Clarion Housing Association Limited (202121522)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121522

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of:
1. Its communication not being disability friendly.
2. A complaint made about a member of staff on 24 December 2020.
3. Unscheduled welfare visits.
4. The suitability of the property allocated by the local council.
5. The sign up and move in process.
6. The resident’s request for rehousing.
7. The associated complaint.

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 this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraphs 42(b) and 42(j), the following complaint aspects are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a complaint made about a member of staff made on 24 December 2020.
2. The suitability of the property allocated by the local council.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a complaint made about a member of staff on 24 December 2020 was not brought to the Ombudsman attention until 2022. Therefore, it was not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months. If the resident is not happy with the conduct of the landlord’s staff, she may wish to raise a further complaint concerning this so that the landlord can investigate the matter in line with its complaints procedure.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident’s report concerning the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the property allocated by the local council falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO investigates complaints concerning local council responsibilities. The property allocation was made in accordance with the local council’s homeless duties under the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017). The resident may wish to refer this complaint issue to the LGSCO. This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the sign up and move in process due to the resident’s earlier expression of dissatisfaction made on 6 February 2022.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 15 November 2021. The resident has dyslexia, mental health conditions and physical mobility issues which the landlord is aware of.
The resident signed a tenancy agreement on 5 November 2021. Her support worker was due to attend the meeting but did not attend.
The resident’s support worker phoned the landlord on 7 December 2021 to advise that the resident had no gas. The landlord’s records detail that it provided the support worker with a phone number for its gas contractor.
The landlord raised a works order on 9 December 2021 in respect of the resident’s report that she was unsure how to operate the gas card and how to use the electric fob for the electrics and that she had no running water. Its contractor visited the property on 10 December 2021 but reported no access and left a phone message for the resident.
The resident’s social worker phoned the landlord on 10 December 2021 to ask why there was no gas or electricity in the property. The landlord advised that the resident would need to contact the utility company to reset the meter and to send a new key.
The landlord’s repair records detail its contractor visited the property 14 December 2021 but that there was no access. The contractor left a voicemail on the resident’s mobile phone.
On 16 December 2021 the resident’s support worker confirmed the resident had a gas card and electric key. The landlord booked an appointment for 20 December 2021 to fix the gas supply. The appointment did not go ahead.
The resident emailed the local council, copying in the landlord, on 23 December 2021. She stated that she had been “going around and around in circles” between organisations. She advised that her food had been ruined and asked to be compensated for this. She stated that she did not have gas or electricity. She stated that the landlord did not provide any reasonable adjustments to take account of her disability. She emailed the landlord the same day advising that she had been asked to leave the office and that she was not happy with the reception staff.
The landlord phoned the resident on 24 December 2021 to discuss her concerns. It contacted its contractor to ask it to deliver heaters to the property. Its contractor delivered 2 heaters the same day. The contractor reported that there was no one answered the door and that the heaters were left outside.
The resident emailed the landlord and local council on 30 December 2021. She requested reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and requested information to be sent in writing. She advised that the property was not suitable for her needs. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to advise that it had been liaising with the local council and that a home visit would be undertaken. It had recorded that it would communicate in writing with the resident in line with her request.
The landlord’s internal emails between 5 January 2022 and 6 February 2022 detail that it had been trying to gain access to the resident’s property since before Christmas but had had no success. The landlord stated that it had been going to visit on 4 January 2022 but was unable to due to sickness. The landlord visited the property on 7 January and 24 January 2022 but was unable to gain access. The landlord attempted to contact the resident and her support worker on both 7 and 14 January 2022 with successful contact made on 19 January 2022 in which the social worker confirmed the resident was a vulnerable adult, who experienced a number of issues upon moving into the property and would like to move out.
The landlord phoned the resident on 16 February 2022 but there was no answer. It visited the property the same day but there was no access. During this visit it had noticed that temporary heaters that had been delivered in December 2021 were still outside the property and that the windows were covered in newspapers.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2022 stating that the landlord’s website was not disability friendly. She said that the call waiting times were unreasonable. She advised that her preferred communication was not by telephone as causes confusion and distress and she mishears words.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 February 2022 to arrange a meeting with her and her support workers to discuss the property issues and suggested visiting the property. The resident declined the offer of a visit.
