there is a strict 6 month time limit on legal discrimination claims.
This assessment was limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that were within our jurisdiction. Any new issues raised after the landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 January 2023 were out of scope. This is because landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues prior to our involvement. If the resident remains unhappy, we can consider the new issues when they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his vulnerabilities and the landlord’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments.

A key aspect of the dispute relates to the landlord’s communication. Broadly, the resident has said the landlord’s failure to account for his vulnerabilities unfairly prevented him from accessing its services. Further, the situation caused him significant distress. The information seen indicates the landlord recorded the resident’s telephobia and preference for email contact in August 2021. However, the evidence confirms this important information was not reflected in some of its key systems. It also suggests the landlord’s contractor was unaware of the resident’s circumstances at the beginning of our investigation timeline.
In June 2021 the resident alerted the contractor to his vulnerabilities and alleged it had breached the Equality Act (2010). Although this was a serious allegation, no information was seen to suggest the contractor alerted the landlord, or that it responded to his concerns accordingly. It should have been reasonably clear that these concerns amounted to a formal complaint. Since the contractor was acting on the landlord’s behalf, the landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions. The landlord’s contractors should alert it to any significant issues.
In August 2021 the resident reported a drainage issue to the landlord. His report included a formal request for email communication as a reasonable adjustment. The landlord’s tenancy notes, from 24 August 2021, show it acted on the resident’s report. However, it was unclear how it handled the resident’s accompanying request. For example, the notes said the landlord attempted to contact the resident on his mobile and home phone numbers, as well as by email. This was not consistent with the resident’s clearly stated request.
Over the next 2 months, the resident complained to the landlord’s Chief Executive twice. His correspondence, directed to the executive’s personal email address, expanded on his previous allegations to the contractor. Aside from a generic acknowledgment, no information was seen to suggest the landlord responded accordingly to either his initial complaint or subsequent chaser. Given the circumstances, this was highly inappropriate. For clarity, the Ombudsman expects equalities related allegations to be treated seriously.
Given the above, the landlord should have taken steps to implement any reasonable adjustments, raised a formal complaint, and then completed a thorough investigation. The timeline suggests it did not begin to take these steps until its stage 2 response was issued. Based on the period between May 2021 and January 2023, this was around 20 months later. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the resident continue to receive telephone contact from its contractors during the interim period. The above delay was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to engage with the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments. Given his vulnerabilities and since he made several requests that were overlooked, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing for him. In line with the Equality Act (2010), the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. It has been unable to demonstrate that it gave full consideration to its obligations, or complied with the respond and record approach outlined in its vulnerability policy.
Following its stage 2 response, the timeline suggests the landlord was unable to effectively deploy its safeguarding procedure. This was despite its serious concerns about the resident’s welfare. This was based on its safeguarding team’s comments to the stage 2 handler in October 2023. At this point, the safeguarding team said, in the first instance, the January 2023 referral should have been made to a local housing leader in line with the landlord’s relevant policy. Its comments were made in response to the handler’s observation that little progress had been made despite the resident’s extreme vulnerability.
It is acknowledged the case was complex and challenging, but the above identified failure was concerning given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the property’s condition. Overall, the evidence shows there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This reflects the landlord’s inappropriate lack of engagement, the subsequent safeguarding failure, and the impact to the resident. Given the above, the Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
Though the resident’s comments were noted, there was no evidence to suggest the landlord’s actions or omissions were deliberate. Nor was any information seen to indicate its staff were engaged in ASB directed towards the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a drainage issue

The tenancy notes show the resident’s drainage report on 9 August 2021 was assigned to an operative around 2 weeks later. Given it involved foul smelling water/sewage, the landlord should have treated the report as an urgent repair. It should have also responded in a proportionate timeframe. However, it was noted the report was not directed to the landlord’s repairs team. It is reasonable to conclude this contributed to the above delay. From the information seen, it was unclear whether the landlord ultimately notified its repairs team. This is because there was no corresponding record in the property’s repair history.
Overall, the above timescale was inappropriate given the nature of the resident’s report. The landlord’s housing services team should consider issuing automated acknowledgement emails, which include contact information for the landlord’s key departments. This should help the landlord to avoid similar issues going forwards. Ultimately, the landlord played a role in the delay because it should have reasonably responded to the resident’s report sooner.
Since the landlord was partly responsible for the delay, it should have compensated the resident during its complaint investigation. It should have also taken steps to learn from his experience. No information was seen to show it took either of these steps. Since it failed to put things right accordingly, the above was inappropriate on the landlord’s part.
