Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202193

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. request for a management transfer;
2. reports of repairs to her property, safety issues with the building, and associated record keeping;
3. fire safety concerns, and associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 11 June 2019. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette, which the resident described as being on the first, second, and third floors of the building. The resident’s property’s entrance is on the second floor, and opens out onto a communal walkway.
For the purposes of this report, the resident’s maisonette is referred to as the ‘resident’s property’. The building in which the resident’s property is located, is referred to as the ‘resident’s building’.
The landlord is a housing association. It said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In August 2019 a fire started in the resident’s neighbour’s kitchen. The landlord’s fire report detailed considerable damage, including to the UPVC soffits outside the communal walkway, which had melted. It said that the resident and other first floor residents had been evacuated, and that the ground floor residents had been told to stay put.
In September 2019 the fire brigade sent the landlord a ‘notification of fire safety deficiencies’ regarding the resident’s building. The notification included works and actions necessary for the landlord to comply with fire safety regulation.
In February 2020 the landlord completed an electrical installation condition report (EICR) of the resident’s building. The report noted the damage caused to the communal walkway by the fire, and that the lights outside the resident’s and other properties had been disconnected or removed awaiting renovation works.

Management transfer policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it expected to rely on a management transfer in a small number of circumstances, where a tenant is experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) that puts any member of their household’s life at risk.
The policy explained that management transfers should only be considered if the Police have confirmed in writing that there is a serious risk to the tenant or household.
It stated that where a management transfer request was refused, the landlord would inform the tenant of the reasons in writing. It said that, if the tenant believed the decision was incorrect, they would have 10 working days to appeal to a senior manager.
It explained that where an appeal was heard, the landlord would not then accept the same issue as a complaint, but that the tenant retained the right to refer the matter to this Service, as they would with a complaint.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy said that where the landlord was unable to meet those timescales, it would explain the reasons why to the resident, keep them informed, and provide timescales of when it would be able to respond.