The local council emailed the landlord on 25 February 2022 suggesting an internal management transfer would be appropriate. It stated that if the resident wished to go through the local council she would need to fill in a change of circumstances form and a medical assessment form. It could request an occupational therapist assessment, however, the resident may not necessarily get the points if the property was deemed to be suitable for her needs.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was sent on 1 March 2022. This detailed:
1. That it had been attempting to contact the resident since December 2021 by phone, email and visits. It had also attempted to contact the resident’s support worker. It had managed to speak to the resident on 24 December 2021 to discuss her concerns.
2. It had spoken to the resident’s support worker who advised that the resident had registered with a utilities company and that the gas had been uncapped on 16 December 2021. However, the local council then advised that the resident had reported that she had no heating and hot water.
3. On 17 February 2022 the resident had emailed to express dissatisfaction with the challenges of communication with the landlord. The landlord emailed to advise that it had updated its systems. A delegated authority form had been sent to the resident’s support worker as a point of contact.
4. The landlord confirmed it could not consider a transfer for the resident as she did not meet the threshold in its transfer policy which included serious anti-social behaviour, harassment or domestic abuse. It advised that the resident’s medical needs would mean she would be given high priority for allocations with the local council instead.
5. It refuted the resident’s claims that she was discriminated against and apologised that the resident had experienced difficulties in contacting the landlord. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it was unable to find service failings.
The landlord’s repair records detail that its contractor visited the property on 8 March 2022 but there was no access. A phone call was made but this went to voicemail and a message was left.
The resident emailed the landlord and local council on 13 March 2022., she requested a copy of the form for a transfer and confirmation that an application had been submitted. She reiterated the request in a further email on 14 March 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 March 2022 to advise that it could arrange a visit on 25 March 2022 or the following week to discuss the issues that the resident had raised.
The resident’s sent an escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 March 2022. She felt she had not been listened to or taken seriously. She advised of food that had gone off and that she had received nothing back in respect of a claim. She felt that the complaints process was taking too long.
The landlord phoned the resident on 25 March 2022 and emailed to acknowledge the complaint and to confirm an appointment in its offices that day where it would go through the resident’s concerns one by one to resolve them.
In this meeting it agreed to:
1. Assist with white goods and a sofa and chase up a referral to the occupational therapist.
2. Speak to managers concerning a possible transfer.
3. It would be in contact on 20 April 2022.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 8 April 2022 to chase up the landlord’s stage 2 response and to request a response within 20 working days. The landlord emailed the Ombudsman on 12 April 2022 to advise that it had a current stage 2 complaint open.
The landlord held an internal complex case action group meeting on 26 April 2022. It would chase up the local council with regard to an occupational therapist assessment. It would help the resident with a housing application. It would put in place restricted access due to the number of emails and set up a “direct point of contact” and consider a “dedicated mailbox”.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 4 May 2022. In this it detailed:
1. Its tenancy sustainment team had been attempting to contact the resident to support her and to communicate with the local council to provide a food voucher. Contact had been attempted by phone, email and text.
2. It had received a high level of correspondence from the resident across a number of teams. This was having a “counter-productive effect” as it was spending a “disproportionate amount of time reviewing each of your emails”. It advised that the resident had sent 10 emails in the month of March 2022. It advised that this was “unreasonable and unacceptable and that we may need to consider imposing further legal restrictions if this continues”. It provided an email where the resident could log any new issues and provided a designated point of contact.
3. It did not uphold the complaint that its staff had refused to accommodate reasonable adjustments. It had included legitimate safeguarding concerns and carried out unscheduled welfare visits. It would continue to accommodate reasonable adjustments where it was reasonable.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2022. As a remedy, the resident wished the landlord to clarify its policy regarding disability, to clarify what extra training it provides to staff so that the can comply with the Equality Act 2010, for the landlord to contact the Police to review information that they held regarding a welfare check carried out by the Police in December 2021, a response to her request for compensation for shopping that had been ruined in December 2021. She also advised that she wished for a management move to be approved to a more suitable property to meet her needs.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord sent a stage 2 “addendum” letter on 13 October 2022. In this it detailed:
1. That this was its final response and apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It had considered the resident’s request for a management transfer and a discretionary management transfer had been agreed. It had confirmed this on 13 October 2022.