The tenancy notes show the landlord’s operative eventually tried to contact the resident through various channels to progress a corresponding maintenance request. Given the content of his report, the landlord could have reasonably notified the resident by post that it was unable to contact him via email. It could have also tried to communicate by text message. Based on the above, the evidence points to a related service failure by the landlord.
Given the circumstances, our orders will include provisions intended to improve communication between the parties. However, the evidence shows the landlord did attempt to progress the resident’s request accordingly. Further, it suggests one of the landlord’s communications was sent through the resident’s preferred channel. If they are unable to progress matters, it is common practice for landlords to cancel a repair order and await further contact from the reporting resident. As a result, the landlord cannot fairly be held responsible for any ongoing drainage issues.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Though it was directed to the wrong department, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s drainage report in an appropriate timeframe. It subsequently failed to address its role in the delay. When the report was allocated to an operative, the landlord could have done more to notify the resident it had been unable to contact him. This was based on the communication preference stated in the resident’s report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak

The landlord accepted it was responsible for various delays and failures in connection with the leak. Its stage 2 response suggests it awarded the resident a total of £860 in related compensation. Its calculation was based on events between May 2022 and January 2023. During this period, a supervisor working for the landlord’s contractor failed to attend a prearranged appointment. This appointment was intended to specify the necessary repairs. The resident has said he suffered a severe panic attack after the contractor failed to attend.
The information seen indicates the supervisor was aware the resident chased the appointment (on the day it was due) by replying to their initial text message. The landlord has said the supervisor’s conduct was unacceptable and the landlord’s contract leader had been notified. This was an appropriate step given the circumstances. The timeline shows the resident subsequently chased the landlord again, in relation to a different repair, on 4 June 2022. At this point, he had to phone the landlord as the visit was outside of normal working hours.
Given the resident’s circumstances and what went wrong, it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation. The landlord also offered to review its calculation after it had completed an inspection. This was on the basis it wanted to clarify its understanding of the situation. This approach was reasonable and it suggests the landlord was suitably mindful of fairness considerations. However, the timeline shows an inspection has not taken place to date. Given the timing of this assessment, this points to a delay of around 14 months.
The timeline suggests the resident declined to engage with the landlord, outside of its complaints process, from around June 2022. The resident’s correspondence on 9 January 2023 confirmed his position. He maintained a similar stance in his recent interaction with the Ombudsman. The timeline confirms the landlord tried to engage with the resident on numerous occasions during the interim period to progress matters. It also shows the landlord felt enforcement action was warranted, to access the property, from around January 2023.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s recent update to the Ombudsman suggests it failed to fully explore this option. For example, the landlord should have reasonably obtained legal advice. If it decided not to pursue legal action, the landlord could still have made a formal written request for access. This would have been reasonable given the damage to the property, and the potential health risks it presented. Overall, the above confirms the landlord lacked an appropriate degree of resolution focus given its level of concern about the situation.
The landlord was not solely responsible for the above identified delay. However, it is reasonable to conclude its inappropriate lack of focus has prolonged the overall timeline. Further, its lack of action was not consistent with the landlord’s repairing obligations. In addition, the resident likely spent additional time living in unsuitable conditions. However, the corresponding impact was difficult to gauge from the information seen. This is because it was unclear if the resident lived at the property on a full-time basis following the leak.
Regardless, the above shows the resident was impacted by the landlord’s failure to control the timeline using the reasonable means available. Given the additional impact, the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation proportionate to the landlord’s role in the above identified delay. Our calculation will be based on a flat rate of £20 per month over the 14 month delay period. Overall, the evidence confirms there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.
Damaged personal belongings were a key aspect of the resident’s complaint. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage incurred, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team to raise a claim. Alternatively, landlords can inspect the damage before addressing matters through their own internal complaints process. In this case, the landlord’s complaints policy excludes liability issues including insurance claims. As a result, the landlord acted appropriately by signposting the resident to its insurance team.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s primary complaint handling failure, not responding appropriately to the resident’s 2021 complaints, was identified and assessed in the preceding section around vulnerabilities. Out of fairness to the landlord, this section will not repeat the same findings. Instead, it will focus on other aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling. However, it was noted that the landlord could have done more to address the vulnerability aspects of the resident’s complaint if it had identified the correct complaint timeline (May 2021 onwards).