Summary of events

On 3 June 2021 the landlord recorded an antisocial behaviour (ASB) incident reported by the resident, which it classified as, “Serious threat of violence”. The landlord and resident discussed her fear of returning to her property, the impact on her autistic son, and the landlord’s action plan.
On 14 July 2021 the landlord completed its 3 monthly test of the emergency lighting at the resident’s building, with no issues identified.
On 30 July 2021 the landlord and resident discussed her ASB reports, and housing circumstances at length. The landlord noted that threats of violence had been made to the resident. It further noted that the resident did not meet the threshold of its management transfer policy, and that the Police had advised her that she was not deemed to be at risk. The landlord followed up on its discussion in writing to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It detailed its threshold for a management transfer to be considered. This included a disclosure from the Police, which it requested the same day.
2. It provided advice of what the resident should do if in the future she felt unsafe in her property. It advised of 4 other potential methods of moving home.
On 11 August 2021 the Police provided the landlord its disclosure. The landlord called the resident, and told her that the Police disclosure did not support her request for a management move. The landlord passed the resident the advice it had received from the Police, and advised her that she could consider pursuing a medical transfer via the local authority. The landlord wrote to the resident to advise that her ASB case had been closed.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord completed its 3 monthly test of the emergency lighting at the resident’s building, with no issues identified.
On 31 December 2021 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The resident said that the landlord told her on 9 January 2022 that it could not find her complaint, and so she had resent it. She summarised her complaint as being about previously reported safety hazards in her property, and the landlord’s handling of her management transfer request. The copy of the resident’s complaint seen by this Service was incomplete, but the key points of what could be seen were as follows:
1. She stated that her property had not had a gas safety check for well over a year, and asked that the landlord provide her a copy of its certificate.
2. She said that there had been 3 fires in the building in the previous 2 and a half years, which had been caused by electrical faults. She said that the fire had led to the Perspex that covered the communal walkway catching alight.
3. She stated that the only exit from her property led onto the communal walkway, and so her and her children were unable to evacuate.
On 13 January 2022, while discussing her complaint, the resident emphasised to the landlord that her mental health issues made fire safety matters of particular importance to her. She said that she was supposed to move home, but was willing to stay where she was if the fire safety hazards were resolved. The landlord advised that it had 10 working days to respond to her complaint.
On 13 and 19 January 2022 the landlord’s internal emails raised queries, and provided additional details of the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. It said that the most recent fire at the resident’s building was in November 2021, and had melted an electrical meter.
2. It stated that the resident had complained that the back door to the building had been blocked off. It said that it had agreed to unblock the back door “next summer”. It queried whether this could be brought forward, and whether the Perspex communal walkway covering could be changed to a fire retardant material.
3. It said that the resident wanted the landlord to action what it had been told by the fire brigade, which included undertaking electrical checks, and providing a fire exit.
4. It queried a range of outstanding repairs that had been highlighted in the resident’s complaint. It stated that the resident had said that she had needed to pay an electrician £130 to repair the main fuse, after the landlord had refused.
On 20 January 2022 the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her again. The resident stated that pest control had completed a first treatment of bed bugs in her property in November 2022, and advised that the second treatment would be 3 weeks later. She said that she had not heard anything further about it since.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord said it had emailed the resident a repairs appointment for 7 February 2022.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response to her complaint. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It stated that it would attend a repairs appointment on 7 February 2022 for the resident’s stopcock, main cooker switch, and the hole in her wall left when a plug socket was removed.
2. It explained that it had completed a temporary repair to the hole left by the plug socket in September 2021, but had not sent the job back correctly on its system, which had meant the necessary follow on works had not been raised.
3. It stated that it had chased up its pest control contractor, who would contact the resident in due course.
4. It noted the resident’s concerns regarding the previous fires, but stated that any issues would have been identified by the fire authority’s routine inspection, and its own fire risk assessment (FRA).
5. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the location of the bins, and the issue of local children setting light to them, and provided general commentary.
6. It explained that the building’s rear access had been blocked off to prevent unauthorised entry, and that the building type was not required to have more than 1 exit.
7. It said that it would inspect the building on 7 February 2022, and arrange for any Perspex it identified to be removed. It provided general fire safety guidance, including its ‘stay put’ advice.
8. It stated that it had not identified any failings relating to fire safety. It acknowledged that it had not followed its process to arrange the follow on works for the resident’s wall socket, and awarded £150 compensation in recognition.
9. It advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 16 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The key points of the resident’s request were as follows:
1. She stated that the landlord had not addressed her gas safety concerns.
2. She said that the landlord had not addressed her specific fire safety and electrical concerns. She asked that fire and electrical checks be completed, and the resultant reports shared with all tenants.
3. She stated that, apart from her stopcock, none of the repairs referred to in her complaint had been appointed.
4. She said that the landlord’s fire safety team (FST) and the fire brigade had visited on 7 February 2022, and recommended a fire escape at the rear of the building. She asked that this be done as a matter of urgency.
5. She said that the FST had identified the Perspex covering as a hazard, and asked that it be removed.
6. She stated that the landlord had not addressed her management move application.
7. She asked to be reimbursed for the costs she had requested at stage 1.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord completed its annual test of the emergency lighting at the resident’s building, with no issues identified.
