Anchor Hanover Group (202306635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306635

Anchor Hanover Group

30 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling:
1. of the resident’s reported issues about:
  1. a rodent infestation.
  2. his bay window repair.
  3. food being thrown within the external communal areas.
  4. an interference with his parcel delivery.
2. of the resident’s decision to decline to meet with it and its subsequent request to access his home for a repair matter.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in his 2-bedroom basement flat since August 2018. The resident has told this Service that he has dyslexia.
The resident previously raised concerns about rodent infestation. These concerns were investigated by the Ombudsman in 2021. It is unclear when the resident first reported the matter again to the landlord after 2021. However, the landlord arranged for its contractor to investigate the matter in Autumn 2022. The contractor attended and informed the landlord that it did not complete the investigation because it was unable to access an electrical cupboard. The evidence suggests that no further action was taken at this time.
On 12 January 2023 the resident reported that that there was water ingress from his bay window. The landlord raised an order for it to be repaired within 5 days.
On 23 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that a neighbour was throwing food out of their window. He asked it to discuss the matter with the neighbour, given that there were ongoing issues with rodents in the area. The landlord replied and told the resident that it would “make sure” it advised [all residents] against feeding the birds due to the circumstances. The landlord also offered to visit the resident on 31 January 2023. The resident declined the offer.
On 29 January 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He said:
1. his estate had a “rat issue” that had been ongoing for a while causing him distress.
2. his window repair was meant to be resolved within 5 days but it was still outstanding.
3. he had concerns about general repairs on the estate and wanted them formally investigated.
On 31 January 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss his complaint. It noted that the resident raised further concerns which included:
1. residents were throwing bread onto the external grounds of the estate.
2. a neighbour had interfered with the delivery of his parcel.
3. it had asked to inspect his windows for mould without providing him with reasonable notice.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. its contractor had investigated the resident’s concerns about rats on the estate in Autumn 2022. It had been assured that all holes and access points had been dealt with and the contractor did not find evidence of rats. At the time, the contractor was unable to access an electrical cupboard to investigate whether rodents were entering the premises via the cupboard. As the contractor was unable to make contact with the landlord at that time no further investigation was undertaken. It would arrange for its contractor to investigate the matter further.
2. it had to rearrange the resident’s window repair appointment due to the lack of contractor availability. It had ordered a window alarm for the resident as he stated that he was concerned about his safety in his home. It asked the resident to fit the alarm as a precaution until 8 February 2023, when the contractor would visit to repair the window.
3. it would write to all residents informing them to stop throwing bread out of their windows. It said that the resident had declined its offer to remove the bread. It asked the resident to remove the bread to prevent any rats coming near his front door.
4. the resident should inform the company that he had ordered his parcel from that his flat was not linked to the communal entrance of the building as it had left his parcel in the incorrect place. It said that parcel deliveries were not something that it would get involved with.
5. it had raised several “small” estate repairs when it last visited the estate on 31 January 2023. The repairs would be completed by 8 February 2023. The resident should report any repairs so its contractor could investigate.
6. [on its visit on 31 January 2023] it noticed that there was mould on the resident’s windowpane. It had asked the resident whether it could inspect the window on the day. The resident had refused access, which it understood as it had not given him any notice.
On 9 February 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. he had informed the landlord that he would not be available to meet with it on 31 January 2023, but it had attended his home anyway. He said that this was a breach of his tenancy agreement because the landlord had failed to give him 24 hours’ notice.
2. the landlord had told him to remove the bread from the external grounds. He said that the landlord should remove it.
3. the landlord’s officer was acting maliciously towards him. He asked how the landlord went about safeguarding its residents.
On 14 and 16 February 2023 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss his complaint escalation request.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor caried out a pest infestation survey. It recommended that the landlord should:
1. seal holes and gaps to help prevent pest access using professional rodent proofing methods.
2. carry out a survey of the drainage system to establish pest entry points.
3. place baits around the premises and monitor the situation.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. residents were entitled to 24 hours minimum notice that a landlord required access to their home. The resident had declined its request for a meeting [on 31 January 2023]. It had had knocked his door [that day] as it had spotted mould on his window and wanted to take the opportunity to address it. It said its good intentions did not change his right to a formal notice to access. It said that it did not enter his flat as he did not give it permission to do so.
2. its contractor had completed an updated rodent infestation inspection. It would also carry out a [drain] camera survey as the resident had reported hearing scratching noises in his ceiling. The report confirmed that there were no rats present in the resident’s flat. The contractor had been issued with a work order for an initial 5 visits. Traps and baits were left in place during the inspection.
3. the “collapse” of its maintenance provider had caused delays in repairing the resident’s window. The window had now been repaired. It offered the resident £50 compensation because it had repaired his window outside of its published standard.
4. it had written to all residents to notify them that the practice of throwing bread out of their windows should stop.
5. signage to indicate how to access the resident’s flat had been ordered to help facilitate the correct delivery of his parcels.
On 23 May 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He said:
1. the landlord failed to repair a window that had water ingress.
2. there was an ongoing problem with the rats. He wanted the landlord to resolve the matter.
3. food was being thrown onto the external grounds by another resident.
4. the landlord had not giving adequate notice of operatives visiting the property.

