Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202307607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307607

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

26 July 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of dog fouling in communal areas of the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
3. Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen walls when she moved in to the property.
4. Handling of a lack of heating at the property when the resident moved in.
5. Handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
6. Handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony.
7. Handling of the resident’s reports that a fire door at the property would not close properly.
8. Handling of the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff.
9. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident held a secure tenancy of a 3-bedroom maisonette in a 3-storey block with the landlord, which is a local authority. The property was offered to the resident in August 2022.The tenancy started on 31 October 2022 and the resident moved in on 4 November 2022. The landlord had no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s father in law raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report, he will be referred to as ‘the representative.’
The representative explained at the start of her tenancy, the resident was under the care of the local mental health support team with a diagnosis of unstable personality disorder. He says the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health when allocating the property. He says his correspondence with the landlord “repeatedly” reminded it of the resident’s health, that she had 2 young children, and was also approximately 8 months pregnant when she moved in.
The representative says the resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property when the landlord handed it over. He states the landlord was informed she had no heating, a fire door would not close, there was blood on the property’s kitchen walls, and the decorating voucher issued was insufficient to complete redecoration.
On 6 December 2022 the representative raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. The complaint summarised the resident’s dissatisfaction of the condition of the property at handover. It included issues with water pooling on the property’s balcony and described effluent coming through the bath plug after flushing the toilet. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 January 2023.
While awaiting a stage 1 response, the representative reported additional issues to the landlord on 13 February 2022. This included:
1. The landlord had failed to notify the resident of balcony works in the block. During which the resident had witnessed poor conduct and unsafe working practices by the operatives.
2. The representative was dissatisfied with the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff during a telephone call on 13 February 2023.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord informed the representative that his service request was now being responded to as a stage 1 complaint. It provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023 the representative escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and considered repair concerns remained outstanding.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 March 2023.
In April 2023, the resident’s MP chased the landlord for updates regarding her various complaints. On 18 April 2023 the landlord informed the representative it would send a response “as soon as possible.”
On 25 April 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 responses.
The representative brought the resident’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service and her complaint became one we could formerly consider on 6 June 2023. He remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had supported a vulnerable resident and the time taken to resolve repairs.
Beyond our duly made date of 6 June 2023, the resident’s MP continued to chase the landlord for updates. Between June to September 2023 the MP sought explanations from the landlord regarding the resident’s complaints and repairs. The landlord provided a summary in the form of a second stage 2 response on 27 September 2023.
The resident terminated her tenancy in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

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 us, we 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 (a) and 42 (j) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dog fouling in communal areas of the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion have been made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
While we recognise the distress new complaints can cause, the resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s response to dog fouling in communal areas of the property on 17 May 2024. This was a new matter which did not form part of the resident’s original complaint. Therefore, the landlord should be given a fair opportunity to investigate the issues raised and provide a response to the resident in line with its ICP.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
The representative was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR. He has informed the Ombudsman that he has contacted the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and raised a separate complaint. This is the appropriate action for him to take and therefore, this matter will not form part of this investigation.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes the representative’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and complaints caused her stress and anxiety. We do not doubt these comments.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
We note the representative’s correspondence expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s housing allocation processes. We can only consider complaints about the allocation of housing that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. The representative informed us he has taken his concerns to the LGSCO. This is the appropriate action for him to take and this matter will not form part of this investigation.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen walls when she moved in to the property

