Broadland Housing Association Limited (202125350)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125350

Broadland Housing Association Limited

31 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
2. Retention and disclosure of an unsent letter about the report of antisocial behaviour.
3. Use of its unreasonable complaints policy.
4. Response to a request to change staff members dealing with the management of the resident’s tenancy.
5. Handling of the loft ventilation system.
This service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a report of ASB made against the resident is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident notified this service that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of an ASB report against her. She stated she was “unable to defend herself and give evidence to prove that the accusations were untrue”.
While the resident’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, this element of her complaint has not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
This service has seen no evidence that the resident raised her concern about the landlord’s response to its handling of a report of ASB made against her in either her stage 1 complaint, or her stage 2 escalation request. The evidence of other correspondence between the resident and landlord does not show that she raised this either.
As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not aware of the resident’s concerns about the way it had handled a report of ASB made against her when responding to the complaints which are being considered in this investigation. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The resident may wish to now raise a complaint directly with the landlord about its handling of the ASB report.
While the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the way it handled the report of ASB made against her has not been considered as part of this investigation, all other elements of the complaint have been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom bungalow. The tenancy began on 16 January 2006.
The resident had reported various ASB incidents to the landlord concerning her neighbours since 2017. She raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in 2020 and the landlord identified it had failed to appropriately investigate some of the resident’s reports of ASB between 2017 and 2019. She raised a further complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB in 2021.
In April 2021 the resident applied for a community trigger review which found that appropriate action had been taken by the relevant agencies with regards to the ASB. It was acknowledged however that the ASB was having a significant impact on the resident and the agencies involved should use their risk assessment processes to see what additional and practical support should be provided.
The resident referred her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB to this service, which was determined on 15 August 2022.