3. It offered £50 compensation as it had not responded at stage 2 within its published timeframes.
The landlord continued to correspond with the resident and the council about the management move and offered a property on 11 January 2023 which the resident refused as she did not have a support network nearby. The landlord offered another property on 13 February 2023 which the resident refused. The landlord then asked the council to carry out an assessment so that suitable supported accommodation could be found for the resident.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

The resident referred to some issues of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour and this issue was not included in the resident’s complaints to the landlord, or her referral to the Ombudsman. The resident has since submitted a formal complaint about the issue on 15 November 2022. The resident may wish to refer this complaint to the Ombudsman if she is not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports concerning antisocial behaviour. As this is a separate complaint, which has not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure it will not be addressed in the Ombudsman’s current investigation.
The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has health issues described above. Unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). However, this Service can take into account avoidable distress, inconvenience and time and trouble resulting from a landlord’s service failure. In doing so we will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health and whether it acted in accordance with its own policies and procedures, its legal obligations and industry best practice.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the period considered in this investigation is from 6 months prior to the resident’s stage one complaint of 6 February 2022. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.

Policies and procedures

According to the tenancy agreement the resident is required to allow access to the landlord, agents or contractors with reasonable notice to carry out repairs and inspections etc. If access is refused the resident may be charged for the cost of securing a court order to gain access.
The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement are not specified in the signed agreement sent to us. However, the landlord’s repairing obligations are stipulated in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This states that a landlord is responsible to:
1. “Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes),
2. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation and
3. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.”
The landlord’s void procedure of February 2021 states that the landlord will complete repairs and undertake safety checks prior to the property being let.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it an emergency repair (that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident) should be undertaken within 24 hours. It states that non-emergency repairs should be undertaken within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation and/or financial redress. It considers discretionary compensation using different ranges:
1. £50 to £250 – service failures, such as not returning calls, meeting service standards or using the complainant’s preferred method of communication.
2. £250 to £700 – considerable failure.
3. £700+ – this is where there is “significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) allows local authorities to identify hazards in the home. This tool can consider hazards arising from hygiene, sanitation and water supply. It is not clear whether the resident has reported the issue to the local council and may wish to do so in order for an assessment to be made and consideration of whether any notices may need to be served upon the landlord.
The landlord’s management transfer policy details that it may consider a management transfer “in exceptional circumstances where there is a serious risk of harm due to anti-social behaviour or domestic abuse. Where a request for a management transfer is refused, it will “inform the tenant of the reasons why” and that there is an appeal process where a resident can put an appeal in writing within 10 working days. It will review an appeal within 5 working days and inform a resident in writing.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint. It would aim to respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days. It would respond at stage 2, a peer review, within 20 working days. If a longer timescale was required it would keep a resident informed and advise of a prospective timescale for a response.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy details its approach to providing reasonable adjustments and how it will consider a reasonable adjustment in the provision of its services. It states that adjustments with individual residents should be discussed and confirmed with the resident. It will consider using a preferred communication method such as email or phone in preference to, or in addition to hard copy letters. It will also communicate with a person with delegated authority. It will record reasonable adjustments made on a resident’s contact record.
The resident requested reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Reasonable adjustments can be made under Sections 20(3) and 20(5). A reasonable adjustment can be changes to a “provision, criterion or practice”, for example, policies and practices that “puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to the relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage”.
The duty applies only if the resident has a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, whereby a person has a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment. The landlord’s first obligation, therefore, would be to carry out an assessment, to see if a reasonable adjustment was required and if the adjustment requested was one which the landlord could reasonably put in place.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states that it will record vulnerabilities and take this into account in the provision of its services. It will consider any additional needs and “where appropriate vary our service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service”. It will make referrals to its advice, support and tenancy sustainment services “to provide enhance support where appropriate”. It will also refer to statutory agencies or other external partner support agencies and make safeguarding referrals when needed. It will consider any additional “support, consideration or variation in usual service provision”. It will ask residents about “any communication needs when they attend the tenancy sign up and at other opportunities during their tenancy”. It will delivery training to staff in delivering services to vulnerable residents on a mandatory basis and will refresh the training annually.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of its communication not being disability friendly.

