Clarion Housing Association Limited (202125443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125443

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of issues with her toilet cistern.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Policy framework

The landlord’s compensation policy says it awards from £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. These may include not having regard to a complainant’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements on more than one occasion, or a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses where the failure had no significant impact. It says the impact could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It says it would pay £50 per quarter per failure. It says it awards £250 to £700 for greater failures.
The policy says that, when considering compensation, it will consider a number of factors. One of these is whether the problem occurred as a result of a direct failure by the landlord or one of its contractors. It says contractors will take ownership of their own problems. It also says it will look at whether those affected had particular needs that were made worse by the situation and any household vulnerabilities.
The policy is that compensation payments will be used to offset rent or other arrears. Where a resident’s rent account is up to date or in credit, the payments shall be paid into the customer’s bank account. It says each case will be considered individually.
The landlord’s repair policy says it classifies repairs as “emergency repairs” and “non-emergency repairs”. It says emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to repair should be completed at this visit. It classifies an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. The landlord’s website also provides examples of what it considers to be emergency repairs. These include water leaks that can not be left overnight and repairs for vulnerable residents. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days of the report.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as a dissatisfaction expressed by a customer regarding a service, action or lack of action by the landlord or one of its contractors.
The landlord offers a two-stage complaints procedure. It tries to resolve a query at the first stage and if the resident requests a review this will be looked at by its Peer Review team. The policy does not say how many days each part of the process should take.
The landlord’s Aids and Adaptations policy says it will consider major adaptations by working in conjunction with the Local Authority. These include the installation of a wet room/showers. It says it will only carry out major adaptations that are supported by a local authority occupational therapist assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident entered into a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy (“the Agreement”) with the landlord in April 2018. The property has two bedrooms, a lounge, kitchen and bathroom. She lives there with her son, who is over 18. The landlord told the Ombudsman that its records did not show that the resident had any vulnerabilities. The Agreement shows that, at the outset of the tenancy, the resident recorded:
1. she was unable to work because of either sickness or disability;
2. she received Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and Incapacity Benefits;
3. she had serious physical mobility problems.
The landlord accepts the resident told it that her preferred method of contact was by email.
A note in the landlord’s records show it was aware the resident was disabled from at least August 2020, when she reported another issue.

Summary of events

On 18 August 2021, the resident informed the landlord she had an issue with her toilet cistern. She said it was constantly filling, that it sounded like the toilet was permanently flushing and that there was condensation on the floor.
According to the repair records the landlord repaired the toilet on 27 August 2021. An engineer fitted a new siphon. The landlord considers this resolved the issue, but the resident did not agree. She considered the engineer could not have completed the necessary work satisfactorily as he was, she says, only at the property for approximately five minutes.
On 28 August 2021, the resident told the landlord she was not happy with the work done and that the issue was not remedied. She called the landlord on 31 August 2021 to again stress that the repair had failed.
On 3 September 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord with the subject heading ‘complaint/ongoing repair issue’ setting out her dissatisfaction with the attendances so far. She stressed in this communication that she was a disabled tenant who was struggling to deal with water on the bathroom floor, the noise of the toilet endlessly refilling and the need to repeatedly contact the landlord, who she felt was ignoring her, when she was feeling unwell. The data entry for this record noted that the resident was disabled.
On the same day, the landlord raised an emergency repair job. It says this was a new job as it considered the last job had been dealt with by replacing the siphon. The resident said it was the same job.
An engineer attended during the day but said that he was not given access. The resident said that, as she had not been warned that he would be attending and she did not recognise the company name the engineer used, she had assumed he was looking for another property.
At 2.15am the following morning, the resident received a call from another engineer, saying that he would be arriving at her property at 3am. The resident said she asked the engineer if he was aware she was disabled. She said he laughed and said no. She said she found this humiliating and upsetting and could not sleep for the rest of the night. In the landlord’s repairs log, it was recorded that “…the tenant refused access as she is disabled.”
