London Borough of Hackney (202213556)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213556

Hackney Council

21 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about not having heating and hot water, and its handling of the resident’s request for a gas boiler.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about not having electricity, and the support it provided to enable the installation of an electricity meter.
3. The landlord’s handling of the installation of new flooring.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and its response to enquiries about food expenses.
6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of its housing manager.
7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to personal belongings following works carried out at the property.
8. The landlord’s handling of a request for information under a subject data access request.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy started in February 2001. The resident has complex mental health conditions, which includes a diagnosis of agoraphobia, anxiety, and a learning disability.
The resident states that he told the landlord in April 2021, that he had no electricity, no space or water heating, no hard-wired smoke alarms, and no working toilet. He reported damaged piping to the bathroom hand basin and said that the bathroom and kitchen were in a state of disrepair.
The landlord inspected the property in June 2021. Its surveyor noted that the resident had no electricity, no fixed space heating, no hot water, no cooking facilities, and the resident was using candles to light the property. The landlord sent a schedule of works to its contractor for a quotation in July 2021.
The resident raised concerns in August 2021, that the landlord had left him in “unacceptable conditions”. The landlord placed the resident into a hotel on 7 December 2021, while it completed the scheduled works.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 June 2022. In summary, the resident:
1. Was dissatisfied with delays completing repairs. The resident felt the works should have been completed within 3 weeks.
2. Was unhappy about the length of time he had been living at a hotel, which was affecting his mental health.
3. Said the landlord had caused him significant distress when it unexpectedly asked him to vacate his hotel room with 90 minutes notice.
4. Was unhappy with the landlord’s contributions towards his food expenses and when these were paid.
5. Said that the landlord had not updated him about a kitchen and bathroom replacement, after it promised to seek funding.
6. Felt that the landlord had failed to communicate with his energy provider regarding the installation of an electricity meter.
7. Said the landlord had not explained what flooring it had fitted. He mentioned that there was damp and mould under the existing flooring throughout the flat.
8. Wanted the landlord to install a gas boiler while he was still living in temporary accommodation, so that he could have gas space and water heating installed.
9. Felt that he had been subjected to discrimination, harassment and victimisation when chasing up outstanding matters. The resident was unhappy with the conduct of a named member of the landlord’s staff. He felt that they were abusing their powers by threatening tenancy action, as a way to silence him. The resident wanted the landlord to assign another member of staff to his case, who understood complex mental health conditions.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 June 2022. The landlord said that it was unable to complete all of the works identified in 3 weeks. As it did not have any specialist officers, it had made a referral to a support service. It explained that the property had been re-wired and smoke alarms had been fitted. It had upgraded the kitchen and fitted a new bath. It had arranged for a new electric meter to be installed on 16 June 2022. It set out its intentions to carry out a full gas system installation during the week commencing 20 June 2022. It committed to reinspecting the floor.
The resident told the landlord on 21 June 2022, that he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2. After the landlord sought further clarification, the resident said that the landlord had not answered all the points he raised. The resident suggested that the landlord had fabricated information in an attempt to get out the fact that the landlord had not provided him with a means to heat his flat for 22 years. He said that the landlord had left him in the property for 6 months, when it was aware of the property conditions. Furthermore, the landlord had not provided a kitchen and bathroom upgrade, despite other residents having had theirs upgraded.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 July 2022. The landlord:
1. Said that there were no reports prior to 2021, to indicate that the property had been without space heating, hot water, or electricity. However, due to “serious disrepair” identified and “extensive works” needed to bring the property up to a “liveable condition”, it raised a works order on 6 July 2021. The resident was decanted into a hotel in December 2021. Works were completed in July 2022.
2. Apologised for delays providing a new boiler. It stated that it was unclear what happened to the original gas fire and why the resident had not reported having no heating or hot water sooner. It was unclear what happened to the electric meter, but an electric meter had now been fitted with its intervention.
3. Found fault in relation to the length of time it had taken to complete the schedule of works. The landlord apologised for this, but pointed out that in future, repairs must be raised in a timely manner, or the resident could be recharged.
4. Explained that kitchen and bathroom replacements were carried out in 2016, but the landlord was unable to gain access to the property at that time. Its assets team would consider the resident’s request and would contact the resident directly with a decision.
5. Felt that its contribution towards the resident’s everyday living expenses were appropriate (£30 per day). It believed that all outstanding monies owed to the resident had been paid but would check this.
6. Found no fault in regard to the conduct of its member of staff. It said that a referral for tenancy support had been made. It hoped that once arrangements were in place, the resident would find communicating with the landlord less stressful.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 6 July 2023, that to resolve his complaint, he wanted the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its failings. The resident also wanted financial compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage caused to personal belongings, was raised after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The matter did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, this complaint element falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The landlord’s handling of a request for information under a subject data access request, would be investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office. This complaint element therefore falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against him. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited for a court to decide. The Equality Advisory and Support Service are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.
In regard to the remaining complaint elements, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions between 2 December 2021 and 14 July 2022. This being 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