The resident referred to her need for reasonable adjustments in her email of 23 December 2021. However, she did not advise the landlord what reasonable adjustment she required. She reiterated her need for reasonable adjustments in her email of 30 December 2021 where she specified that the adjustment was to have written communication rather than verbal. The resident advised that verbal communication caused her distress and that she suffered memory issues which would mean that phone calls would be inappropriate. The landlord responded the same day which was reasonable, to advise that it had recorded the request for communication to be made in writing. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified the reasonable adjustments required earlier after the initial email, however the Ombudsman has seen no record that this happened.
The landlord did not always acknowledge the resident’s emails which would have been appropriate so that the resident did not feel ignored. There were gaps in its communication with the resident, though it communicated internally more frequently. Whilst the resident sent a lot of emails, it would have been appropriate to send a suitable acknowledgement and advise the resident when she could expect a response. The landlord chose not to implement restricted access in line with its unacceptable customer behaviour policy. Therefore, it was reasonable for the resident to expect a response or acknowledgement.
The landlord phoned the resident on 3, 16 and 24 February 2022. It did not therefore follow the reasonable adjustment requested by the resident to which it had agreed. However, it is recognised that the landlord was understandably concerned about the resident’s welfare. As such, under these circumstances, along with difficulties in contacting the resident or her support workers, it may have been appropriate to make a phone call. However, it needed to confirm the content of the call in writing when it did manage to speak to the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen a record that suggests that there was sufficient written follow up to the phone calls that were made. This was a failing as the resident had explained her difficulty with phone calls and the landlord was aware of this from 30 December 2021. The resident’s difficulty with phone calls was apparent as she was unable to sustain a phone conversation on 10 March 2022. This again evidenced the need to follow up in writing. The resident reminded the landlord of the best method of communication in her email of 31 March 2022. She advised that the landlord had phoned again rather than use email or text. Despite this reminder, the landlord tried to phone the resident again twice on 4 April 2022.
As the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it made a referral to its tenancy sustainment service which was appropriate under the circumstances and in line with its vulnerable residents policy above, although this referral could have been made at an earlier stage. This would ensure that it could provide some additional earlier support to the resident with furniture, mental health and food vouchers.
It was appropriate that the landlord consider a multi-agency meeting with the local council as indicated in its internal email of 6 February 2022. The concerns were escalated to the Local Authority’s Director of Housing on 17 February 2022 and the Head of Housing Options on 31 March 2022 as well as a safeguarding referral on 16 March 2022. Although it is not reasonable to solely attribute the delay to the landlord, as the meeting was a shared responsibility for all those involved, there is no evidence to show the landlord sought to chase the matter. Further there was no explanation as to the reason for the delay in the meeting taking place and there was a lack of communication to the resident around this.
With regard to call waiting times and the website not being disability friendly, the Ombudsman is unable to reach conclusions on these issues. This is due to the fact that the Ombudsman relies on documentary evidence and in the absence of this evidence it is not possible to draw conclusions on this matter. There is insufficient evidence to verify the call waiting times or that the website is not disability friendly in respect of the resident’s specific needs. The resident was in contact with the landlord over a long period of time. It would not be feasible for the Ombudsman to monitor call waiting times over that period. There may be significant variations in waiting times as some periods are busier than others. With regards to the website, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to assess whether a landlord’s website meets the requirements of disabled users in general. The resident has not specified what it was about the website which made it difficult for her to use in view of her disabilities. In the absence of this information, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the complaint further.
In summary, the landlord did not always adhere to the reasonable adjustment requested by the resident which is a service failing. However, there were mitigating issues as the landlord had not been able to contact the resident about her concerns. It was therefore, reasonable to attempt to phone the resident in this situation, however, it needed to then follow up any discussion in writing and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it always did this. Its communication with the resident meant that it did not always respond in a timely manner to her emails. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that compensation of between £50 to £100 is appropriate where there is evidence of service failure. Compensation of £100 is considered appropriate in this case in respect of the inconvenience to the resident from the landlord’s service failing.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of unscheduled welfare visits.

The landlord’s records indicate that a number of unscheduled welfare visits had been attempted on 7 and 24 January 2022 and in February 2022 but that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property. The landlord attempted to contact the resident and her support worker on both 7 and 14 January 2022 with successful contact made on 19 January 2022 in which the social worker confirmed the resident was a vulnerable adult, who experienced a number of issues upon moving into the property and would like to move out.