Summary of events

The resident made a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord. The exact date of the request is unknown, but the evidence shows that it was in October or November 2021.
On 28 November 2021 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint. In summary she said:
1. After receiving documents under a SAR, she saw that there was a letter on her file about a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) against her which she had never received.
2. She also saw an internal request dated September 2021 to implement the landlord’s unreasonable complaints procedure. She had never been informed that this had been activated and did not consider there were any grounds to activate it. She listed historical instances of ASB that she had reported which she wanted correcting on file and said that the internal request referred to those historical matters.
3. She had protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 including being registered disabled and a blue badge holder. She had severe chronic health conditions which include bursitis, long covid, fibromyalgia, ME, and asthma.
On 30 November 2021 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it would issue a response within 10 working days.
On the same day the resident sent further correspondence. Within this, she named five members of its staff. She asked for these individuals to not have any further contact with her or access to her data. She asked for this to be done immediately. The landlord acknowledged her request and advised that this would be responded to as part of the complaint.
On 10 December 2021 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said:
1. In respect of the letter, a draft letter had remained on the system, but it had been deleted from its ASB record as it related to a complaint that was not upheld. It did not uphold this part of her complaint as the letter was in draft only and was not sent because it had been decided that no further action would be taken.
2. In respect of its unreasonable complaints procedure, it confirmed that this was invoked during the community trigger process in April and ended in May. The procedure had not been used again since this date. A request was made in September 2021 to invoke it, but it was not authorised. As it did not invoke it there was no reason to inform the resident, so it did not uphold this part of her complaint.
3. It thanked her for sharing information about her protected characteristics and medical conditions, and confirmed it would update its system. It had offered signposting support previously and said that this could be provided again if the resident wished. It also said that if there were any other ways in which she felt it was not recognising her needs then to let it know. It also directed the resident to its tenant assistance programme.
4. It noted that she had referred to a number of ASB matters within her complaint request which had already been considered under its complaint policy and had since been referred to the Housing Ombudsman. It could not therefore comment on these issues nor consider the complaints again, but it would adhere to any findings made by the Ombudsman on these matters.
5. In respect of the resident’s request around staffing it said that its investigations, the community trigger, and the appeal suggested that the resident’s neighbourhood officer had dealt appropriately with the reports. It would not normally change officers nor other staffing on request as it could lead to very complicated arrangements which would impact the service it could offer so it was unable to consider the request.
6. The resident had made very serious accusations about the neighbourhood officer of bias and discrimination. It asked the resident to provide further evidence for it to review outside of the complaints previously made and those now with the Ombudsman. If she did not have further evidence, it asked the resident not to make unsubstantiated and serious accusations against a member of staff. It hoped that this addressed her concerns.
The resident replied on the same day stating she would like to escalate to a stage two and a panel meeting. She said she would send a full reply as soon as she could collate the information and address all the points. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request and advised that an officer would be in touch with her the following week to go through the steps of the process.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and explained its stage two panel process. It asked the resident to provide the outcome she was seeking for each point of her complaint. It explained that the panel dates may be delayed because of the Christmas break but offered the resident options for when it could be heard. It also asked the resident to provide any information she would like included in the panel pack.
The resident responded on the same day and said:
1. The letter in her SAR had been drafted after September 2021 after her neighbours had made false allegations. The letter was dated October 2021. There had been letters which had not been sent and information previously withheld by its staff member.
2. She could see two authorised requests in relation to the unreasonable complaint procedure and one submitted in September 2021 which the landlord states was not authorised. She considered that someone was submitting these deliberately using out of date information. She accepted the one on the previous occasion during the community trigger but “not the other two”.
3. She considered that the internal request for the unreasonable complaint procedure to be invoked was using the fact that she had been in touch with the Housing Ombudsman against her.
4. In respect of the landlord not making reasonable adjustments she said that in 2017 she had been promised that her loft ventilation unit would have a remote control because of her disabilities. She mentioned this to the electrician when he installed it and again when the unit had to be replaced when it developed a fault, but no one got back to her. She has been requesting this for four years.
5. She asked that her protected characteristics be recorded properly on the landlord’s system, so she did not have to explain every time she contacted.
6. She already had details of the assistance programme which had been offered to her on many occasions to the point she considered it was becoming harassment.
7. She considered that staff members had been biased and discriminated against her. She had numerous emails from members of staff which were biased and discriminatory.
The landlord responded that it required clarification as she had raised matters that expanded on her original complaint. It said:
1. It was not aware of any other letters that had been written and not sent to the resident. It had investigated the specific letter that she had seen following her SAR which was not sent as the neighbour complaint was not upheld.If it was the case that its communication was not reaching her, it could look into the matter further on the provision of examples.
2. It was not aware of any other unreasonable complaint requests other than the one that was not approved in September. It asked her to provide further details of a third request as it had not had sight of this but would be happy to look into it if she would provide details.
3. It had looked at reasonable adjustments in previous complaints, but this was the first time it had been made aware that she required a remote control and it said it would raise this as a responsive repairs request.
4. It apologised that she found its offer of its tenant assistance programme unhelpful.
5. The resident had mentioned emails that demonstrated bias and discrimination from its staff which she had seen within the SAR documents. It asked her to provide dates and who had sent the emails so that it could investigate further.
6. It also asked her to provide further details on how its staff were using contact with the Housing Ombudsman against her. It said it was her right to go to the Ombudsman and it would be concerned if anyone was wanting to prevent this or use it in any way.
The resident responded on the same day and attached further documents. The documents included:
1. The unsent letter from the SAR.
2. Correspondence related to her reports of ASB in July 2020.
3. The landlord’s internal unreasonable complaint request showing where it mentioned the Housing Ombudsman.
4. 2 medical letters dated 12 August 2020 and 5 March 2021 which detailed some of her medical conditions and the effect the ASB was having on her.
5. An extract from the SAR where the landlord discussed a job application from the resident.
On 14 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said, she considered she was “the innocent victim, but members of the landlord’s staff were wrong in their perception”. She also provided an extensive list of examples of previous reports of ASB that she had made where she considered the landlord’s staff had told “untruths”. The resident asked the landlord to ensure all letters were sent to her and accusations made against her were discussed with her.