According to its repairs guide, the landlord aims to respond to heating and hot water breakdown repairs between 1 November and 30 April in 24 hours. Between 1 May and 31 October, it will respond to heating repairs in line with its repair’s timescales. The landlord aims to deal with immediate repairs in 2 hours, emergency repairs in 24 hours, urgent repairs in 5 working days, and “normal repairs” in 21 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about not having heating and hot water, and its handling of the resident’s request for a gas boiler.

The landlord had a duty to provide a property that was fit for habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy and keep its stock in good order for future use. Of particular relevance to this complaint element, the landlord was required to keep the property free from category 1 hazards, such as excess cold. The resident was required to report any repairs to the landlord in a timely manner, under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The resident stated that the landlord had not provided adequate space heating since the start of the tenancy. His electric water heater had not worked for several years. The resident accepts that he had not raised these issues previously, which he attributes to poor mental health.
The resident claims that he told the landlord in April 2021, that he had no space heating or water. Although the Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the landlord’s repairs records, this does not appear to be disputed by the landlord. It is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the property until 7 June 2021, and the lack of urgency was unreasonable. In accordance with its repairs guide, as a minimum the landlord should have inspected the property within 24 hours.
Following its property inspection, the landlord’s surveyor set out his observations in an internal email on 6 July 2021. It noted that there was no space or water heating in the property but did not clarify the cause of this. It also noted that there was no electric in the property. It was later established that the electricity company had removed the meter in or around 2014.
The landlord raised a schedule of works on 6 July 2021 and asked its contractor for a quotation. It is unclear to the Ombudsman why the landlord did not progress this sooner. This was unreasonable based on the landlord’s observations. It is also not immediately clear from the description of the proposed works, how the landlord intended to address the matter of no heating or hot water. Although there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering the resident an alternative source of heating in the interim, the Ombudsman appreciates that this may not have been possible, since the property had no electricity. It was therefore appropriate that its surveyor recognised the need to decant the resident. The resident was later decanted on 7 December 2021 and the landlord commenced the works.
The landlord updated the resident in May 2022, that it had now completed all of the scheduled works, save for the installation of a new electric meter. It was likely that the issue with the hot water had been remedied by the rewire and subsequent installation of the electric meter. It remained unclear from the evidence seen, how the landlord had resolved the space heating. It is noted that the landlord had bricked up the opening of the fireplace as part of the works. Landlords should endeavour to keep complete records, showing their decision making.
On 2 June 2022, the resident suggested that the landlord install a gas boiler and gas central heating and hot water. The resident said that this should be completed before he returned to the property, as a reasonable adjustment. While the resident said that he had asked the landlord to install this before, the Ombudsman could not verify this from the evidence seen. The landlord acted fairly and promptly (2 working days later), by instructing a full gas central heating and hot water installation. The Ombudsman notes that there was some debate as to whether the resident had been informed of its decision in a timely manner. This either points to an issue with the landlord’s communications or its record keeping. It is understood that gas space and water heating was installed on 22 June 2022.
The Ombudsman makes a general observation about the landlord’s asset management and record keeping in relation to the property. Historical records held by the landlord suggest that in 1998, the property was heated by “gas fire only”. The resident claimed that there had been no space heating or hot water at the property since the tenancy began in 2001. In later communications, the resident clarified that there was an electric water boiler under the sink, but this did not work. The landlord was unable to confidently verify what installations were in place when the property was let. It is appreciated that the landlord had been subject to a cyber-attack in 2020, which caused it to lose some of its records. However, it is of concern that the property may have been without an adequate or functioning heating and hot water system for some years. The landlord has not indicated that it had carried out any previous stock condition surveys or tenancy audits to refute this.
The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord’s lack of clarity about its asset may indicate a wider issue in regard to the information that it holds about its residents and housing stock following the cyber-attack, which could give rise to further similar complaints by other residents. To address these concerns, a wider order has been made, in accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.
On balance, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about not having heating and hot water, and its handling of the resident’s request for a gas boiler, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration. Although, it is noted that the Ombudsman did not find fault in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a gas boiler.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about not having electricity, and the support it provided to enable the installation of an electricity meter.