The resident complained about this attempt to visit on 6 September 2021. Again, her email was headed ‘Complaint/Ongoing repair issue.’ She again stressed that she was disabled and needed someone to fix her toilet. However, she said she would like them to visit during the day.
On 10 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again. She resent her complaint and complained that it had not responded. She also said she would like to know when the toilet would be repaired.
On 14 September 2021, the resident complained again to the landlord about what she said was the repeated failure to repair the original issue. She said she considered the first visit to repair the toilet (on 27 August 2021) made the issues worse as, after that visit, she was also confronted with dirty water over the bathroom floor which appeared to be coming from behind the toilet. She said there was a circle of mould around the copper pipe going into the wall, the skirting was showing signs of mould and there was constant water leakage. She said that the endless sound of running water was a “form of torture” especially for an autistic person with sensory sensitivities. She was also concerned that, as she was on a water meter, the leakage was costly. She also complained about the early morning call from the engineer who called her at 2.15am on 4 September 2021.
On 15 September 2021, an engineer attended again. The landlord said he did not find any leak but considered that the problem the resident was experiencing came from a sweating cistern. He also thought the flow valve appeared to be broken and arranged for this to be replaced.
Notes made by the operative said the toilet cistern had been fixed. It also said, “There is still some water seeping from the skirting unsure whether this is a leak or from the water already leaked out. [The resident] will monitor.”
However, the landlord said that, when another engineer returned on 21 September 2021 to complete this job, he did not consider the valve needed replacing. It says that the engineer agreed with the previous engineer that damp and mould were being caused by condensation. The notes say: “No leak from flow or fill valves…this has been sorted whilst last visit…the existing problem (drops) is the condensation around the cistern….”. The notes went on to say that this could be dealt with by using flexible foam insulation. He suggested a yoga mat or bubble wrap. He said he had tried to get something from hardware stores but they did not have any. He signed off by saying that as there was no leak, he had closed the job.
To respond to the resident’s complaint, the landlord made further enquiries with the engineers who attended about the repair work. It remained satisfied with the above assessment of the issues. It considered that there was no repair that the landlord could carry out. It said that the condensation was collecting due to the toilet being in a cold spot in a hot property. Internal records show it considered that the condensation could be “…managed by the resident.”
In October 2021, the resident asked the landlord when she could expect a response to her complaint. She said there was still black mould and water in her bathroom, a circle of mould around the copper pipe and along the skirting and wall behind the sink and the toilet. She said the skirting appeared to be bowed and was separated from the floor. She said maybe the extraction system was not working.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one complaint response. The key points were:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. It said it had called to discuss the complaint with her.
3. It had initially understood her complaint was made on 15 September 2021 and did not consider it clear that it was made on 3 September 2021. However, it accepted that she had expressed dissatisfaction and so offered her £50 to acknowledge the delay in responding to her complaint.
4. It said it understood from the resident’s complaint that she thought the landlord should have a new policy for disabled or vulnerable residents who needed emergency repairs. However, it considered this would be discriminatory. It said emergency repairs had to be attended to as soon as possible and if a resident did not want it to attend during certain times, they should inform the landlord.
5. It said it did not agree that the bathroom pipework was leaking and said that, in its view, the problem was caused by condensation. It said she could make sure she had regular airflow in the property, check the extractor fan was working in the bathroom and wipe down any condensation as it collected.
6. It said the resident said her property was too hot because there was no knob on the radiator by her front door, which meant she could not turn the heating off. It said this was a repair that she needed to contact its contact centre about. It considered that, as this was not an issue that formed part of her original complaint, it had to be raised with its contractor in the first instance.
7. It referred to comments the resident had made about “ongoing” black mould in her bathroom and said she needed to raise this with the landlord.