Legislation, policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s pest control procedure stated:
1. the landlord was responsible for all pest controls within its rented properties and in internal/external communal areas.
2. “managers should be vigilant about feeding of birds as this can encourage rodents.”
3. “any holes around pipe work where it passes through walls must be sealed to prevent access by pests.”
The landlord’s website states that it operates a 3 tier repair process. It would attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time stated that it would respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 14 calendar days.
The tenancy agreement states:
1. that upon receiving no less than 24 hours’ notice, residents should allow the landlord access to their home at all reasonable times for inspections and carrying out repairs.
2. the resident would have quiet enjoyment of his home and “hold the premises peaceably without interruption” by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is acknowledged that the resident has been concerned about a rodent infestation for several years now. In June 2021, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint brought by the resident about his concerns in 2018 and 2020. As detailed above, it is unclear when the resident first reported further concerns about our 2021 investigation. However, given the evidence, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the issue from Autumn 2022 onwards.
In June 2021, the Ombudsman also investigated a complaint brought by the resident about his concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reported repairs of his bay window in 2020. Our records show that the landlord complied with orders at the time. However, the resident has told us that the bay window was not repaired at that time. We have no evidence that the resident raised further concerns about the bay window in the following years. Therefore, it is not possible for us to take action in relation to this now given the passage of time. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from January 2023 onwards.
It is noted that the resident raised further concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports of rodent infestation and reported bay window repair in the following months after the landlord issued its 2 stage complaint response in March 2023. The landlord issued further correspondence on 31 May 2023 to address the resident’s continued concerns. We have taken the contents of this correspondence into consideration as part of this investigation. This is because the concerns raised by the resident, and the response provided by the landlord, were so closely linked to the matters that went through the complaints process. We have also considered the appropriateness of the response when assessing the landlord’s complaint handling.