On 6 May 2022 this Service told the landlord that the resident had said that she had asked for her complaint to be escalated in February 2022, but had not received a response. This Service asked the landlord to provide the resident a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
On 10 May 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not escalated her complaint, and advised that it had now done so. The landlord began its peer review of the resident’s complaint. Its associated documents provided additional information from the resident’s original complaint that was missing from the copy seen by this Service. The information was as follows:
1. It stated that the resident had said that it had taken 3 weeks to begin treatment, following her report of a bed bug infestation. It said that she had requested reimbursement of the £560 of damaged bed and bedding sustained in this period.
2. It said that the resident had reported that her bath tiles had come away from the wall, and that she had to pay £70 to have it repaired after the landlord had refused the works.
3. It stated that the resident’s management move request had been due to her safety concerns regarding her autistic child.
On 15 May 2022 the landlord completed its 3 monthly test of the emergency lighting at the resident’s building, with no issues identified.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord’s record stated that it had booked a repair for the following day of the resident’s cooker switch, and the hole left from the missing socket on her bedroom wall.
On 8 June 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it was awaiting an update on its intended replacement of the communal walkway’s Perspex covering. It apologised that its stage 2 review of her complaint was still ongoing, and that it was not yet able to provide her a final response. It said that it would aim to provide its response by 17 June 2022.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not yet finalised its stage 2 response. It said that it would aim to do so within the next week, and would ensure that the resident was updated by 24 June 2022. On the same day the landlord suffered a cyber-attack.
On 27 June 2022 the resident asked this Service to intervene as a matter of urgency, as she had not received a stage 2 response to her complaint, and all her safety concerns remained.
On 8 July 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay, which it said was due to the disruption caused by the cyber-attack. The key points of the landlord’s response were as follows:
1. It stated that the fire safety information it had given at stage 1 was correct. It said that the post fire inspection conducted by the fire brigade had resulted in it receiving an ‘informal notice of deficiencies’.
2. It said that it had completed works, including the building’s communal walkway covering replacement, and that the fire brigade’s informal notice had been closed.
3. It said it had subsequently identified that some of the works had been undertaken using similar UPVC materials, rather than the non-combustible material that should have been used on an escape route.
4. It explained that it was prioritising how best to replace all the building’s UPVC soffits, which would begin in the next few weeks. It said that it had not found any other fire safety failures of service.
5. It advised that it had reviewed the rear access to the building, but had no plans to carry out any door entry works.
6. It stated that there had been no service failures with regards to annual gas safety tests, and that the resident’s most recent test had been on 21 April 2022.
7. It said that it would arrange for the fire incident reports, electrical certificates, and FRA to be sent to the resident.
8. It stated that it had compensated the resident at stage 1 for its failure to raise follow on repairs works in September 2021. It said that it had completed the resident’s stopcock repair on 7 February 2022, but had not gotten access for other works, and closed the jobs on its system.
9. It accepted that given the electrical nature of the works it should have left the jobs open, and offered the resident a further £50 compensation.
10. It said that after further attempts to gain access, it had completed the repairs to the resident’s cooker switch, and missing bedroom socket on 15 June 2022. It confirmed that it would reimburse the £130 and £70 payments that the resident had made for works.
11. It confirmed that the resident’s request for a management transfer had not met the required threshold, and had not been progressed. It said that a housing options action plan had been discussed with the resident, and sent to her on 3 June 2022.
12. It said that it had successfully completed pest control treatment at the resident’s property, but agreed to reimburse the £560 for the resident’s bedding.
13. It advised that it was awarding £75 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response, for a total stage 2 award of £885. It explained that as a result of the cyber-attack, it was currently unable to process compensation payments. It said it would contact the resident once this was resolved.
14. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 19 September 2022 the resident told this Service that the landlord had replaced the building’s UPVC soffits earlier that month.
In October 2022 the resident reported further incidents of ASB to the landlord, and asked that she be reconsidered for a management transfer. Shortly after, and again in early 2023, the landlord requested and received further disclosures from the Police.
During the months following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident complained about the delay in it paying the compensation it had offered her. The landlord reiterated that the delay was due to the impact of the cyber-attack, and has since said that it asked the resident to provide her bank details for payment on 1 November 2022.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that her further request for a management transfer had again not been supported by the Police disclosures, and did not meet the threshold of its policy. Its letter explained its policy to the resident, and advised her how she could appeal its decision. Later that month the landlord’s records stated that the resident had not appealed its decision.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord provided this Service with information for this investigation. It also separately wrote to the resident, and stated that it had further reviewed its handling of her complaint. The landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it had received the resident’s stage 2 escalation request in February 2022, but had not escalated it until May 2022, after it had been prompted to by this Service.
2. It explained that this had been due to human error and that, although it had apologised to the resident on 10 May 2022, it did not refer to it in its stage 2 response as it should have done.
3. It detailed the learning and staff training that it had taken from this, and offered the resident a further £100 compensation, which brought its total award to £1135.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident the fire incident reports, electrical certificates, and FRA for her building. It apologised for the delay in providing these documents.