8. It referred her to her local authority to discuss any possible adaptations to her property.
The resident was unhappy with the above response and escalated her complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure on 26 November 2021. She said she had not asked the landlord to form a separate policy for disabled or vulnerable residents for emergency repairs. She had instead raised concerns about the landlord’s policies and procedures and whether these were informed by an awareness of and compliance with aspects of the Equality Act 2010, (“the Act”). The resident set out key passages of the Act, noting that, for example, the Act says the duty is anticipatory. She also said that:
1. The original response to her report on 18 August 2021 took ten days, even though what she considered to be the same problem provoked an emergency repair response on 3 September 2021. She indicated that the first response was not in line with the landlord’s policy to respond to vulnerable residents. She had also not been informed about the emergency repair response or that she would be called during the night.
2. It was not true that the 3 September 2021 report was for a different issue. She had reported the repair as an ongoing issue.
3. She did not refuse entry to the landlord’s contractor. Instead, she said she had not known about the contractors’ visits beforehand. She said both contractors were “cold-calls which is unacceptable for any tenant, but especially so for an autistic/disabled person.”
4. She had disclosed her disabilities to the landlord at the tenancy sign-up and it should have therefore anticipated the impact of unscheduled visits on an autistic and chronically ill woman.
5. The landlord had failed to make reasonable adjustments for the resident and should adapt its policy for booking engineers calling out of hours.
6. The landlord did not use her preferred method of communication. It tried to contact her by phone and left voicemail messages, which was inappropriate. This happened even after a complaints officer had been reminded again of the resident’s disabilities in communication in October 2021.
7. She considered the landlord’s offer to make a payment of £50 to her rent account rather than directly to herself was an ‘imposed solution’ and stressed that compensation was not the sole outcome she hoped to achieve from the complaint. She also wanted the landlord to recognise how its service might have caused her unnecessary stress and how it might improve, particularly in relation to disability issues and Equality Act 2010 legislation.
8. She said she felt “insulted” by what she considered to be the landlord’s failure to accept any communication, repair or general service failures.
9. She did not agree the issues in her bathroom were caused by condensation and asked that the landlord explain how this could be the case as she had never had similar issues before and had lived in the property for three years.
The landlord made enquiries with its contractor about the process used when an emergency call out is raised to the contact centre. It was told that it is expected that a resident would be told the response visit would be within 24 hours. It was understood that residents would not expect engineers to call at 2am, but, as there had been resourcing issues, “…this was the earliest opportunity.” It also said that there was no information on its database to indicate that the resident had a disability or that any particular consideration needed to be provided.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord arranged for a further inspection of the resident’s bathroom to check for damp/mould issues and check again for leaks. It said it did not identify any issues but, in any case, it renewed the inlet valve, siphon and doughnut washer. In May 2022, the landlord confirmed there had been no further repair requests at the property since this visit.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 19 January 2022. The key points were:
1. It did not consider there were any service failures in the way that it responded to repair reports.
2. It repeated that it considered the call out on 18 August 2021 was remedied by replacing a siphon and that the call out on 3 September 2021 did not reveal a leak and that the issue was condensation.
3. In response to the resident’s question about how condensation could have presented itself as an issue this year when it had not happened before, it said that it was difficult to answer her question but “…there are a variety of lifestyle and unrelated issues that could cause damp and mould in a bathroom.”
4. It accepted the resident would not have expected an engineer to call at 2.15am but, due to resourcing, this was the earliest opportunity. It said it was, at that time, not possible to store information about a resident’s vulnerabilities on its repairs system. However, it was making system changes to enable this, “…so that we can make reasonable adjustments as necessary.”
5. It said it paid her compensation to her rent account because this was in line with its compensation policy. It said this was a temporary action put into place due to increased volumes of customer contact. It said “…each case will be considered individually.”
6. It said it had arranged for the work on 5 January 2022, not because it had identified an issue, but as a way of resolving the complaint.
7. It apologised for failing to communicate with the resident in her preferred way and said that it had fed this failure back to officers in the case and the Customer Solutions Team as a whole.
8. It apologised for failing to recognise the resident’s complaint on 3 September 2021 and for failing to acknowledge this in its stage one response. It accepted this was a service failure. It said it was clear she had been chasing a response to her concerns. It said this had been flagged with its Contact Centre management team to review their processes and provide training on logging complaints effectively and in a timely manner.