Following his complaint through the Ombudsman, the timeline shows the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in line with its relevant timescales at each stage. Given the amount of evidence provided, it was entitled to ask the resident for more investigation time. The stage 2 response was issued in line with the landlord’s revised response deadline. The landlord’s responses show it was willing to leave the complaint open at each stage for monitoring purposes. This was to calculate fair compensation at a later date.
The above was a reasonable and proactive approach from the landlord. However, its stage 1 response could have been better. For example, the resident noted that it failed to reference his vulnerabilities. This was a key aspect of the complaint. The response also lacked clarity because it failed to explain why the complaint was upheld, and which aspects were not upheld. This was contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in March 2022.
Section 5.6 of the Code said, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. Given the above, the landlord’s stage 1 response was inappropriate. At stage 2, the landlord apologised to the resident and provided feedback to its stage 1 complaint handler. From the information seen, these were appropriate measures to put the above issues right.
At stage 2, the landlord made a significant effort to engage with the resident’s concerns. The complexity of the case was reflected in the length of its response (over 40 pages). However, section 5.7 of the Code shows, “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”.
The above points to a procedural failure at stage 2. Specifically, the landlord should have proactively raised a new complaint to address the new issues the resident raised at this stage. Since the information seen indicates his new complaint points remain unaddressed around 14 months later, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Whilst it was unclear if the resident would have provided the requested evidence, opening a new complaint may have prompted him to do this.
Overall, the evidence points to maladministration in respect of this complaint point. This was largely because, contrary to the Code, the landlord failed to proactively raise a new complaint to address new issues which the resident raised at stage 2. The information seen indicates a number of the resident’s complaint points remain unaddressed around 14 months later.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s historical concerns about various issues were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his vulnerabilities and the landlord’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a drainage issue.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Paragraph 42(c) says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. The evidence shows there was an unreasonable delay before the resident brought his historical concerns to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint.
From August 2021, the landlord missed multiple opportunities to engage with the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments. The timeline shows it failed to act on his related concerns for around 17 months. In the meantime, the resident continued to receive unwanted contact. Overall, the landlord failed to show it gave due consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities, and failed to implement his requests for reasonable adjustments. Later, it was unable to deploy its safeguarding procedure effectively despite serious concerns about the resident’s welfare.
Though it was directed to the wrong department, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s drainage report within an appropriate timeframe. It subsequently failed to address its role in the delay. When the report was eventually allocated to an operative, the landlord could have done more to notify the resident it had been unable to contact him. This was based on the communication preference stated in the resident’s report.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord showed an inappropriate lack of resolution focus in relation to the leak repairs. Though it felt enforcement action was warranted to gain access, the evidence suggests it failed to fully explore this option. Given the damage to the property and the potential health risk, the landlord should have done more to control the timeline by using the means available. It was not solely responsible for the additional delay, but its lack of appropriate action impacted the resident.
The evidence points to maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Contrary to the Code, the landlord failed to proactively raise a new complaint to address new issues which the resident raised at stage 2. The information seen indicates a number of his complaint points remain unaddressed around 14 months later.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The apology should acknowledge that the landlord missed multiple opportunities to engage with his requests for reasonable adjustments and his related complaints. It should also acknowledge the landlord’s failure to deploy its safeguarding procedure effectively and its role in the outstanding repairs. The landlord should share a copy of its related correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,390 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his vulnerabilities and the landlord’s failure to implement reasonable adjustments.
2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to his report of a drainage issue.
3. £1,140 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from the £860 it previously awarded at stage 2.
4. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to ensure it systems accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities and communication preferences. It may need to contact the resident to in advance to confirm the full details. It should agree some alternative forms of communication with the resident. These could be used if it is unable to contact him by email in the first instance. Alternatives might include post or text communications. The landlord should also establish his preferences around inspections/visits. This is because the resident has indicated he would prefer more than one party to be present. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to raise a new complaint to address any new issues that the resident raised at stage 2. It may need to contact the resident to clarify the complaint’s scope. The landlord should share its new complaint reference with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord’s executive team to conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include the landlord’s: failure to engage with the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments, or his related complaints to a contractor and the landlord’s executive team; failure to deploy its safeguarding procedure effectively, and its failure to control the repair timeline given its concerns.
As part of the above review, the landlord should also: consider whether its vulnerable residents policy is sufficiently detailed (specific instructions may be needed around handling requests for reasonable adjustments); ensure its contractors are capable of alerting the landlord to complaints and other issues; and consider whether its housing services team needs to issue acknowledgements containing contact information for the landlord’s key departments (such as its repair and ASB teams). The landlord should cascade the review’s identified improvements to relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.