It is understood that a welfare visit may not necessarily require notice to be given where a landlord is concerned about a resident’s wellbeing. After the failed visit, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident’s social worker or support workers and to give prior written warning. This would have increased the chance of a successful visit as well as adhering to the reasonable adjustment requested by the resident as above. Given the resident’s earlier reports of no heating and hot water in December 2021, the landlord needed to ensure that it arranged a welfare visit at the earliest opportunity. However, other than the landlord’s contractor, and a visit by the Police, the Ombudsman has not seen records that it tried an earlier welfare visit which would have been appropriate. This was a service failing.
It is acknowledged that there was attempts to contact the resident following the failed visit, however the notes suggest these visits, were to discuss her account and issues with heating and hot water, they do not suggest it was regarding a welfare visit.
The landlord advised in its stage 2 complaint response of 14 May 2022 that it had legitimate safeguarding concerns. It was reasonable to reference this so that the resident was aware of the landlord’s concerns.
The resident advised the landlord that she wished for it to request the Police to review the information held regarding the welfare check carried out by the Police in December 2021. An individual can contact the Police for records through the Criminal Records Office (ACRO) but it would be unusual for a landlord to do this on a resident’s behalf. The landlord could have explained this to the resident so she could access her Police records if she wished to do so. It could have confirmed this in its stage 2 acknowledgement of 5 April 2022 as this would have answered the resident’s query at an earlier point. It missed this opportunity to answer this query.
As there was a service failing, the Ombudsman considers what compensation is appropriate in line with its remedies guidance as above. Compensation of £100 is appropriate in this instance for the reasons stated above.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the sign up and move in process.

The evidence details that the landlord liaised with the resident’s support workers to organise the sign up of the property, which was suitable, given the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord knew that the resident had a social worker and support workers and was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities before she signed up to the tenancy. However, the landlord reported that the support workers were not available at the sign up. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord reorganised the visit, or the reason why the support workers did not come along to the sign up. If the landlord was aware in advance that the support worker could not make the appointment, it needed to reorganise this appointment. If the support workers did not show up and the landlord thought that they were attending, then the landlord needed to arrange a further appointment with the support workers and resident to fully explain how the resident would need to uncap the gas supply to ensure gas was available in the property. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities it was particularly important for the support workers to be present at the sign up and given the resident’s ongoing reports of the difficulties in setting up the gas for heating and hot water.
Based on the resident’s circumstances the landlord should have made an immediate referral to its tenancy sustainment service. It is important for a landlord to ensure that a vulnerable resident previously homeless, received appropriate support at the earliest opportunity to prevent the tenancy failing. The landlord did refer to the resident to its tenancy sustainment service, but the Ombudsman has seen no record that it did this prior to March 2022, which was a significant delay.
The resident’s support worker reported no gas in the property on 7 December 2021. Whilst it was the resident’s responsibility to set up her account with a utility provider and to get a key, given her vulnerabilities it was vital for the landlord to help to ensure that this happened by keeping contact with the social worker and/or support workers. The landlord raised the works order on 9 December 2021 which was attended by its contractor on 10 December 2021 but no access was reported. The landlord did phone the resident on 10 December 2021 and left a message on what she would need to do but it needed to satisfy itself that the message had been received. It did attempt to call the support worker on 14 December 2021 but had to leave a voice message. The landlord also rang the support worker on 16 December 2021 but by this time it was 9 days later. At this point the support worker advised the landlord that the resident’s gas card and electric key were in her possession. It was right for the landlord to organise an appointment to ensure that there was no fault with the gas meter. However, the appointment was not made in line with its repair policy timescales for an emergency repair. Given the time of year and the resident’s vulnerabilities it was important to ensure that she had access to heating and hot water. This was a failure of the landlord as it needed to give the matter urgent attention, ie within 24 hours.
The landlord stated in its email of 7 February 2022 that it would organise a repair to the meters, however, the repair records do not indicate that it did this at this point indicating that there were some record keeping issues. Good and complete records are essential so that the landlord is aware of the condition of its properties and can provide accurate information to its residents and to the Ombudsman, when required. This Service’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) contains a number of recommendations that the landlord should self-assess against as stipulated in other determinations made by this Service. It is not clear whether the contractor’s visit of 8 March 2022 was in response to the earlier email. If it was then this was a delayed response. It would be expected that the landlord arrange for its contractor to visit in line with its repairs policy as an emergency repair and it failed to do this.