The landlord’s guidance for housing occupation standards is defined as the repairs standard for properties offered for rent, based on legal standards for housing. It states that this means “that any dwelling let will be reasonably safe, secure, clean and free from any significant potential hazards.”
The resident has advised that she was dissatisfied with the decorative condition of her property when it was handed over to her. She also states reporting blood on the kitchen walls to the landlord. The resident says she provided the landlord with photographs by email on 3 occasions. Therefore, she did not consider it had met its housing occupation standards.
Paragraph 4.22 of the landlord’s guidance for occupation standards states all habitable rooms will be finished with a finishing plaster to accept decoration following reasonable preparation by the resident. It states decoration is the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord provided the resident with a £205 decoration voucher to assist with decoration of the property. We note the resident says this was not enough to complete the work required. While this would understandably have been upsetting, the landlord advised its award was a standard payment based on the size of the property. It was therefore reasonable when it advised the resident, she had chosen to use masonry paint herself, which had proven more expensive.
While it was reasonable that the expense of paint was not a failing by the landlord, we note the landlord’s comments in its stage 1 response, 8 March 2023. It accepted that photographs supplied by the resident evidenced part of the woodchip “had come away in places.” This demonstrates a failing with the completion of its void repair works and indicates the work required more than “reasonable preparation” by the resident. Given the landlord had acknowledged this, it is unclear why it made no offer to put things right.
The landlord’s policies are silent on its responsive repair timescales. However, we note the landlord attended the property following the resident’s condition reports within 8 working days, on 16 November 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
There is no evidence any further remedial action was taken by the landlord regarding the reports of blood. Furthermore, the landlord’s correspondence throughout the resident’s complaint refutes the presence of any blood on the kitchen walls.
While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, we have not seen the specific photographic evidence she supplied to the landlord. However, the landlord has provided photographs which it says is the resident’s kitchen after void repairs. In which, we are unable to identify any marks on the walls. Nor can we see any potential hazards.
It should be noted that we are limited in the extent to which we can rely on photographic evidence. This is because it is not possible to determine the location or circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. Furthermore, we can only base our decisions on evidence and a photograph would not prove the alleged substance.
We note the representative has raised concerns to the ICO regarding the landlord’s record keeping of the alleged photographs. This formed part of his complaint about the landlord’s handling of his SAR request. Therefore, any failures in this matter would be addressed by the ICO.
We acknowledge the claim by the resident and how this would cause distress. However, we are unable to determine whether there was blood on the kitchen walls of the property when she moved in due to the contradictory evidence received.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged woodchip was coming away. While there is no evidence of a potential hazard, the landlord’s void repairs failed to ensure the kitchen wall was appropriately finished and ready to accept decoration. This was not appropriate and not in line with its guidance for occupation standards. Therefore, we find service failure in this matter.