On 15 December 2021 the landlord responded and thanked the resident for providing additional information relating to her complaint. It said that it would review the points raised and would respond by 22 December 2021. It said that the review would not delay her complaint being considered by the panel as she had already been advised of the date for this.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident with its stage one review. It said it wanted to clarify how the further information might impact its complaint investigation and added:
1. It had not seen any evidence of additional letters not sent to the resident and she had not mentioned this point in her email.
2. It confirmed that one request under the unreasonable complaints procedure was authorised during the community trigger. This was extended to allow the chair to produce his findings. It did not approve a second request in September that the resident had seen through the SAR. It had not had any evidence of a third request for the procedure, and this had not been mentioned in the resident’s email.
3. It wished to thank the resident for clarifying the matter relating to reasonable adjustments, bias and discrimination. However, many of them related to its handling of reports of ASB where she felt staff had not properly responded. Those points formed part of her previous complaint which had already been considered in its internal complaint process and the community trigger. At all stages it was found that the ASB that she had reported had been dealt with correctly and it was unable to consider it again. This complaint had also been considered by the Housing Ombudsman so it would not make further comment or include it in the complaint pack.
4. It did note that she had referred to a few additional examples of discrimination which it had reviewed carefully as follows:
  1. In respect of the timescale it had given her neighbour to re-home their dog it was satisfied that it was reasonable under the circumstances, and it had given her the correct information in respect of many animal shelters being full.
  2. In respect of neighbours installing security equipment, it had a standard process in place, and it would provide all residents with the same guidance it had provided to her about their responsibilities. It was unable to comment on the resident’s suggestion that her neighbour had not sought permission for installation of equipment or whether they are in breach of their tenancy as this information would be a breach of data protection.
5. Based on the above examples it could not see any bias or discrimination towards her from its staff.
6. Housing Ombudsman escalation – it wanted to be clear that she had every right to escalate her complaint and it was concerned that she would consider this was being used against her. It had checked the request made in September and it could only see the mention of the escalation to the Housing Ombudsman as a statement of fact and it did not understand this to be malicious or have an intent to be used against the resident.
7. In respect of the resident’s request for a change of staff it did not have any further questions as this would go forward to the panel hearing.
8. It confirmed that as the resident’s responses had not provided any additional evidence that would adjust the findings of its stage 1 response it would be in touch regarding the date for the panel hearing.
On 20 January 2022 the panel hearing took place and the resident attended. On 24 January 2022 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. In summary it said:
1. It thanked the resident for attending the panel hearing.
2. It confirmed that all present at the hearing agreed that the complaints to be considered were:
  1. That the landlord had not sent letters to the resident.
  2. That the resident had not been informed of a request to invoke the unreasonable complaints procedure.
  3. Equality Act protected Characteristics.
  4. Housing Ombudsman complaint.
  5. Requests around staffing.
3. The panel pack included a letter dated 6 October 2021 that was not sent or received by the resident. The resident said that this had happened before, but the panel had not had sight of any other letters, and none were included in the pack documentation. The letter was a draft and had not been sent once the information from the neighbours had been reviewed and dismissed. The panel agreed that the letter should have been deleted from its records.
4. The panel understood how “annoying” it would be for the resident to see this. However, it did not feel that it was hiding information. Its own learning was to delete work in draft form that it did not need to keep. It did not uphold this element of the complaint.
5. In respect of the unreasonable complaints procedure, the first was invoked in April 2021 and extended in May 2021. The second was written for approval in September 2021, but was not invoked. There had been no unreasonable complaint procedure in place since the extension in May 2021. The panel considered that the previous application of the unreasonable complaints procedure had worked as the newer application had not been signed off.
6. An informal communication arrangement that was in place would benefit from review, as it appeared to have been causing confusion. It was recommended that the landlord set out the arrangement in writing so there was clarity about it going forward. It did not uphold this element of the complaint.
7. In respect of the resident’s Equality Act protected characteristics the areas that were agreed to consider were:
  1. The remote control for the loft ventilation system.
  2. Updating its system with the resident’s protected characteristics
  3. The continued offer of the internal assistance programme by its staff.
8. The panel confirmed the remote control had been ordered and the resident’s details had been updated on the system. The resident’s records had also been updated to ensure that she would not be offered the internal assistance programme. It mentioned that this had only been offered in good faith previously and apologised for any stress caused.
9. It upheld this element of the complaint but stated that the specific items were already in hand or completed even though the first item should have been dealt with when the ventilation installation had taken place in 2017. The panel wanted confirmation that all items were complete by 28 February 2022.
10. The pack included a statement from the resident stating that its staff had used the fact that the resident had been in touch with the Housing Ombudsman against her. The evidence in the panel pack was one line within a document sent to the resident following her SAR. The panel felt that this had not been used against the resident nor did it have any intention of being used against her. The Housing Ombudsman had been referred to many times within the complaint hearing again as a matter of fact. It did not uphold this part of the complaint.
11. The pack included statements from the resident and in the hearing the panel had clarity around why the resident requested a change in the members of staff dealing with the management of her tenancy. The staff members were part of the landlord’s housing management and repairs function for the area. The resident also indicated that she had received emails from staff members that contained inappropriate communications, but she had been unable to locate any of the emails in her records and it was also acknowledged that these emails were not identified during the SAR.
12. The panel noted that the landlord had explained the operational issues and impact surrounding the request from the resident, and why this request had been turned down through the stage one process. The panel felt that the relationship had broken down, but it did not feel that supporting this request would be the answer in the longer term without putting in place an opportunity to try and resolve the situation. It suggested that it had time to present some ideas to the resident by 14 February 2022 in order to repair the relationship with its staff team. These ideas could centre around a number of solutions such as use of an advocate or communications copied into an agreed staff member outside of the area team.
13. It did not uphold the complaint/request around changing the staff. However, it did recognise the current situation and wanted both parties to have further time to conclude if a solution could be found and this would be monitored by the panel.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this service on 10 February 2022. In summary she said:
1. The landlord had been withholding letters from her, the most recent being “bias and false accusations from her neighbours”. Because she was not sent this letter, she was unable to defend herself and give her evidence to correct the accusations”.
2. She did not believe what the landlord had said about the internal application to invoke the unreasonable complaints procedure because it was still on the file when she received the information relating to the SAR.
3. The request for the change of staff was not for an insignificant reason. She had tried using advocates previously. She wanted the current communication to be reviewed. She wanted to be able to contact the landlord without any restrictions.
4. She had been waiting for four years for the remote for the loft ventilation system. She wanted the correct remote system installed, and she wanted to be compensated for this failing.