The resident reported a problem with the top-up meters for gas and electric and reported that neither service was available in her property on 23 December 2021. However, the resident had reportedly not given access to the landlord to inspect the property. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to find out the reason why there was no gas or electric in the property. The records show that the resident had cancelled an appointment that had been scheduled for 20 December 2021 that could have remedied the issue. Whilst the lack of access was clearly a mitigating factor, the landlord’s conversation with the resident on 24 December 2021 led to it asking its contractors to supply heaters to the property. It is not clear why the landlord did not provide some heaters at an earlier point, rather than leaving the resident without heating in the winter period.
There were clearly issues with the resident providing access to the property in line with her tenancy agreement. As such the landlord needed to consider any action that would be appropriate to remind the resident that under the terms of the tenancy agreement she would be required to provide access. It would need to seek appropriate legal advice on the issue. The Ombudsman has seen no records that the landlord took any action with regard to the reported lack of access issue. The landlord needed to do this urgently as the resident had reported no heating and hot water and it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord later reported in its complex case meeting on 26 April 2022 that the resident did not have the heating on in the property as she was unable to afford the bill. It also reported that the resident had left the temporary heaters that were provided in December 2021 outside of the property. As mentioned, given the resident’s vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of the landlord needed to refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment service at the earliest opportunity. It could have provided appropriate advice or signposting to services to help maximise her income and advice on budgeting as appropriate. It was clear that the landlord was in contact with the local authority which was positive, but this was generally to advise the local authority of the issues of no access, with regard to the resident’s emails sent to both organisations, along with the resident’s request for an occupational therapist assessment and her request for rehousing.
The resident advised the landlord on 6 February 2022 that its “move in procedures have been shocking”. The statement reflected the reality of the move in process experienced by the resident and the fact that she had reported no gas and electricity. The issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. For maladministration, the remedies guidance suggests a compensation award of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. In this case, £500 is appropriate made up of £300 in respect of the detriment experienced by the resident and £200 in respect of the inconvenience, along with the time and trouble in the resident’s pursuit of the matter.

The resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord’s records state that the resident made a request for a transfer during her phone call of 3 February 2022. She repeated the request when she spoke to the landlord on 24 February 2022. The local council’s email of 25 February 2022 suggested an internal management transfer might be appropriate. It took one month for the landlord to consider the resident’s request which was declined in its stage one complaint response of 1 March 2022. The landlord’s management transfer policy does not give timescales for making a decision and taking one month to come to a decision was quite slow under the circumstances. It would be useful for the landlord to provide a timescale in its policy of when a resident could expect a decision to be made. The landlord’s communication could have been better in advising the resident of a timescale of when to expect it to make a decision on the matter to manage her expectations.
The landlord advised that the refusal was due to the fact that the rehousing request did not meet the criteria for a management move set out in its policy above. It instead pointed the resident towards an application to the local authority, or a mutual exchange. Whilst it was appropriate to advise the resident that she could apply to the local council, or seek a mutual exchange, the landlord should have also offered an appeal process for the resident to challenge the decision in line with its management transfer policy above. It failed to do this at this time which was a service failing.
The resident continued to request a management transfer in her emails between 10 and 23 March 2022. The landlord arranged to meet the resident on 25 March 2022 and after the meeting it agreed to speak to its managers concerning the request for rehousing. It was appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its decision concerning the request for rehousing. It is not clear whether it considered this as an appeal in line with its management transfer policy or not. Its record keeping could have been better in this regard. However, the landlord refused the request again on 6 April 2022. There is insufficient evidence to suggest whether the landlord’s response was as a result of the management transfer appeal process. If it was not, then it should have outlined the appeal process to the resident at this stage.
The resident clearly disagreed with the decision as she emailed the landlord on 7 April 2022 to dispute it. The landlord agreed to help the resident to complete a housing application form in its internal meeting of 26 April 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord had been in contact with the local council which agreed to move the resident through its allocations policy. After the end of the internal complaints process, the landlord then agreed to a discretionary management transfer in its stage 2 addendum of 13 October 2022. Whilst it is positive that the landlord ultimately agreed to the resident’s request, it could have made this decision sooner based on the available evidence.