Assessment and findings

From June 2021, the resident highlighted the increased negative impact that the matters associated with her ASB reports were having on her autistic son.
From January 2022, the resident’s complaint and related discussions with the landlord highlighted her mental health issues, and why they caused her increased fire safety concerns and anxiety.
As such, it is of concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord had stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her household. This is also consistent with the lack of evidence seen by the Ombudsman that the landlord considered the household’s vulnerabilities, and appropriately adapted its approach.
The landlord did in the main handle the resident’s 2021 management transfer request in a timely and empathetic manner. Nonetheless, the resident was impacted by the landlord’s failure to follow its own management transfer policy, and a finding of service failure has therefore been made.
The landlord failed to appropriately record and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was significant in its handling of her fire safety concerns, her associated complaint, and with her reports of repairs, in particular those regarding the safety of the building. Further failings have also been identified in the following assessment, which has been unduly hampered by the landlord’s failure to provide this Service with appropriate records.
As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property, safety issues with the building, and associated record keeping; and with its handling of her fire safety concerns, and associated complaint.

Management transfer

The resident experienced incidents of ASB and related events at the end of 2022, and early 2023. This led to her making a further request for a management transfer. The Ombudsman sympathises with how distressing this period would have been for the resident. However, these events were some months after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process. As such, the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 2021 management transfer request, but not her later one.
Some of the resident’s correspondence to the landlord also referred to a management transfer request being made on her behalf by her social worker. The landlord’s record keeping failings have been considered in the assessment below. However, from the information provided to this Service, it was unclear whether the resident’s references to her social worker, related to her 2021 transfer request, or to an additional request that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of. In either case, this assessment is focused on the resident’s transfer request that followed her reports of ASB from June 2021.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that, while the landlord did in the main handle the resident’s 2021 management transfer request in a timely and empathetic manner, it did not follow its own policy. It is acknowledged that this failure may not have altered the outcome of the resident’s request. However it did significantly impact the resident’s ability to dispute the landlord’s decision.
Following the resident’s reports of ASB, it was appropriate for the landlord to discuss her concerns and housing options at length with her on 30 July 2021, and to follow this up in writing. This did demonstrate an empathetic and resident focused approach. During the discussion the landlord advised the resident that she did not meet the threshold of its management transfer policy. The landlord also advised that it would need to seek a disclosure from the Police, which it did in a timely manner the same day.
The landlord’s policy stated that management transfers should only be considered if the Police have confirmed in writing that there is a serious risk. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord could not make a final decision on the resident’s management transfer until it had received the Police disclosure, which it did on 11 August 2021.
The landlord called the resident the same day, and advised her of the contents of the Police disclosure. The landlord again explained that the resident’s request did not meet the threshold of its management transfer policy, and provided further advice of other housing options. While this again demonstrated that the landlord acted in a timely and empathetic manner, its actions were not in line with its own policy.
As above, the Ombudsman has not assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s later management transfer request, made after the conclusion of her complaint. However, it is noted that with her later request, the landlord put its decision in writing to the resident, and clearly explained both the relevant sections of its policy, and her right to appeal, in line with its policy.
It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord put its 2021 decision, and advice of its appeals process, in writing to the resident, and in line with its policy.
It may have been the case that the resident would not have appealed the landlord’s decision, as was the case with her later transfer request, or that her appeal would have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the landlord’s failure to follow its own policy had implications for its handling of the resident’s complaint, separately assessed below.
The landlord’s management transfer policy explained that its appeals process, effectively replaced its formal complaint process for rejected transfer requests. The landlord’s failure to advise the resident of its appeal process, deprived her of the opportunity to express her dissatisfaction with its decision, or to receive a timely response.
This meant that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her transfer request was not recognised until she made her complaint 6 months later, in January 2022. The failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, detailed below, meant that she did not receive a response to that aspect of her complaint until July 2022, a full year after her management transfer request had been rejected.
This was also at a time when the resident’s fire safety and ASB concerns would have been causing her considerable distress. The landlord’s failure to follow its own policy was therefore unreasonable, and the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure.