Events after the complaints procedure

The landlord stated in correspondence to this service that its electrical team tried to resource a ventilation unit to fit alongside the existing one to make it usable by remote control. This was not possible so a whole new unit was installed. Due to covid, the parts were not readily available and had to be pre-ordered in February with a fitting time of April 2022.
Its contractor contacted the resident directly to organise dates for inspection and fitting. Its contractor visited on 24 April 2022, but it had ordered the wrong unit which was not remote control and returned to the property on 24 May 2022 to fit the correct one.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s retention and disclosure of an unsent letter about the report of ASB

The landlord reasonably found that the draft correspondence should not have been retained on the resident’s file. It also noted how discovering the letter on file may have made the resident feel. It appropriately agreed to make changes to ensure that work in draft form is deleted from its records. It also agreed to remove this particular letter from the resident’s housing file which was appropriate in the circumstances. It did not uphold the complaint as it stated, “the letter in question was only in draft form”.
While it is acknowledged that the letter was a draft and was never sent, the landlord also found that the letter should not have been left on the file. Leaving draft documents on a housing file could cause confusion and affect how a case is progressed in the future. It can also, as in this case, cause distress where information is shared as part of a SAR.
The landlord appropriately advised that it would ensure that this document was removed but could have been more sensitive and sympathetic to the resident in its response. While the landlord noted that the incident would have been “annoying” for the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge the impact that the incident had. In doing so, it would have been reasonable to acknowledge this would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience given the history of the case and her known vulnerabilities.
It is acknowledged that during the course of the complaint the resident referred to another letter within the SAR, that had not been shared with her previously. The landlord appropriately asked for clarification regarding this, or to be provided with a copy of the letter. However, no evidence was provided in respect of this, so the landlord was reasonably unable to consider it further.
Although the duration of the distress and inconvenience was relatively short in these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered compensation in accordance with its complaints policy to try to put things right.
The landlord’s complaints policy states compensation will be paid in line with its compensation policy however it will refer to the Housing Ombudsman Remedies Guidance when deciding on the level of compensation to be awarded. That it did not do this was a missed opportunity to recognise the distress caused, and try to improve the landlord/tenant relationship.

Use of unreasonable complaint policy

The landlord’s unreasonable complaints policy enables the landlord to restrict contact of a person where it considers that they are raising unreasonable complaints. This is where it is considered the frequency of the contact hinders its consideration of their own complaint or other people’s. The policy states that any requests to do so are subject to a robust approval process including an executive director and two board members. It also states it will make one attempt to reach an informal arrangement with a customer about their contact or complaint before using its policy. This is to ensure a resident knows what needs to change and gives them a chance to do so.
The resident complained that she had not been informed that an application to invoke the policy had been made in September 2021. She also does not accept the landlord’s explanation that there was no intention to apply the policy again. She has expressed concern that landlord staff may be submitting the applications “deliberately”. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it explained that as the policy was not being invoked, there was no need to notify the resident of the application. It also noted that the application was not signed off as it did not relate to a complaint but to ongoing reports of ASB.
While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord was not under any obligation to discuss the request with the resident. The request formed part of its internal communication, and no action was taken on this occasion. The request did not impact the resident in terms of her contact with the landlord. In addition, its decision not to invoke the policy demonstrated that the landlord had fully considered the circumstances on receipt of the request.
However, it is not clear whether the decision to not invoke the policy and the reasons for the decision were recorded in the resident’s housing file. This service does not consider it was unreasonable to retain the application, but it would have been reasonable for the outcome of its consideration to have also been recorded to avoid any confusion.
That said, the landlord reasonably agreed to remove the request from the file. While it is acknowledged that the resident would have been distressed and unhappy to see the application on her file, the landlord’s response to her concerns was proportionate in the circumstances. This service has not therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s use of its unreasonable complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to a request to change staff members dealing with the management of the resident’s tenancy.