9. It set out a number of steps it was taking to improve its service delivery for those with disabilities, including upgrading its Customer Relationship Management systems to enable staff to record customers with a disability or vulnerability and note any reasonable adjustment that needs to be applied in consideration of needs.
10. It increased its offer of compensation to £400. This was to include:
  1. £50 for the late response to the stage two complaint.
  2. £250 to acknowledge that the resident had to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement.
  3. £100 for not having regard to the resident’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she was also further aggrieved because:
1. the landlord appeared to have removed its original offer of £50 for its late response to her stage one complaint, and
2. the landlord tried to call her again shortly after accepting this was inappropriate in its response.

Assessment and Findings

This service has considered the landlord’s approach in relation to the above two complaint headings. As part of that consideration, we have also assessed how the landlord approached the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is because the landlord’s approach to the resident’s vulnerabilities is intertwined in any assessment of how it handled the other complaints.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her toilet cistern

The landlord’s website says it will attend to reports from vulnerable residents within 24 hours as it will treat those repairs as emergency reports. Its policy does not make the same promise, saying more realistically that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and providing examples of what it considers to be an emergency repair. To summarise, it considers an emergency repair to be an issue that presents an immediate danger.
Therefore, this Service has made a recommendation that the landlord might want to reconsider the claim it makes on its website. It will not always be possible or appropriate to attend to repairs for vulnerable residents within 24 hours. Obviously, it should respond as soon as possible in emergency situations, but the landlord needs to be able to employ a managed response to call-outs, based on a case-by-case assessment of priority and emergency. The fact that a person is recorded as having vulnerabilities should be part of any consideration as to urgency but, if the report is not deemed to be an emergency, it might not always be appropriate to attend in 24 hours. In this case, the initial repair report raised by the resident (that her toilet sounded like it was on permanent flush and that there was condensation on the floor) did not, on the face of it, sound like it would place anyone in immediate danger and so it would be expected that, in accordance with its policy, it should have responded within 28 days, which it did. However, it is understandable that the wording on the website would have raised the resident’s expectations.
The resident stressed, in her communication on 3 September 2021, that she had previously informed the landlord that she was a disabled tenant who was struggling to deal with the water on the bathroom floor and with the noise of the toilet refilling. It appears that, when she reminded it of how the issues were affecting her on that date, it responded in good faith by registering the report as an emergency call out.
However, while the landlord appears to have tried to do the right thing by responding within 24 hours, it did not respond appropriately. To attend the emergency call out, the engineer called the resident at 2.15am to say he would be attending at 3am. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, unless there is a clear emergency that needs urgent attention, that is not a reasonable time to warn someone about an appointment. It is understandable that the resident found the contact, effectively in the middle of the night, upsetting. It is not sufficient explanation to say that there were resourcing issues. The landlord should ensure that, where possible it should avoid this practice, by proactively managing call outs and waiting times while considering how it prioritises, taking it account accurate records of customer needs and preferences. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in this case, the landlord’s late-night contact was unreasonable.
The landlord says it usually reminds people at the time of the emergency call out that, as it is a 24-hour service, it might provide an early morning call out. However, there is no evidence it did that here and given this resident’s circumstances, its failure to do so caused additional distress and detriment.
The landlord says it has taken steps to upgrade its systems since this complaint. It says its repairs systems now allows its repairs team to record and have access to information about a resident’s vulnerabilities. While the landlord says it has taken these steps, its systems should already have had that capacity. It is inappropriate that it did not have appropriate facilities in place to help manage responses to repairs for those residents who might need reasonable adjustments.