Handling of a lack of heating at the property when the resident moved in

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
Paragraph 3.1 of the landlord’s guidance for occupation standards states the requirement for statutory works. It states, a turn on and test (TOAT) will be completed at the start of a new tenancy, including giving advice on turning on and off the gas, electricity, and water supplies. Furthermore, it says it will complete inspections before a resident moves in.
The resident states her tenancy commenced on 31 October 2022 and she moved in on 4 November 2022. She reports at this time there was no heating at the property. This has been reiterated by the representative who assisted the resident with her move. The resident says she unsuccessfully tried to report this to the landlord and a specific member of staff via the telephone numbers given to her.
The landlord’s internal communication records on 14 November 2022 refers to the resident’s property as “another property with no thermostat or timer.” This demonstrates the landlord had identified a recurring failure. The landlord’s first stage 2 response on 24 April 2023 also states, “our records confirm the TOAT was completed on 14 November 2022, two weeks after the tenancy start date.” This demonstrates it had failed to monitor its contractor’s performance or ensured the boiler was fully operational at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
There is evidence the property’s boiler was renewed in August 2022 during void repairs. Therefore, the landlord had sufficient time to identify any faults before the resident moved in in November 2022. This demonstrates a record keeping failure and a failure to adhere to the pre tenancy process within its guidance for occupation standards. This was not appropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience trying to remedy matters.
There is evidence on 27 February 2023 the landlord sought information from its contractor. It asked why the resident’s TOAT was arranged on 7 November 2022 but it did not attend until 14 November 2022. It also acknowledged the resident had experienced further delays until 16 November 2022 for all heating controls to be fitted. These identified delays were not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s guidance for occupation standards.
While the landlord believes the boiler could have been operated manually, the resident has disputed this. Furthermore, no conclusive evidence has been supplied by the landlord to verify its claims.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was fair that the landlord acknowledged its failures and offered the resident £173.78, the equivalent of two weeks rent, and an additional £100 for the inconvenience caused. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
However, given the resident has a reported mental health diagnosis and pregnant at the start of her tenancy, it is unclear why this information was not included on the landlord’s records. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to evidence that it provided her with any instructions on the use of the boiler at the start of her tenancy. This was not appropriate and not in line with its guidance for occupation standards.
The term ‘vulnerabilities’ has no standard definition. Broadly, they are characteristics that a resident possesses, either permanently or temporarily, that may mean they need care or support to deal with the landlord or landlord’s processes. By not appropriately recording a resident’s vulnerabilities, wrong or poor decisions can be made when providing services. The landlord’s failure to correct its communication failures or recognise the needs of the resident has resulted in it providing a poor standard of service in this case. The landlord did not demonstrate giving due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 or the presence of young children.
Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord completed a check to identify whether the boiler was operational. There is also no evidence an alternative source of heating was provide while she waited for the TOAT. Given that it is unlawful for anyone other than a Gas Safe qualified person to uncap gas prior to a TOAT, the landlord’s assumption that the boiler would have been operational is dismissive of the resident’s reported concerns. This was unreasonable.
Given the identified failures, the resident’s vulnerabilities, and children in the household, the landlord’s offer of £273.78 was not proportionate redress. She was caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while trying to get help to ensure the boiler was fully operational. Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a lack of heating at the property when the resident moved in. An order of £600 has been made. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It must also keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using the HHSRS risk assessment approach. HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. This includes threats of infection and threats to mental health associated with personal hygiene, including personal and clothing washing facilities, sanitation, and drainage.
There is evidence that the resident reported faeces entering through her bath plug when flushing the toilet in December 2022. While the resident confirms these works were completed in or around October 2023, it took the landlord approximately 9 months to resolve.
The landlord’s repair records show 13 jobs for the resident’s toilet, bath, and or soil stack. The resident does not dispute the landlord attended, to inspect or clear blockages, starting from 5 December 2022. However, it failed to provide a lasting remedy to raise the bath and redo pipework as promised.
The landlord’s repair notes in December 2022 state it needed to raise the bath. Not completing the work left the resident at risk of faeces re-entering the bath. Given the potential hazard to the resident, her new born baby, and her two other young children, it is unclear why the landlord failed to address this need sooner. This failure caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her young family.
We note the landlord’s repair records contain no completion dates and little information following its findings during appointments. This demonstrates poor record keeping. This failure indicates the landlord was without the required information to effectively monitor repair progress or ensure the suggested remedial works took place.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. The landlord’s failure to effectively monitor the resident’s repair was not appropriate and delayed it providing the resident with a lasting remedy to her reported concerns.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response on 27 September 2023 demonstrated, in particular, the landlord’s failure to monitor or remedy the resident’s reported bath and toilet issues. Its response clearly states, “our contractor was due to complete these works, however it appears they did not contact the resident or reattend the property.” This demonstrates a record keeping failure which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
While the landlord acknowledged this failure in September 2023 and arranged to complete the work, it offered no redress. It failed to put right the detriment of the repair delay nor the time and trouble raising her needs via her MP.
The resident does not dispute the landlord dealt with incident’s when reported. Therefore, we have considered this mitigation. However, there was a significant delay to it providing a lasting repair. Furthermore, the landlord failed to meet its obligations under the LTA 1985 and HHSRS. In turn, it failed to recognise the risks associated with its failures leaving a vulnerable resident and her family with a hazard. Therefore, its attendance is not sufficient mitigation to warrant a finding less than maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £600 compensation to acknowledge and put right the detriment caused to the resident.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony

The representative raised a complaint regarding cracks in the resident’s balcony on 6 December 2022. The resident considered the balcony unsafe and reported pooling water due to drainage issues. The landlord attended within 8 working days, on 16 December 2022. While the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the expected response timescales, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, there is evidence from an internal email on 17 November 2022 where the landlord confirmed it had discussed the resident’s concerns about the balcony’s drainage issues. The landlord states it advised the resident it was “how they were constructed.” This was not a reasonable explanation nor does it evidence the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns prior to her complaint.
While there is evidence the landlord had planned works to the balconies in the resident’s block in November 2022, its repair records supplied to us have no information regarding the completion dates. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence of communication with the resident regarding the planned works. This did not demonstrate a landlord maintaining accurate records and has affected our ability to document events accurately.
However, it is not disputed by the resident that work to replace the balcony’s asphalt coating was started in February 2023. Events regarding staff conduct during this work has been considered as a separate complaint.
While we note scaffolding was erected and the balcony’s asphalt replaced in or around February 2023, the drainage issues remained. This affected the resident’s balcony and her ability to open a window due to running water from the roof which splashed back. There is evidence these issues were raised to the landlord in November to December 2022 and also via the resident’s MP between June to September 2023. The landlord did not complete the repair until 5 September 2023.
The landlord informed the resident’s MP in January 2024 it had employed an independent company to complete a stock condition survey in April 2023. It states the survey met the HHSRS and determined the balcony cracks were considered “superficial.” The landlord states it recognised the work was necessary and it would be completed by specialist contractors as part of a wider programme of works.
While this demonstrates the landlord had taken steps to assess the condition of the balconies at the resident’s block, evidence of communication was poor. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of its intentions to investigate the concerns nor any evidence it reassured her of its findings. It was unreasonable that it took time and trouble and further assistance from the resident’s MP to progress this matter.
While the detriment of an external overflow pipe causing pooling water on the balcony would have been minimal to the resident, it is unreasonable the landlord failed to investigate, address the repair, or effectively communicate for approximately 9 months. The resident was required to seek help from her MP to achieve a remedy. This caused her avoidable time and trouble and a loss of confidence in the landlord’s service delivery. Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. It is ordered to pay £150 to acknowledge and put right the identified failures.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a fire door at the property would not close properly