Rodent infestation

As above, it is unclear when the resident first reported further concerns about a rodent infestation between 2021 and 2022. However, it is noted that the landlord arranged for its contractor to investigate the matter in Autumn 2022. The landlord should reasonably have a record of when it received a report from the resident. That it does not is a record keeping failure. As a result, it has been unable to demonstrate that it took timely action upon receiving the resident’s report.
When the contractor carried out the inspection in Autumn 2022, it was unable to access a communal electrical cupboard so it was unable to fully complete the inspection. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged that the contractor was unable to gain access, and that it had tried, unsuccessfully, to contact the landlord on the day. The landlord added that the contractor made no attempt to contact it again.
While this may have been the case, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that a thorough investigation had been carried out. As such, the landlord should have been proactively monitoring the situation and should reasonably have been in touch with the contractor to arrange a follow-up visit with access to the relevant areas. There is no evidence to suggest that it did and this was a failing.
When responding to the complaint at stage 1, the landlord appropriately advised that it had arranged for its contractor to carry out another inspection on 24 February 2023, which was appropriate. Upon carrying out the inspection, the contractor noted that there were no signs of rats in the resident’s home. However, it had found mice and rat droppings around some communal areas, including the electrical cupboard that it was unable to gain entry into previously. It recommended that the landlord sealed any holes and gaps, carry out a drain survey and place baits around the premises.
The resident’s escalation complaint does not appear to include further concerns about the landlord’s handling the rodent infestation. However, the landlord updated the resident on the matter in its stage 2 complaint response. It said that traps and baits were left in place during its contractor’s inspection in February 2023 and that it had arranged for its contractor to carry out 5 further visits. While this may have been the case, we do not have contemporaneous records to support the landlord’s statements. While we have evidence by way of contractor visit notes that traps and baits were left and visits were conducted from September 2023 onwards, there is no evidence of any contractor visits or any meaningful action taken by the landlord by terms of monitoring the contractor’s visits between March 2023 and August 2023.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. Given that it told the resident of its actions in its stage 2 response, we would expect the landlord to have provided evidence to support its comments. Some evidence suggests that operatives working for the landlord’s contractor operatives were unable to carry out a some visits due to sickness. However, as we do not have contemporaneous records, it is unclear what, if any action was undertaken in that period. That is a further record keeping failure.
The landlord also said that it would carry out a drain survey as recommended by its contractor. The evidence demonstrates that this remained outstanding in November 2023. While the reason the survey has not been carried out is unclear, that it has not been is a failing. Given that its contractor had identified that there was a possible access points for rodents to enter the premises, it is unreasonable that approximately 9 months later, the investigation into the matter had not taken place. It is unclear whether the survey has now been conducted. It is noted that the resident has told this Service that he can still hear rodents in his ceiling.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. proactively monitor the outcome of its contractor’s Autumn 2022 inspection which meant that the resident incurred time and trouble following up the matter via his complaint in January 2023.
2. demonstrate that it had taken appropriate and timely action to resolve the issue as stated in its stage 2 complaint response between February and August 2023.
3. carry out a drain survey in a timely manner as stated in its stage 2 complaint response.

Therefore we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rodents in his building. A series of orders have been made in relation to the highlighted failures in this case.