Further, the landlord’s repairs spreadsheet recorded that, “…the tenant refused access as she is disabled.” This was not the case and revealed a lack of understanding. The resident refused access because she said she had not been warned that she might be visited at 3am in the morning and 2.15am was an unreasonable time to call. It was particularly an unreasonable time to call given the resident’s disabilities. But given that it was noted, again, at this point that she was disabled, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made some further enquiries about the resident’s circumstances the next day and to have found out from her why the emergency visit could not go ahead. It would also have been reasonable, given the resident was still concerned about her repair issues, to have quickly arranged an appointment with her again but during daylight hours rather than schedule a visit a further eleven days away. This was an unreasonable response to the resident’s circumstances and showed a lack of empathy for her distress. Even though she complained on 3 and 10 of September 2021, stressing her disability, it did not send anyone to visit her until 15 September 2021. This is an unsympathetic response.
The resident and the landlord had a different view of what was causing the issues in the resident’s bathroom. The resident considered there had been a leak. The notes on 15 September 2021 refer to water seeping from the skirting. The engineer said that he was unsure if this was from “a leak or from the water already leaked out,” which suggests that there could have been an original leak. However, by 21 September 2021 the engineer who attended was satisfied, at that point, that the remaining issues were caused by condensation. The engineer noted that certain steps could be taken to address the condensation but when he could not access the materials he needed to address the issue, he closed the job. He did so on the basis that there was no leak. This was an inappropriate response to an ongoing issue at a disabled resident’s property. If the main problem was considered to be condensation, the landlord should have investigated what it could do to mitigate against condensation.
It is noteworthy that, after the landlord replaced various toilet parts on 5 January 2022, the resident did not raise any further concerns. It is not possible for this service to determine with any certainty what actually caused the issues in the resident’s property but the fact that repair work completed at the final visit was unrelated to addressing condensation and that work appeared to resolve the problem, suggests that the issue might not have been due to condensation but could have been related to the functioning of the toilet. Equally, the issues in her bathroom could have been caused by both condensation and the functioning of the toilet.
The landlord also said it could not answer the resident’s question about how it could be condensation and suggested it could be because of “lifestyle or unrelated issues”, which response will be commented on further below. If the landlord did consider the issue was caused by condensation, it should have taken steps to remedy that issue. It was aware that the resident was disabled and was finding the situation upsetting. She found it more upsetting because the landlord did not demonstrate it was listening to her point of view and, rather than take steps to help remedy the issue, suggested she should take steps to resolve it herself. If she had not pursued the complaint, there is no indication the landlord would have revisited on 5 January 2022. Internal notes show the landlord considered the problem could be “…managed by the resident.” This approach is inappropriate.
Further, the landlord suggested that the resident’s flat might be too hot and that this might be a cause for the condensation. However, when she reported she was unable to turn down her radiator, it initially told her to report it to its contractors, which was unreasonable. The complaints team is part of the landlord and not a separate entity. It should have dealt with the issue, by ensuring a repair request was raised, especially if it considered the heat in her flat could be creating the condensation. Signposting her to another part of the same organisation was inappropriate and was a missed opportunity to proactively resolve the issues that the resident was reporting.
It took until after the stage two response for the landlord to ask engineers to contact the resident about her radiator. This did not happen until the end of December 2021. Again, if the landlord considered that heat might be a contributory factor in causing condensation, it should have taken steps to investigate. As the landlord will be aware, condensation can cause damp and mould and cause damage to the structure of a building. Even if the landlord disagreed that the condensation was caused by a leak, it should have done more to determine if it could take any steps to reduce any condensation becoming worse or recurring. This is especially the case as the landlord was told about black mould in the bathroom in September 2021. The engineer who visited then said he considered that condensation was the reason for the damp and mould. However, this being noted, there is no evidence that any steps were taken to address the cause of any condensation, which is unreasonable.
Taking everything together, this Service has therefore made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about her toilet. The landlord:

a) failed to take account of the resident’s disability when responding to her call out, and;

b) failed to respond appropriately to her repeated repair requests, insisting the issues she faced were caused by condensation but considering that it had no part to play in remedying that issue.