There is evidence the landlord completed the property void repairs and handed it over to its allocation team on 28 October 2022. This included work to the doors and door frames in the property. The landlord states at the time of handover all doors in the property had been checked and closed appropriately. The representative disputes this and raised a complaint on the resident’s behalf.
While we are unable to verify the reason a door would not close, it is our role to assess the landlord’s response to the reports of an issue. It is not disputed by the resident that the landlord attended the property on 16 November 2022 and raised a job for the lounge fire door to be eased. The landlord’s explanation was the lounge door was not opening “due to swelling” whilst the property had been unoccupied. While we are not expert in construction, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff.
While any outstanding repair would understandably be upsetting, we are unable to determine any detriment to the resident. The resident does not dispute the landlord attended and raised a job to complete the repair. However, it is unclear from the evidence when a repair was completed and whether the landlord’s response timescale was reasonable. No evidence has been supplied which confirms the date the landlord’s nominated contractor resolved the matter for the resident.
Therefore, it is a further demonstration of a record keeping failure. As such, we find service failure in this matter. This will form part of our learning orders below.

Handling of the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff

We note from the representative’s correspondence that there are two incidents of staff conduct that gave rise to the resident’s complaint. The first relates to a member of the local authority’s housing allocation team attempting to assist the representative with a housing related matter. The second relates to the conduct of roofers working on the blocks balconies on landlord’s behalf.
On 13 February 2023 the representative telephoned the housing allocation team to report the conduct of operatives working on balconies at the resident’s block. The representative was disappointed with the delays taken during the call.
While we acknowledged being put on hold for extended periods of time would understandably cause upset, the landlord’s explanation to the representative was reasonable. It explained the member of staff in the allocation team would have no access to the housing repair records. The member of staff took responsibility for the call and attempted to help the representative; relaying advice given to them from other teams. Although it would likely have been better for them to have given the representative an alternative telephone number, there was no evidence of maladministration with the conduct of this member of staff.
However, it is not disputed by the landlord that its roofing contractors had attended the resident’s block on 10 February 2023 without prior warning. The resident expressed concerns about the conduct of staff, language used, noise, and reported witnessing it throwing debris from the roof without the use of a chute.
The landlord’s standards of behaviour and conduct in the workplace document states employees must comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, associated regulations, guidance and approved codes of practice.
As the landlord, it would be its responsibility to ensure these standards are met by anyone working on its behalf. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise the concerns to its contractor and for staff to receive additional health and safety training. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
However, the resident reported a second incident approximately 6 weeks later. It was therefore appropriate the landlord escalated this complaint to the contractor and ensured the matter was investigated further. There is evidence the contractor met with the resident, investigated and upheld her complaint and paid £300 compensation for any distress caused.
As there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the resident and the roofing contractor, we are unable to investigate its actions. However, the landlord apologised for the actions of its contractor and demonstrated acting on her reports. It ensured the contractor provided additional training and paid compensation for the identified failures. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to put things right and ensure the contractor offered redress.
Based on the above, we consider the landlord’s facilitation of the £300 compensation offered by its contractor was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It is therefore our finding that reasonable redress has been offered in this matter.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was using the local authority’s complaint policy, which contained escalation restrictions that were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has since updated its policy in line with the Code.
The Code (1 April 2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to at stage 1 and stage 2 within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The resident’s stage 1 complaint was raised on 6 December 2022. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement and stage 1 response by 13 and 20 December 2022, respectively. The landlord failed to meet either of these timescales. It provided its acknowledgement 29 working days late on 26 January 2023 and its stage 1 response 53 working days late on 8 March 2023. This was not appropriate and not in line with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord’s letter to the representative on 26 January 2023 was not appropriate. It said the resident’s complaint had been registered as a “service request.” This was evidence of poor complaint handling, and not in line with the principles set out in the Code. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the representative’s correspondence on 6 December 2022 as a complaint from the beginning.
The representative had complained about the service the resident had received and her dissatisfaction on 6 December 2022. It took further chasing by the representative on 13 February 2023 for the landlord to demonstrate treating his correspondence as a complaint. That the landlord appeared to try and respond outside of its complaints procedure was not appropriate. This caused time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates and inconvenience as the landlord failed to provide a timely stage 1 response.
The representative escalated the resident’s complaint on 16 March 2023. It was reasonable for them to expect an acknowledgement by 23 March 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 14 April 2023. The evidence indicates the landlord provided an acknowledgement on 23 March 2023. Therefore, this was appropriate. However, its stage 2 final response was not provided until 25 April 2023, 7 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
The Code clearly sets out the requirements of member landlords. This includes the number of days that a landlord should provide its stage responses and the number of days that this can be extended on agreement with the resident. While the landlord’s correspondence frequently advised that delays were caused by high demand on its services, there is no evidence the landlord agreed complaint response extensions with the resident at any stage. Simply telling the resident of delays to its services, or that the investigation continues, as is evidenced in its letter on 18 April 2023, was not appropriate and not in line with the Code.
The landlord provided two stage 2 responses. These were sent 5 months apart. While we note the representative provided additional information between each response, it is unclear why the landlord chose this procedure. Had it considered it had provided its final response in April 2023, it should have continued to direct him to the Ombudsman at that stage. This indicates a complaint handling training need and delayed the resident’s complaint being considered by us.
The landlord’s first stage 2 response on 24 April 2022 recognised it had failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the expected timescales. However, it made no offer of redress. Furthermore, by providing a second stage 2 response, it acknowledged it had failed to complete work to the bath as previously agreed. Therefore, this is further evidence of the landlord’s failures to monitor or keep effective records of repairs. We also note the landlord’s complaint response contains no evidence of learning and no demonstration of the actions it would take to prevent similar failures happening again.
Given the resident’s complaint journey was protracted and delayed from the start, required the assistance of the local MP, and continued after almost 9 months, compensation is warranted. The landlord’s failures caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to a vulnerable resident.
In view of this, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Record keeping