The bay window repair

The evidence available suggests that there were approximately two window repairs outstanding at the time of the complaint. Both the resident and landlord have confirmed that the complaint and its responses are in relation to the bay window repair only. We have therefore investigated the landlord’s handling of the bay window repairs only. Should the resident have concerns about another window repair, he should raise this with the landlord accordingly.
On 12 January 2023 the resident reported that there was water ingress coming through his bay window. His repair was processed under the landlord’s 5 day repair published timescales. The evidence suggests that around the same time, the landlord’s contractor went into liquidation and was no longer able to carry out any repairs on behalf of the landlord. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that a week later, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the outstanding repair. While the landlord’s internal correspondence stated that it was looking for a new contractor, it is unclear whether it informed the resident of this as well. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have informed the resident that his repair may take longer to resolve as it had to find a new contractor to carry out the work. This may have gone some way to manage the resident’s expectations on when he would expect his window to be repaired. It may have also prevented the resident from incurring additional time and trouble raising a complaint about the matter.
The evidence suggests that a new appointment was made to repair the window at the beginning of February 2023. However, it was cancelled due to the lack of contractor availability. While it is noted that the landlord was having issues obtaining a contractor to carry out the work, the cancellation would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. In response to the cancellation the landlord ordered an alarm for the window as the resident expressed that he was concerned about his safety. This was appropriate and a positive step to put matters right while the resident waited for the window to be repaired.
In its March 2023 stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that the repair had been completed. It would have been reasonable for it to have outlined the steps it had taken to fully resolve the matter. This would have demonstrated that it had relied on accurate evidence and that it was satisfied that it had taken appropriate steps to fully repair the window. As we do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of that visit, it is unclear whether the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this repair at that time.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays in repairing his window. However, the evidence available suggests that the resident made further concerns that the window repair was still outstanding in May 2023. It is clear from the landlord’s internal correspondence and its correspondence with the resident that it agreed that the bay window repair remained outstanding at this time. There is no reference in its correspondence that the repair was completed as it stated that it had, in its stage 2 complaint response. That is concerning. This meant that the resident incurred further time, trouble and distress as he had to inform the landlord again that the repair remained outstanding.
While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that some repairs were carried out to the window in July 2023. However the landlord informed the resident in August 2023 that works had not been completed satisfactorily and that it would arrange for the contractor to reattend. Therefore, although the resident had reported the repair approximately 7 months prior, the repair remained outstanding at this time. That is unreasonable. It is unclear if and when the contractor returned and when the works were completed. Therefore an order has been made to address this matter.
Overall, the landlord failed to repair the resident’s bay window within its own timescales, it provided the resident with an alarm while he waited for the repairs to be completed, which was appropriate. It acknowledged the delays and offered the resident £50 compensation for that failure. However, whether it was a record keeping issue or otherwise, the landlord incorrectly stated that the repair was resolved at that time. This meant that the resident had to inform the landlord that the window repair remained outstanding which caused him further time and trouble. Therefore there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported bay window repair. An order for further compensation has also been made in recognition that the landlord failed to repair the window as stated in its stage 2 complaint response.
The evidence suggests that the landlord offered the resident £100 in May 2023 for the further delays on this matter. It is unclear whether this was additional to the £50 or an increase. Nonetheless the compensation has been considered as part of our orders.

Neighbours dropping food onto the external grounds

On 21 January 2023 the resident reported that a neighbour was throwing food waste out of their window onto the area near his front door. The landlord responded a few days later. The evidence suggests that it said that it would advise residents against feeding the birds due to the concern over rodents. This was appropriate and in line with its pest control policy.
The resident raised his concerns again in his conversation with the landlord when it contacted him to discuss his complaint on 31 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord reiterated that it would write to residents asking them to stop food onto the external grounds. It also said that it had offered to remove the food for the resident. It is noted that the landlord had commented that the resident had declined the offer and it therefore asked the resident to remove any food that he saw on the ground to avoid encouraging rodents near his flat. While this was not an unreasonable suggestion, it was the landlord’s overall responsibility to inspect and monitor the estate to ensure that it was reasonably free from items that would encourage rodents. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have arranged for the food to be removed on its own accord instead of offering to remove it for the resident. This would have demonstrated that it was taking proactive steps to resolve the matter as per its own policy for the benefit of all its residents that may have been affected by the rodent issue.
The resident had raised his concerns that food had been thrown onto the grounds could worsen the rodent issue on the estate approximately twice at the time that the landlord had issued its response. Therefore, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have assured him that it would monitor the situation via such methods as carrying out its existing or new ad hoc estate inspections and talking directly with residents. This would have demonstrated that it was taken proactive steps to ensure that the matter was being investigated and dealt with in a timely manner to prevent any exacerbation of the ongoing issues with the rodents on the estate.
The landlord wrote to all residents advising against throwing food onto the external communal areas, on the estate around 22 February 2023. This was approximately a month after the resident reported the issue. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have issued the letters in a timely manner.
While the landlord stated that it had written to all residents in its stage 2 response. It missed another opportunity to reassure the resident that it was monitoring the situation. Also as the resident raised concerns that the landlord had asked him to remove the food in his escalation request, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed his concern in its response. This could have included arranging for the food waste and any subsequent waste left in the area to be removed. This may have gone some way to demonstrate that it was taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was committed to resolving the matter. Furthermore, it would have satisfied itself that it had reasonably investigated the matter and was appropriately monitoring the situation.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. However, it failed to write to its residents about the issue in a timely manner. It also failed to demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to appropriately monitor the situation and did not take appropriate responsibility to remove the food on its own accord. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that his neighbours were leaving food in the external communal areas.
It is noted that in May 2023 the resident told this Service that there had not been any further issues in relation to this matter.