The resident claims that he informed the landlord that he did not have any electricity in April 2021, along with his reports about having no heating and hot water in the property. However, the resident suggests that the landlord would have been aware that he had no electric meter in 2019, after its contractor had been unable to connect up a window fan extractor. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the landlord’s records.
The landlord inspected the electrics on 7 June 2021, which exceeded expected timescales under its repairs guide. This was inappropriate. The landlord issued a schedule of works on 6 July 2021, and asked its contractor to provide a quotation. This included a full rewire and hard-wired smoke alarms. It was unreasonable that this was not progressed in a timelier manner.
While the landlord indicated that it was the resident’s responsibility to arrange a new electric meter through his electricity company, at some stage the landlord began liaising with the electricity company on the resident’s behalf. The landlord also arranged access for the meter to be installed. This is evidence of the landlord supporting the resident to secure a new electricity meter.
Overall, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about not having electricity, and the support it provided to enable the installation of an electricity meter, the Ombudsman finds maladministration. Although, it is noted that the Ombudsman did not find fault in relation to the support the landlord provided to enable the installation of an electricity meter.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of new flooring.

The resident was of the belief that the landlord had agreed to change all the flooring in the property as part of its initial schedule of works. In his stage 1 complaint, the resident said that there was damp and mould under the existing flooring and complained that the landlord had not confirmed what flooring it would be fitting.
The landlord’s records indicate that it only instructed the replacement of lino in the front porch area. The rest of the flat was laid with laminate flooring, which the landlord considered to be in fair condition. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged to reinspect the flooring. This was an appropriate response in view of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. It is understood that no further works were required. Although the resident may not have agreed with the landlord’s findings, the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor to make this decision.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of new flooring.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement.

When the landlord raised its schedule of works in July 2021, it instructed some repairs work within the bathroom and kitchen. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2021, after its contractor commented that the bathroom and kitchen were very run down. The resident asked the landlord to install a new bathroom and kitchen, since he was in hospital when the landlord carried out its last programme of bathroom and kitchen replacements. It is unclear from the landlord’s records how the landlord responded. This is inappropriate.
In his stage 1 complaint, the resident said that the landlord had promised to seek funding to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom in spring or early summer. The resident complained that the landlord had not updated him regarding this, and the landlord had only carried out minor repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord stated in response, that it had fixed the toilet and had installed a new bath as part of the works. It had also fully upgraded the kitchen. However, it committed to arranging another inspection. This showed that the landlord was giving the resident’s request the attention it deserved. However, outcomes from this inspection have not been provided to the Ombudsman. It is unclear how the landlord responded to the resident. This is inappropriate.
In June 2022, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction that the landlord had not replaced the bathroom and kitchen. Internal communications in July 2022, clarified that no promises had been made by its surveyor about replacing the kitchen and bathroom. The resident had been informed that the property was on a list, and it was waiting for budget approval. However, since extensive works had been completed, there was no urgent need for a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
It is understandable that the resident felt a sense of injustice by missing out on a new kitchen and bathroom while he was in hospital. However, the landlord had met its statutory and contractual obligations, by completing necessary repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. The Ombudsman accepts that it may have brought the resident less distress and future inconvenience had the landlord brought the kitchen and bathroom replacement forward and installed this while the resident remained in temporary accommodation. But the landlord was not obliged to bring works forward and neither was it in a position to do so, since it did not yet have budget approval.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request a bathroom and kitchen replacement. The landlord failed to keep the resident adequately informed about progress made in relation to his request for a new kitchen and bathroom. This caused the resident uncertainty.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and its response to enquiries about food expenses.

