Abri Group Limited (202206759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206759

Abri Group Limited

31 January 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. handling of the resident’s requests to adapt its communication to meet her accessibility needs.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2017. She is registered blind and lives with her son who acts as her carer. The landlord was aware of her disability since the tenancy sign-up.
On 24 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and requested a discussion and details of her housing officer as her housing needs had changed. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 June 2024 and provided details of her housing officer and advised that it is in contact with an occupational therapist to meet with her at her property. At this time, the landlord was in the process of repairs to the resident’s property as a result of damp and mould and assisting the resident with a potential move.
On 4 July 2022, the resident complained that it did not meet with her as agreed on that date. On 11 July 2022, she emailed the landlord that its failure to communicate made her feel discriminated against as she is registered blind. In the landlord’s complaint investigation, the resident said that she was upset that the meeting did not take place as she wanted to meet her housing officer. She advised that she did not have a point of contact with the landlord and confirmed that her preferred method of communication is face-to-face or telephone as voice activation on her email does not always work well. As a resolution she wanted a single point of contact with the landlord, to meet her housing officer, and have monthly face-to-face meetings with the housing officer.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response and upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that there had been several instances of poor communication in the handling of its repairs, housing, and the complaint investigation. It apologised that it had not acknowledged her complaint in line with its policy. It advised the resident that it had restructured, and that day-to-day queries were now managed in its office. It advised that it had considered her request for monthly face-to-face meetings, however, this was not practical due to resourcing.
As a resolution, it set up a meeting at her property on 8 August 2022 with her housing officerand anoccupational therapist to assess her housing needs. It advised that it could provide a single email point of contact for her repairs, and a phone and email point of contact for her housing.This was a temporary measure because she was having ongoing repairs to her property and was in the process of a potential move. It noted that her preferred method of contacts is face-to-face and telephone, however, the resident wished to retain all methods of contact including email and letter.
The resident felt the landlord was discriminatory by not providing her with a telephone point of contact for her repairs. The landlord advised that the option of calling the contact centre was still available and asked if she wished to escalate her complaint. On 15 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and complained that she had emailed repairs last week and received an auto reply that her point of contact was out of office. She felt the communication solution was not working. The landlord confirmed that her point of contact for repairs was on holidays, and it would provide an update on her repair schedule. The resident further complained that the landlord had contacted her via the portal which was not user friendly for her and that the landlord had emailed her when her preference is a phone call.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It agreed that there had been further issues with its communication, and it could have provided better updates to the resident. It noted the issues the resident had with the email point of contact for repairs. It also agreed that it needed to improve how it communicated with resident’s based on their individual needs. It noted that it had not accurately updated the resident’s preferred method of contact on its systems.
The landlord apologised for the continued communication problems the resident experienced since the stage 1 response. As a resolution, it advised that going forward, when nominating a point of contact, it would make sure everyone is clear on the process and what would happen if the point of contact were on leave. It confirmed that the resident would continue to have these points of contact until it resolved her issues. The landlord advised that it would review its portal system to identify if it could improve accessibility for visually impaired residents. It also improved flags and notes on the residents account to make its employees aware of the resident’s required communication methods.
When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she remained unhappy as she felt the landlord could improve its communication with residents with sight loss. She advised she would like a meeting with the landlord and to be involved in the process of improving its accessibility.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained that the landlord had discriminated against her because of her disability. This Service can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by the landlord and if it showed due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, we are unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in relation to the landlord’s processes or actions. This would be a matter for the courts to determine.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to adapt its communication to meet her accessibility needs.