Parcel deliveries

We do not have a contemporaneous record of the 31 January 2023 landlord’s call to the resident. However, the evidence suggests that during the call the resident raised concerns that a parcel delivery had been interfered with by a neighbour.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord referred to the call and acknowledged that the resident believed that his neighbour intended to take his parcel. It told the resident that he should contact the delivery company as it had left his parcel in the incorrect place, as it had delivered the parcel to the flats above the resident instead of directly to his basement flat. It also said that parcel delivery issues “was not something that it would get involved with”. While any concerns about intentional interference with post and parcels is a police matter, the landlord’s response was inadequate. It would have been reasonable for it to have signposted the resident to the police in its response. This would have demonstrated that although it may have been limited in what actions it could take to investigate the matter as a landlord; it had provided the resident with an appropriate resource to look into his concerns further. It would have also been reasonable for it to have considered what actions it could have taken within its own remit to ensure that the likelihood of parcels being left in the incorrect place could be reduced.
The record of the landlord’s conversation with the resident about his escalated complaint on 14 February 2023 notes that it had advised the resident that he could contact the police about the matter. This suggests that it took some steps to support the resident with his concern, which was reasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord also offered to install signage on the resident’s building to ensure his parcels were delivered to the correct place. This was positive and demonstrated that it was committed to resolving the resident’s concerns within its own remit. The evidence provided demonstrates that around May 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the matter as it had not yet installed the signs at that that time. The resident’s contact prompted the landlord to order the signs. The evidence suggests that the signage was installed around the middle of June 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord in order for it to fulfil its commitment to install signage.
Overall, the landlord:
1. missed an early opportunity to signpost the resident to the police as he considered that a neighbour had interfered with and intended to steal his parcel. Although it had advised the resident to report the matter to police in its 14 February 2023 conversation, it would have been reasonable for it to have acknowledged and addressed it in its stage 2 response. This would have demonstrated that it had taken his concerns about his parcels being interfered with seriously and provided the resident with its final position on the matter.
2. follow through with its commitment to install signage as stated in its stage 2 response, which meant that the resident had to chase it for an update.

Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that that his parcel delivery had been interfered with by a neighbour.