The first mention of the resident needing to be decanted was on 6 July 2021, following the landlord’s property inspection the previous month. It is understood that between 7 July 2021 and 10 September 2021, the landlord explored rehousing options with the resident. It is unhelpful that the landlord has not provided full copies of its contact records, or an explanation of what action it was taking during this period. This limited the Ombudsman’s investigation.
In the resident’s email of 10 September 2021, the resident asked the landlord to reconsider its offer of a decant into shared accommodation. He explained that it would be in the best interests of both himself, and others, if the landlord were to put him in a hotel. He pointed out that it had been 9 weeks since the landlord had received the report on his housing conditions. It is unclear from the evidence seen how the landlord responded. This is inappropriate.
In an internal email on 9 November 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had tried to find temporary accommodation for the resident, but the resident did not wish to be rehoused in a hostel due to his vulnerabilities. To move the works forward, it sought a budget to decant the resident into a hotel. This showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns and vulnerabilities into account. However, it is unclear from the evidence seen why it took 5 months to reach this stage. It was positive that the landlord recognised there was now some urgency, since “the weather had changed” and it had “turned cold”. Although having recognised this, it was unreasonable that it was a further 7 working days before a rehousing referral form was completed. It is understood that the resident was placed in a hotel on 7 December 2021.
Since the landlord was unlikely to have been able to provide the resident with an alternative source of heating, its only real option was to move the resident into temporary housing. Given that the landlord described the property itself as being in “serious disrepair”, requiring “extensive works” to bring the property up to a “liveable condition”, this should have been arranged in a timely manner. While the Ombudsman accepts that there were challenges finding suitable accommodation, the resident continued to remain in a property that was unfit for habitation for 6 months before he was decanted. This was unreasonable. During this time there was also an unnecessary level of fire risk presented to all occupants of the block from the resident’s use of candles and the absence of smoke alarms. The landlord’s failure to decant the resident in a timelier manner, suggests an inappropriate level of oversight in this case.
While in the hotel, the landlord provided financial relief (£30 a day), in respect of the resident’s living expenses. The resident suggested that the landlord’s contributions did not always cover his expenses and were often paid late, which left him short. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was unable to manage his finances in the same way he would if he were at home. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £30 a day for living expenses was fair. However, it was unreasonable that payments were sometimes made late. To exemplify, the landlord did not pay the resident on time in June 2022, and was slow to put things right. This resulted in the resident being unable to buy food, and in turn prevented him from taking medication. He also incurred late payment charges. This would have caused the resident unnecessary worry.
The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his hotel booking. The evidence suggests that the landlord unexpectedly phoned the resident in May 2022 and gave him 90 minutes to vacate the hotel. The resident states that this caused him a panic attack and suicidal ideation. The landlord told the resident that there had been some confusion over the expiry of the hotel booking. It is understood that the booking was resolved, and the resident was not required to vacate the room. But this was likely to have caused the resident more distress than most, due to the nature of his medical conditions. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged this was a failing, for which it apologised. The landlord also showed that it had taken learnings from the complaint, by putting measures in place to ensure that this did not happen.
It is unclear from the evidence seen, how long the landlord anticipated the resident would need to be decanted for. The resident said that he expected to return home within 3 weeks. However, it is unlikely that the landlord would have been able to complete its initial schedule of works within 3 weeks, in view of their extensive nature and the number of different trades required.
The resident complained that his extended stay in temporary accommodation was unreasonable, he struggled without cooking facilities, and his mental health had been affected. The evidence suggests that all identified works were completed within 5 months of the decant. But the resident was unable to move back to the property since there was still no electric meter, which was beyond the landlord’s control. After this, the resident asked the landlord to complete additional works, which lengthened the decant. Although the landlord found fault in the length of time taken to complete repairs, it is difficult to measure the extent to which these delays were unavoidable. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident had good reason to not be accommodated in shared accommodation, and the resident had encouraged the landlord to complete all works prior to him moving back in. But the landlord should have kept the suitability of the decant under regular review.
When considered cumulatively, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and its response to enquiries about food expenses.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of its housing manager.