As documented within this report, there has been evidence of poor record keeping. This led to the landlord delivering poor or delayed communication and repairs and failing to give due regard to the needs of the vulnerable resident. Further instances have been identified, which includes:
1. The landlord informed us that it had no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities as the resident had not completed a medical assessment. This is disputed by the resident who has provided us a letter of 22 July 2022 from her consultant psychiatrist. It is reasonable that this information should have been held by the landlord prior to offering the resident a property in August 2022. Furthermore, given the frequency of the representative’s and MP’s correspondence, which comment on her health, it should have demonstrated updating its records.
2. The landlord informed us it did not have a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. It advised its staff member “failed to save a copy” and has since left its employment. There is no evidence it took steps to correct this prior to her ending her tenancy.
3. On 4 April 2023 the chief executive’s office apologised to the resident’s MP as it had “been unable to find a record of receipt of the representative’s complaint in December 2022.”
Based on the evidence and findings of this investigation, we find maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dog fouling in communal areas of the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR) is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen walls when she moved in to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a lack of heating at the property when the resident moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that a fire door at the property would not close properly.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of a members of the landlord’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the kitchen walls when she moved in to the property.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of a lack of heating at the property when the resident moved in heating. £273.78 offered by the landlord can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
  3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  4. £150 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony.
  5. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord is ordered to demonstrate that it has provided relevant officers with complaint handling refresher training within the last 6 months. If it is unable to do so, it is ordered to provide training to ensure complaints are managed in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the failings identified in this report, complete a review in to its handling of the resident’s complaint and repairs including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
  1. The identified record keeping failures.
  2. The complaint handling failures.
  3. The communication and repair delays.
2. A copy of the landlord’s findings and identified learning should be shared with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure the £300 compensation offered to the resident for the conduct of roofing staff has been paid.
The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights (relationship of equals), published January 2024. It could use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.
The landlord is encouraged to consider further specific neurodiversity awareness training to support staff with skills when working with individuals with health and support needs.