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Under the Act the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with people who are not disabled.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy sets out its commitment to ensuring that disabled people are not disadvantaged in accessing its services and states that it will make reasonable adjustments where necessary. Section 3.6 of its policy sets out that the adjustment will depend on the individual’s needs. It will discuss requirements with the person concerned and seek to reach an agreement on what may be reasonable in the circumstances. An example of an adjustment it can make is “Use of email or telephone in preference to hard copy letters, or vice versa”
The landlord’s website notes that it aims to respond to resident’s emails within 5 working days.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failures in its response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failings identified through its complaint investigation. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
There is evidence that the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. It consulted with its Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion officer before deciding that a single point of contact for the resident for every issue was not feasible, due to the landlord’s resources. As a resolution it offered a single point of contact for her housing needs while she was in the process of a potential move, and a single point of contact for repairs until the repairs in her property were complete. This was a reasonable solution to the resident’s concerns.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s service level responses were mostly within its commitment to respond within 5 working days. It is noted that the landlord’s point of contact in repairs left an out of office message while on leave. This meant the resident did not have a single point of contact with repairs for that period. The landlord acknowledged this mistake and apologised to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that this solution had not been effective as it had hoped. It apologised for its failure when her point of contact was on leave. It confirmed it would review and improve this process going forward so that the resident and point of contact have a clear understanding of expectations of how this contact should take place. This Service finds that this was appropriate in the circumstances. When implementing a new process, the landlord may make mistakes. The landlord apologised for the error and committed to improving the process.
The landlord considered how it communicated with the resident. It advised the resident that its records showed that all letters should be in large font and asked the resident if she wanted email also to be in large font. When the resident advised that her preferred method of contact was face-to-face and telephone, the landlord offered to remove her email from the system so that it could only contact her by telephone. These were reasonable considerations by the landlord.
The resident confirmed she wished to retain email as an option of communication but clarified that her priority of communications were:
1. face-to-face,
2. telephone,
3. letter, and
4. email.
The landlord confirmed that it would update its systems accordingly. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised to the resident because it had failed to update its systems appropriately and as a result communication with the resident was not always in the priority that she requested. It noted that face-to-face communication was not always possible, but that it had now improved flags and notes on the residents account, so its employees are aware of her communication preferences. The evidence shows that there were instances in which the landlord replied to the resident’s emails instead of calling her as her preferred method of contact. There were also instances in which the landlord called the resident but followed up with an email when it could not get through.
This Service recognises that the landlord may not always be able to contact the resident via her preferred method. It must consider with each communication what is reasonable in the circumstances, and it may not always get it right. This Service also notes that while the resident’s preferred method of contact is face-to-face and telephone, the resident requested to keep email as an option of communication, so it was reasonable for the landlord to consider this option. As such, an apology was appropriate in these circumstances.
Throughout the complaints process the resident advised the landlord that its portal was not accessible for visually impaired customers. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it was reviewing its portal system to identify if it could make improvements for visually impaired resident’s. This was a reasonable response.
This Service finds that there was reasonable redress offered to the resident with its handling of her requests to adapt its communication to meet her accessibility needs. This is because the landlord demonstrated a willingness to engage with the resident, in line with its reasonable adjustment policy, after it received a request for a reasonable adjustment. It put in place measures to improve communication and when it identified issues with its processes it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and committed to implementing improvements to its systems and processes.
The resident advised this Service that the landlord’s communication with her has not improved. As a resolution, she wants a meeting with the landlord to discuss her communication needs and to involve her in improvements to its processes and systems. While this investigation has found that the landlord has acted reasonably during the period of the complaint, we cannot assess how the landlord has communicated with the resident since the complaint. As such, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to identify if it can make further reasonable adjustments to improve its communication with her.

The landlord’s service levels and complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. The landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. A manager who was not involved in the stage 1 complaint will review the complaint and contact the resident within 2 working days. After this they will provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
The resident complained on 4 July 2022, but the landlord did not respond until 12 July 2022. The landlord apologised and explained that the reason for the delay was that it confused her complaint with a previous similar complaint. Having reviewed the correspondence, it is noted there were elements of the complaint similar to a previous complaint reviewed by this Service. As such an apology was appropriate.
The landlord advised the resident that it would add 10 days extension to the complaint timeframe to allow a full investigation of the issues and provide a response by 1 August 2022. In the circumstances this was reasonable, the landlord wanted to get a clear understanding of the resident’s complaint before providing a response.
After its complaint response the resident advised the landlord that she wished to escalate the complaint on 15 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 August 2022 and confirmed it aimed to reply within 20 working days. The landlord explained to the resident that she could ask a manager to review the complaint or could have it heard by a panel. The landlord advised the resident that it had extended the complaint response deadline until 29 September 2022 as the investigating manager had taken leave and wanted further time to investigate. It provided its final response on 30 September 2022.
This Service considers that the landlord’s extensions to the complaint responses were reasonable and proportionate. The landlord’s reasons for extending its complaint responses were to carry out a thorough investigation of the complaint issues while considering the request for reasonable adjustments. The landlord proactively engaged with the resident to address her complaint issues and provided appropriate information and guidance on the complaint process.
This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling. It apologised for failing to identify and acknowledge the complaint in the first instance and it apologised for its communication failure with her point of contact in repairs.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s requests to adapt its communication to meet her accessibility needs.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s complaint of its service levels and its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to identify if it can make further reasonable adjustments to improve its communication with her.