Repairs, safety works, and associated record keeping

The resident’s complaint to the landlord raised several repairs and safety issues, which she said that she had been reporting for some time. The Ombudsman has been able to assess the landlord’s response and handling of the resident’s complaint about these matters in the assessment below. However, the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the substantive matters themselves, has been unduly hampered by the landlord’s lack of records.
It is acknowledged that the cyber-attack suffered by the landlord in June 2022 would have been highly disruptive, and impacted its ability for at least some period, to access its records.
However, the landlord still failed to provide appropriate records many months after the cyber-attack. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that its record keeping practices were insufficiently robust to allow recovery of any lost information. It is unclear why database backups were not able to be accessed, but the landlord failed to provide this Service with appropriate works, repairs, and contact records.
As such, although it did not appear to be disputed, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident reported her safety concerns to the landlord, prior to making her complaint on 31 December 2021. Similarly, the landlord did provide this Service various electrical, fire, and safety documents, but the repair log that it provided had no entries after 2020. The Ombudsman has seen no other evidence of the relevant repairs or works undertaken by the landlord, beyond what was referred to in its exchanges of correspondence with the resident.
It is not the role of this Service to investigate the information technology arrangements of the landlord. However, the absence of records has impacted both the Ombudsman’s investigation, and the resident’s ability to seek fair redress. As such a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her property, safety issues with the building, and associated record keeping.
As above, the Ombudsman has seen no record of the repairs reported by the resident in September 2021, nor the pest infestation that she reported in November 2021. Nonetheless, it is not disputed that those reports were made, and the landlord accepted that there were failings in its handling of both matters in its responses to the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered the resident compensation, and to reimburse the associated costs that she said she had incurred. The landlord’s offers of redress in its complaint responses have been assessed in the assessment below.
The Ombudsman has also seen little evidence of what actions or works were undertaken by the landlord following the fires at the resident’s building. The landlord did provide a copy of its report of the 2019 fire; the ‘notification of fire safety deficiencies’ it received from the fire brigade the following month; and the EICR it completed 5 months later. It also provided copies of the electrical certificates confirming the safety of the building’s emergency lighting over the period assessed.
However, the correspondence between the landlord and resident confirmed that there was a more recent fire in November 2021, and suggested that there was another fire prior to that, but after the events of 2019. It is of concern that the Ombudsman has seen so little evidence related to these matters.
The landlord’s 2019 fire report referred to the fact that the UPVC soffits outside the communal walkway, which was the resident’s exit from her property, had melted. It is of further concern that 3 years, and either 1 or 2 fires later, the landlord was still exploring how to renew the soffits and Perspex walkway covering, with non-combustible materials.
In July 2022 the landlord acknowledged to the resident that it had previously replaced the soffits, but had used similar UPVC ones. It is again unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of when that work was completed, or why the landlord had used incorrect materials. The resident has stated that the landlord undertook further works to replace the soffits again, in September 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident stated that the communal walkway covering had also been replaced, but the Ombudsman has again seen no record of this work.
Given the events described above, and their relevance to the resident’s ability to be able to safely evacuate her family from the building, the resident’s fire safety anxieties were understandable. It is unclear whether the landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues prior to her complaint, or of their impact on her safety concerns. It is however clear that the landlord had discussed her vulnerabilities and fears with her, after her complaint was made in January 2022. The landlord’s response to, and handling of the resident’s safety concerns, has been considered in the assessment below.