The resident’s comments that she believes landlord staff had been bias when dealing with her, and that she has been discriminated against are acknowledged. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination as this is most appropriately determined by a court. However, we have considered the evidence and assessed whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the behaviour of its staff, the landlord applied its complaints policy correctly and investigated the new reports which had not already exhausted its complaint process. The resident had referred to emails that she said were inappropriate, but as she did not provide these for consideration, the landlord was unable to investigate the matter further.
When explaining why the resident’s request could not be agreed to, the landlord reasonably explained the logistics of five members of staff not communicating with her and the difficulty this could cause operationally. To exclude five members would understandably have a substantial impact on service and, as such, the landlord’s explanation for declining the resident’s request was reasonable.
Nonetheless, when investigating the complaint, the landlord appropriately identified that the relationship with the resident had broken down. The panel made recommendations aimed at trying to improve relations. This showed that it had considered the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, it sought to resolve this by considering ways in which communication could be affected moving forwards.
This service has now been provided evidence to show that the landlord followed this up on 23 February 2022 by offering the resident remedies such as mediation, advocacy, or use of its online system. On this basis, the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. This service has found no maladministration in its response to the resident’s request to change staff members dealing with the management of her tenancy.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the loft ventilation system.

Evidence provided to this service shows that the resident first raised an issue with the loft ventilation system on 13 December 2021. This was after the stage 1 complaint response had been issued.
The resident stated that in 2017 she was promised a remote operated system. A new system was installed in 2018 and the resident says she did mention it to the electrician at the time, but no one got back to her. She also said she had been asking about this over the last four years, but no one got back to her.
In correspondence to this service, the resident says that the system could only be adjusted from the loft which she was unable to access. She said she had cold air in winter and hot air in summer which meant that she was unable to adequately control the temperature of the property. The resident’s comments are not disputed, but no evidence has been provided to this service to show that the resident reported the matter or chased it prior to 13 December 2021.
Despite this being raised after the stage 1 response the landlord did include it when considering the resident’s other concerns at stage two of the complaints procedure. It upheld this part of the complaint and advised that this should have been dealt with when the installation had taken place.
On 24 February 2022, after the complaints procedure had been exhausted, the landlord emailed the resident stating it had reviewed the system and its contractor had determined that a remote was not necessary. It apologised that she had been advised incorrectly previously which would have caused her concern.
The resident disagreed with this finding. While it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the information relayed to it by its contractor, it acted reasonably in replacing the ventilation system to include a remote control.
It is unclear why the landlord did not arrange to visit the property during the course of the complaint so that the matter could be considered further at the time. This would have enabled it to satisfy itself whether it had in fact failed in its service and, if it had, what impact this had had on the resident. The resident raised the issue in December 2021, but it was not rectified until February 2022 when the landlord agreed to replace the ventilation system. The matter may have been resolved sooner if an appointment had been raised on receipt of the resident’s report rather than after the stage 2 panel hearing. A recommendation has been made to the landlord in view of this.
In summary it is acknowledged that while the investigation of this during the complaint process could have been more timely, the fitting of a new unit, even though the contractors opinion was that this wasn’t required, was a reasonable way of acknowledging the resident’s dissatisfaction and resolving the dispute. This constituted reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a report of ASB made against the resident is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s retention and disclosure of an unsent letter about the report of the ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s use of its unreasonable complaints policy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request to change staff members dealing with the management of the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the loft ventilation system.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman view there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about unsent correspondence was overall appropriate. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise/acknowledge the distress and inconvenience discovering the letter had on the resident given the history of the case and the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the request to invoke the unreasonable complaints policy was appropriate.
The landlord appropriately recognised that the relationship with the resident had broken down. It acknowledged her request regarding a change in staff but did not consider that it would resolve the issues in the longer term. It appropriately provided options aimed at trying to restore the landlord/tenant relationship.
While steps could have been taken to resolve the resident’s concerns sooner. the landlord recognised its failings and its decision to replace the ventilation system constituted, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable redress.
The landlord’s complaint handling was overall very clear, but in respect of the ventilation system it fell short as it failed to investigate the matter fully and provide its findings within its response. However, the landlord’s decision to replace the ventilation system constituted reasonable redress.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its retention and disclosure of an unsent letter about the report of ASB.

Recommendation

The landlord should issue a reminder to its staff about the value in investigating all matters raised within a reasonable time, and provide clear reasons for any decisions.