There was therefore service failure due to these issues and an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. In this instance, an amount of £200 compensation is appropriate for the inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident sent her initial expression of dissatisfaction on 6 February 2022, followed by a further expression of dissatisfaction during a phone call on 7 February 2022, and an email sent to the landlord on 17 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the 17 February 2022 email as a stage one complaint the same day advising of the response timescale of 10 working days. The response was issued in line with its published response timescale on 1 March 2022. However, it did not treat the email of 6 February 2022 as a stage one complaint, but answered the points raised in its response indicating that it must have recognised that this was an expression of dissatisfaction. This meant that the response timescale from that earlier complaint was 16 working days from the initial complaint, a little outside of its complaint policy timescales.
The resident sent an escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 March 2022. The landlord phoned the resident on 25 March 2022 and emailed to acknowledge the complaint. The phone call was however, not the resident’s preferred communication method and the landlord was aware of this as mentioned above. The landlord then sent another acknowledgement on 5 April 2022 advising of its response time within 20 working days. Its policy gave a timescale of 20 working days after the escalation request which needed to be from 25 March 2022. However, this acknowledgement would in effect reset the timescale to 20 working days from 5 April 2022. This would have been confusing to the resident and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s response was sent within 29 working days of the resident’s escalation request. This was a little outside of its complaint response timescales, though it was within the 20 working days that was stipulated in its acknowledgement of 5 April 2022. Although any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall the delays in the complaint responses were not excessive.
The resident’s request for compensation for ruined food was made to the local council initially, though in the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, she mentioned the food that had been ruined again. The landlord did not take this into account in its complaint response. However, it did advise in an internal email of 7 February 2022 that its tenancy sustainment service would potentially support with food vouchers. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation for the ruined food in its stage 2 complaint acknowledgement of 5 April 2022. It is not clear whether this request was then referred to the local council. The council emailed the landlord on 22 April 2022 to advise that a food voucher had been delivered to the resident on 20 April 2022. This was then referred to in its stage 2 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of the steps that it had taken to secure a food voucher. However, it should have considered whether compensation would be appropriate for the ruined food which was a financial loss to the resident. It failed to do this.
As the resident remained dissatisfied, she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. However, she continued to email the landlord and local council as well. The landlord sent a further “addendum” complaint response on 13 October 2022. At this point it offered £50 compensation as it had not responded at stage 2 within its published complaints policy timescales. For service failure, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £50 to £100 is appropriate. Whilst there was no significant complaint handling failures, the landlord should have addressed the issue of the food being ruined in its responses. As such compensation of £100 is appropriate in this case comprising £50 already offered for the landlord’s delay at stage 2 and a further £50 in respect of its failure to address the issue of the food being ruined which would have caused a financial loss for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of its communication not being disability friendly.
In accordance with paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme, for the reasons set out above, the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of a complaint made about a member of staff made on 24 December 2020 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of unscheduled welfare visits.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, for the reasons set out above, the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the allocation by the local council is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the sign up and move in process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a director level or higher in respect of the failings identified in this report including its failure to follow the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments, errors in its handling of the welfare visits, the failures identified in the sign up and move in process, the errors in its handling of the management move request and the delays and service failing in its complaint handling. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident directly £100 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report concerning the landlord’s handling of its communication not being disability friendly.
3. Pay the resident directly £100 compensation in respect of errors in its handling of unscheduled welfare visits.
4. Pay the resident directly £500 compensation in respect of errors in the landlord’s handling of the sign up and move in process.
5. Pay the resident directly £200 in respect of errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
6. Pay the resident directly £100 (including £50 already offered, if it has not already paid this) and £50 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to make necessary arrangements to inspect the resident’s property to ensure any faults with the meters are addressed. It must carry out any repairs required within a further 4 weeks. The landlord must send the Service evidence of satisfactory completion of any works required.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. It must produce a report setting out its findings and appropriate actions that it must send to the Service. The review is to address the following specific areas of concern:
1. How the landlord records vulnerabilities and takes appropriate action.
2. Its communication and approach to gaining access to properties where vulnerability is identified and reasonable adjustments requested.
3. Its intention and a timescale to review its vulnerability policy with particular focus on the needs of residents with mental health issues.
4. Its intention and a timescale to review its management transfer policy to provide specific timescales for an expected response.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord conducts a self-assessment using this Service’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) in line with other determinations made by this Service.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy in line with the Ombudsman’s revised Code which is due for publication on 1 April 2024.