This approach adversely affected the resident as she felt unsupported and frustrated by what seemed to be a lack of empathy for her situation. The landlord did not consider there was any service failure in its response to the resident’s repair reports. This is probably because it did conduct some repairs and it did not agree with the resident’s assessment of the issues. However, as stated above, if the landlord considered the issue was because of condensation, it should have responded to that, particularly given the resident’s disability, in a more supportive way. This Service has therefore ordered, in the light of the maladministration, a payment to acknowledge the failure to do so.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has already acknowledged it should have recognised the resident’s initial communication on 3 September 2021 was a complaint. It was inappropriate to inform her it was not clear she was complaining when the subject heading of her email contained the word ‘complaint’ and she was clearly expressing dissatisfaction. However, the landlord has already provided a reasonable remedy for this by apologising in its stage two response. It has also recognised this was a service failure and committed to provide training to staff to ensure it learns from this error.
At stage one of its complaints process it offered the resident £50 to acknowledge its delayed response. This offer was not mentioned again in its stage two response, leading to the resident to believe it had been withdrawn. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord’s position relating to the compensation offer was unclear.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not specify timelines for responses to complaints. It should do so to comply with the Ombudsman’s code on complaint handling. This Service has therefore recommended that it should conduct a review of its policy to ensure it complies with the Ombudsman’s code.
In any event, the landlord did appear to recognise its complaint responses were both late. It stage two response was issued 15 working days past the deadline set out in the Ombudsman’s code. The landlord informed the resident its response would be late – and this contact is welcomed – but it still went beyond the time it should have for a response and to be consistent with its offer of payment for delay at stage one, it should offer the same amount for both delays. This Service considers the sum of £50 each is reasonable because the delays were not protracted.
The landlord has already acknowledged that it should have used the resident’s preferred method of communication throughout the process. It has already offered the sum of £100 to acknowledge this failure, which this service considers reasonable redress. This is especially so because the landlord has also committed to raise this failure with relevant officers. This service notes that the resident says the landlord tried to contact her again by phone after the stage two response. However, there is no record of this call and there are records of the other attempted calls made at earlier stages. That does not mean that the call did not happen but if it was limited to a singular attempt, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the sum of £100 – along with the landlord’s commitment to alter its records to ensure a resident’s reasonable adjustments are clearly observed – remains a sufficient acknowledgement.
However, this service considers there were other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and has made an order to acknowledge that. At stage one, the complaints team referred the resident to the landlord if she wanted to make further complaints about black mould in her bathroom. The resident considered the black mould was linked to her original report, which was not an unreasonable assessment as it was in her bathroom around the toilet cistern. It would have been appropriate and helpful if the landlord had addressed the issue or made the appropriate referral itself, rather than asking the resident to make further calls, particularly as the resident is vulnerable and this was known at the time. The complaints team is part of the larger landlord organisation. Its role goes far beyond signposting to other parts of the organisation and it should have been more proactive in finding solutions.
The suggested referral to the local authority to investigate her request for adaptations to her property was appropriate as a local authority occupational therapist assessment would be required before the landlord can respond to that type of request.
The resident considered the proposed payment of £50 to her rent account was an ‘imposed solution’. The Ombudsman is concerned that, while the landlord said this was in line with its policy, it was not. The landlord’s compensation policy clearly states that where a resident’s account is not in arrears, a payment will be paid into the customer’s bank account. The landlord says the policy of making payment onto her rent account was a ‘temporary’ one because of increased customer contact but its policy also says that each case will be considered individually. There is no evidence that, despite the resident raising this approach to payment as an issue, the landlord gave individual consideration to her case. It simply stated that that was its policy, which it was not, and said it would keep the policy under review. This is a service failure and the landlord should consider the resident’s request for payment to her bank account again. If it continues to consider it is not possible to make payment in the way she would prefer, it should provide a reasoned explanation that goes beyond reducing customer contact. When the landlord is providing compensation for a service failure, it is not appropriate to cite its wish to have less customer contact as an explanation for deviating from its published policy. Such an approach will only serve to increase customer dissatisfaction at the point when a landlord should be seeking to improve the landlord tenant relationship.