The Ombudsman has assumed that the landlord does not have a vulnerable customer policy, or an unacceptable customer behaviour policy. The Ombudsman asked the landlord if it had relevant policies covering these areas, but the landlord did not respond. There is no vulnerable customer policy, or an unacceptable customer behaviour policy published on the landlord’s website.
In May and June 2022, the landlord’s housing manager challenged the resident’s use of emails, which they perceived had become excessive in volume and threatening in nature. Its housing manager warned the resident that if they received any further threats or excessive emails, tenancy action would be taken, and this could result in the resident losing his home. Its housing manager placed sanctions on the sending and receiving of emails and indicated that they would block the resident’s email address if necessary.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction in his stage 1 complaint, that its housing manager was abusing his power and was trying to silence him. The resident explained that he had never threatened any member of the landlord’s staff. He claimed that the contents of his emails were a symptom of his mental health conditions, provoked by the actions of the landlord. This included not receiving a call back when its housing manager was on leave and being told to vacate his hotel room with 90 minutes notice.
There will be times that a landlord must act robustly to manage contact with a resident who is acting unreasonably. The Ombudsman has not seen all of the evidence its housing manager relied upon before he issued the tenancy warning. The Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence, that its housing manager had considered all of the circumstances which led to the resident’s behaviour, and then balanced the needs of the resident and staff, before deciding how to proceed.
Nonetheless, the Ombudsman suggests that without an unacceptable customer behaviour policy in place, whether or not the resident’s behaviour constituted unreasonable behaviour was rather a matter of perception. For this reason, it is fairer for landlords to have an agreed policy, which provides a framework for staff to work to, and which sets out clear expectations on the behaviour of its residents.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of its housing manager.

The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failure in the length of time it had taken to address outstanding repairs. However, in the same sentence it reminded the resident of his tenancy conditions and suggested that he may be recharged if repairs were not reported in a timely manner. This was unreasonable given that the landlord had acknowledged delays as a result of its own failings and undermined the sincerity of its response.
The landlord should have recognised the impact on the resident from avoidable delays completing repairs, which it had identified itself. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology did not provide reasonable redress when considering all the circumstances of the case. It would have been in keeping with its compensation policy had the landlord offered compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about not having heating and hot water, and its handling of the resident’s request for a gas boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about not having electricity, and the support it provided to enable the installation of an electricity meter.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of new flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and its response to enquiries about food expenses.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of its housing manager.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damage to personal belongings following works carried out at the property, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a request for information under a subject data access request, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Chief Executive of the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £4,673.58 directly to the resident, which has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £2,673.58 compensation, in recognition of the loss of enjoyment and loss of amenity caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in decanting the resident. This is based on the rent charge for the property between 7 June 2021 to 7 December 2021.
2. £1,500 compensation, in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about having no heating, hot water or electricity.
3. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the hotel booking and its response to enquiries about payment of food expenses.
4. £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement.
5. £200 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s distress, time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling and record keeping.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review into the issues identified in this case. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must consider:
1. Enhancements to its existing approach and oversight processes, where the need for a decant has been identified. The landlord must satisfy itself that adequate processes are in place to decant residents quickly, that identified repairs are dealt with expediently which enable residents to return home swiftly, that the suitability of a decant is kept under periodic review, and that promises of financial assistance are provided to a resident on time.
2. Its record keeping in this case to identify learnings. Thereafter, to consider how these learnings can be brought into its operations. The landlord may find it helpful to refer to the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
3. Its approach to dealing with unacceptable behaviour from residents. The landlord should consider developing and bringing into operation a vulnerable customer policy and an unacceptable behaviour customer policy.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this decision and in accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord is ordered to assess the information that it holds on its housing stock. The landlord should endeavour to identify those properties that have not had a tenancy audit or stock condition survey and consider whether an inspection is urgently required to identify any other residents that may be affected in a similar manner.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 12 weeks of the date of this decision.