The landlord’s request to access the resident’s flat without notice

On 21 January 2023 the resident explained that he would not be available to meet the landlord on 31 January 2023. The evidence suggests when the landlord called to discuss the resident’s existing complaint, the resident raised his concerns that the landlord had knocked his door on 31 January 2023 although he had previously told the landlord that he did not want to meet with it that day.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained that it had seen mould on the resident’s window on 31 January 2023 and wanted to inspect it. It acknowledged that the resident had declined access to investigate the matter further as it had not given him notice of the visit. It is noted that the landlord has a responsibility and an obligation to ensure that its properties are in good condition and to investigate matters in a timely manner. However, given that the landlord was aware that the resident had declined to meet with it on that day, it was unreasonable for it to have knocked the door to inspect his window. Where reasonable, landlords should be mindful that their actions, such as requests for access to investigate matters such as repairs do not undermine their residents’ reasonable requests to not be disturbed, especially when they have clearly expressed they are unable to meet in advance. Doing so can undermine the tenant and landlord relationship.
In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the mould on the resident’s window was an emergency repair that needed immediate attention at that time. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up the matter with the resident without knocking his door that day. This would have still allowed the landlord to investigate the matter as it is obligated to do, while demonstrating that it had listened to the resident’s request to not meet that day. This would have also aligned with its tenancy agreement that states that residents have the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and to “hold the premises without interruption by the landlord.” That it did not was the cause of upset for the resident and led to him complaining about the incident.
In his escalated complaint, the resident said that the landlord was in breach of its tenancy agreement because it had failed to give him at least 24 hours’ notice. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that all residents were entitled to 24 hours minimum notice to enter their property as per its tenancy agreement. It said that where possible, formal access would be arranged. It said that it could not rule out any informal requests for access in the future. The landlord’s response was partially reasonable, this is because the Ombudsman recognises that there may be occasions where the landlord reasonably requires access to the resident’s flat without providing the minimum 24 hours’ notice. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reassured the resident that when he declines to meet with it in advance, it would endeavour to honour his request and follow up any relevant matters another appropriate day where reasonable. This would have demonstrated that it fully understood the resident’s concerns which would have gone some way to rebuild the trust between the resident and the landlord.
Overall, although the resident declined to meet with the landlord on 31 January 2023 appointment, it knocked his door to gain access to inspect his windows. While it is noted that the landlord spotted that there was mould on the resident’s windows, there is no evidence to suggest that it needed immediate access to investigate the matter. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident had declined to meet it that day, it would have been reasonable for it to have followed up the matter another day. That it did not caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s decision to request access to the resident’s flat on that day.
It is noted that the resident has raised concerns that the landlord continues to request access to his flat without providing him with24 hours’ notice. As such we have recommended that the landlord take reasonable steps to provide the resident with sufficient notice, in line with the tenancy agreement, when it needs access to his flat.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On 31 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about his complaint raised on 29 January 2023. Although we do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the telephone call, that it called the resident to discuss his complaint was appropriate. It noted that the resident raised further complaints, such as neighbour’s throwing bread onto the courtyard and his concerns about his parcel delivery. It also acknowledged and addressed those additional complaints in its responses. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should incorporate any appropriate additional complaints raised during its investigations where its stage 1 response had not yet been issued. Therefore the landlord’s decision to incorporate the resident’s additional complaints at this stage was reasonable and appropriate.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the estate repairs in his original complaint on 29 January 2023. He said that he wanted them “formally” investigated. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had carried out an inspection and had raised “several small items” for repair. It said that it was unaware of the resident’s complaint at the time of its inspection and that the resident should report any repairs via its repair service.
The landlord’s response was unreasonable. Given that the resident had requested a formal investigation into his concerns in his complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to have sought clarification about those concerns and addressed them in its complaint response. The Code states that “If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification”. While it is unclear, the evidence available does not suggest that in this case the landlord had done so. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified the resident’s “general estate repairs” concerns. This would have allowed it to investigate the matter properly which would have ensured that the resident’s concerns were properly heard and understood. That it did not is a failing.