The internal records this service has seen show that, at stage two of the complaints process, the landlord considered the crucial questions in the case, such as whether a 3am visit was appropriate in the circumstances and whether its systems alerted engineers if a resident might require reasonable adjustments. However, when the response was issued to the resident it failed to fully acknowledge its failings.
This service cannot comment on the resident’s reports that an engineer laughed at her. There is no call recording but the landlord should have at least made some enquiries into this serious allegation. It was inappropriate to fail to acknowledge her claims at all in its complaint responses. She found this omission particularly upsetting and it was a service failure to neglect to acknowledge part of her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged that it needed to make changes to its systems to record a resident’s vulnerabilities without actually accepting it was a service failure not to have these systems in place already.
Its stage two response also said that the condensation could have been caused by a “…variety of lifestyle and unrelated issues”. The Ombudsman’s Special Report on damp and mould stated that it was hoped, “…the word ‘lifestyle’, when it may be a consequence of limited choices, is banished from the vernacular.” The reason for that is that blaming lifestyle, lays the responsibility for the problem, often unfairly, but firmly on the shoulders of the resident. In this case, the landlord also said that the condensation could alternatively be caused by ‘unrelated issues’. It is not clear what it meant by that, but it is not appropriate to say the problem could be caused by lifestyle behaviours without having first determined that there is no other reason for the issue. As referenced above, the landlord should, at the least, have undertaken to check if the resident’s extractor fan was working.
The Ombudsman’s Special Report has been critical of landlords for “…inferring blame” rather than taking responsibility. The same criticism applies here. The landlord’s response was inappropriate and left the resident feeling she had no support. While the landlord recognised it should have had better systems in place and we welcome its commitment to improve its response to residents who might need reasonable adjustments, its response, in attributing the problems in the resident’s property to be caused by her ‘lifestyle’ or unrelated issues, ultimately gave the impression that it was pushing the responsibility for remedying the issues onto the resident. Given that it was aware that she had mobility issues and other vulnerabilities, this approach was insensitive and unsympathetic. This Service has therefore ordered a further payment is made to the resident to acknowledge the accumulated service failings with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with her toilet cistern.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports about her toilet cistern but, having decided early on that the issues were likely caused by condensation, it did not take any action to address that condensation. It made other repairs, which appear to have resolved the issue but, if it considered the issue was caused by condensation then, rather than suggesting the resident, who is disabled, should take steps to adjust her lifestyle, it should have taken any appropriate steps itself or worked with her to address the issue, especially as she had also reported damp and mould.
The landlord failed to communicate with the resident using her preferred method of communication and, as it did not have a satisfactory record keeping system, it did not make its operatives aware of her vulnerabilities when contacting her.
The landlord’s response at both stage one and stage two of her complaint were late. At stage one, the landlord suggested the resident should contact its response team to set up a new report of issues that seemed to be likely related to the first issue. At stage two, the landlord, inappropriately, suggested the issues the resident was experiencing may have been caused by her lifestyle, rather than arranging to take steps to resolve the issue itself. It also failed to acknowledge her complaint that an engineer had behaved inappropriately when calling her at 2.15am.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the issues identified in this report, in line with the approach encouraged in our guidance. The apology should be provided by a member of the landlord’s staff who is at Director level.
The landlord should also pay the resident £950. This comprises:
1. £400 already offered to the resident in its stage two response.
2. £50 to acknowledge the late response to the stage one complaint (if not already paid).
3. £300 to acknowledge the failure to respond appropriately to reports of condensation at the property.
4. £200 to acknowledge the combined service failures in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaints policy, particularly giving consideration to inserting time limits to respond to stage one and two in the complaints process to be in line with the Ombudsman’s code on complaints.
The landlord should review its approach to emergency callouts for residents, particularly considering how best to help those residents who have a vulnerability, responding appropriately to individual circumstances and considering whether out of hours visits are appropriate.
The landlord should review its website content and align its published policy with its website content with regard to responding to emergency call-outs.