When the resident escalated his complaint on 14 February 2023, the landlord called him to discuss his concerns. It noted that it had asked the resident whether he had any further estate repairs to report. It noted that the resident said that he had reported repairs and “not much had happened”. It also noted that the resident said that he would provide the landlord with the evidence of his calls if needed. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not follow this up, nor did it address this in its stage 2 complaint response. Given that the landlord’s record of its conversation with the resident suggested that his complaint about the estate repairs remained unresolved, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sought further clarity around the issue and addressed it in its stage 2 complaint response. As it did not, it missed another opportunity to address the resident’s concerns. This meant the resident’s complaint went unanswered and the landlord failed to put matters right. This was unreasonable. Therefore an order has been made to address this failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses included some statements about its interactions with the resident during the complaint process. For example the landlord commented in its stage 1 complaint response that it had witnessed the resident using “threatening” language when his was discussing his concerns about his parcel deliveries. It said that it would take legal action against the resident should he threaten any other tenant and he was at risk of losing his home if he did so. It said that it would issue the resident with a separate [warning] letter on the matter. It is noted that the landlord withdrew the warning letter in its stage 2 complaint response.
It is not for the Ombudsman to determine in this case whether the landlord’s actions to issue a warning letter was appropriate. However, the landlord’s decision to include such information in its complaint response was inappropriate. Its concerns should reasonably have been dealt with outside of the complaint process and not addressed its response. As it did not, the focus of the resident’s complaints were disrupted when the resident became understandably concerned that he was going to receive a warning letter. Subsequently a substantial portion of the resident’s escalated complaint and the landlord’s response became a dialogue around issues that did not pertain to the resident’s complaints. This undermined the landlord’s principle commitment to resolving the resident’s complaints and may have caused avoidable harm to its landlord and resident relationship. The Code states that complaints should be resolved promptly, politely and fairly. In this case, the landlord’s comments that related to matters outside of the complaint process meant that it failed to provide the resident with such a process, which caused him time, trouble and distress.
The resident also raised concerns in his escalated complaint that a staff member was acting “maliciously” towards him and asked how the landlord about its safeguarding process. The landlord failed to address this in its response. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Therefore the landlord’s failure to address this in its response was a departure from the Code. The resident has confirmed with this Service that a separate complaint has now been raised for this matter.
It is noted that the landlord and resident made reference to the resident’s disabilities in their complaint correspondence. However, it is unclear whether the landlord’s records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Therefore an order has been made to ensure that its records are updated accordingly.
It is acknowledged that the resident continued to correspond with the landlord about his concerns after the stage 2 response was issued. The landlord subsequently responded to the resident on 31 May 2023 addressing his concerns. It also offered the resident compensation for failings that were identified. While it was appropriate for the landlord to address the resident’s outstanding concerns, it should reasonably have raised the matter as a new complaint and issued its correspondence as a stage 1 response. Dealing with the resident’s further communication in such a manner would have ensured that the landlord’s handling of the matter was Code compliant.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (Code 2024). This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code 2024. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. fully investigate the resident’s complaint about his concerns about the estate repairs.
2. demonstrate good complaint handling when it inappropriately addressed its concerns about the resident’s actions in its complaint responses.
3. respond to the resident’s concerns about its staff member.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about rodents on his estate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported bay window repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a neighbour was throwing bread onto the external grounds.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his parcel deliveries.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s response to the resident’s declination to meet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £940 comprised of:
  1. £350 for time, trouble and distress caused by its inadequate handling of his concerns that there were rodents on his estate.
  2. £350 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of his reported issues with his bay window.
  3. £80 for time, trouble and distress caused by its unsatisfactory handling of his concerns that food was being thrown onto the external grounds.
  4. £30 for the distress and inconvenience of its inadequate handling of the resident’s concerns that his parcel delivery had been interfered with by a neighbour.
  5. £30 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s request to access the resident’s flat despite his advance notice declining to meet on that day.
  6. £100 for time, trouble and distress caused by its poor complaint handling.
  7. the compensation offered to the resident in relation to its handling of the resident reported issues with his bay windows in its complaint response and its 31 May 2023 correspondence. If this sum has already been paid to the resident, this may be deducted from the overall total.
2. Contact the resident:
  1. to update him on the current its pest control measures and whether he has any current concerns. Where relevant, it should provide the resident with its next steps.
  2. ascertain whether there are any outstanding repairs relating to his bay window. If there are, they must be completed within 4 weeks of notification. It should also consider whether any further compensation from the date of this determination to the date of completion of the works is warranted.
  3. to confirm whether he has concerns about any estate repairs.
  4. to ascertain whether he would like the landlord to record any relevant vulnerabilities that he may have.
3. confirm and provide evidence to the resident and this Service that the drain survey has been completed and all relevant holes/gaps have been sealed in relation to its pest control measures.
4. confirm with this Service that it will consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
1. take reasonable steps to ensure that it provides the resident with appropriate notice when it requires access to his flat.
2. review its record keeping practices in line with our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report. In particular, ensuring that it adequately records and has access to audit trails of its actions for its cases.