Fire safety concerns, and associated complaint handling

The resident’s elevated fire safety concerns formed a significant part of her complaint. The landlord apologised to the resident for the lengthy delays in its handling of her complaint, and offered her compensation for the impact of its failings.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint, at her second attempt, on 9 January 2022, which was 2 months after the most recent fire at the building. The resident’s complaint emphasised to the landlord what she said were her previously reported fire safety concerns. The copy of the resident’s complaint provided to this Service was incomplete. However, the Ombudsman has identified most issues that the resident raised from her own and the landlord’s subsequent communications.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays in its complaint handling, and reasonable for it to reimburse the costs that she had incurred, along with making other compensation awards. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and that its complaint handling failures went beyond just its delays.
In particular, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in its response to, or handling of, her safety concerns. The landlord’s long delayed compensation award to the resident was also not proportionate to the further failings identified in this report. As such the Ombudsman has found maladministration, and made a further order of compensation.
The landlord told the resident that she would have to resend her complaint, which she had emailed to it on 31 December 2021. The resident resent her complaint to the landlord on 9 January 2022. The landlord then took 16 working days to issue its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, which was 6 working days longer than the time stated in its policy.
The landlord did appropriately discuss the resident’s complaint with her on 13 and 20 January 2022, when the resident described her mental health issues, and their impact on her fire safety concerns. However, it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident why its response would be delayed, nor otherwise acted in line with its own complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did respond appropriately to some of the issues raised by the resident. Its offer of £150 compensation, specifically for its follow on repairs failings, was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. However, the landlord’s response failed to address all the points that the resident had raised, most notably some of those relating to her safety concerns that were of particular significance to her.
The resident had expressed her concern that her property had not had a gas safety check in over a year. Despite the landlord’s lack of vulnerability records, it was aware of the resident’s increased anxiety regarding safety issues, which had been further heightened by the fires. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer its assurances regarding gas safety to the resident, and provide her a copy of its most recent certificate for her peace of mind. As well as being poor complaint handling, the landlord’s lack of any response to the resident’s gas safety concerns demonstrated a failure to consider her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
Similarly, while the landlord did provide a general response to the resident’s fire safety issues, it offered little assurance for her elevated anxiety, and there was again no evidence that it had considered her vulnerabilities. It was understandable that the resident’s subsequent reply expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to address her specific fire safety and electrical concerns.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to respond to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding its handling of her management transfer request. As has been assessed above, this was of particular significance, as the Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord had advised the resident in writing of its management transfer appeals process. This meant that the resident was twice deprived of the opportunity to have her concerns addressed in a timely manner. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
The resident highlighted her ongoing safety fears and dissatisfaction when she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 February 2022. It was only following the intervention of this Service that the landlord apologised, over 11 weeks later, that it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that, during the intervening period, the landlord took any actions that considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, or might have otherwise allayed her safety concerns.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process on 10 May 2022. On 8 June 2022 the landlord acted in line with its policy, when it apologised and explained to the resident the reasons for the further delay in its stage 2 complaint handling, and advised that it would issue it response by 17 June 2022. However, on 17 June 2022, the landlord had to again advise the resident that its stage 2 review was incomplete, and that its response would be delayed still further.
The landlord had taken 58 working days to escalate the resident’s complaint, and she had emphasised the ongoing anxiety that her fire safety and related concerns were causing her. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate its recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and prioritise her stage 2 complaint. It was therefore unreasonable that even after its severely delayed escalation, the landlord took 42 workings days to issue the resident its stage 2 response, in contrast to the 20 working days that was stated in its policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response, on 8 July 2022, and explained that the delay had been caused by the cyber-attack. It is not disputed that the cyber-attack would have caused significant disruption. However, the cyber-attack occurred 142 days after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated, and 59 days after the landlord had actually escalated it. The landlord’s explanation for the delay was therefore neither accurate, nor appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response again demonstrated little empathy or consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord further compounded this when its stage 2 response agreed to provide the resident with the reports and certificates that she had requested for her peace of mind, but then took a further 38 weeks to do so.
As above, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to reimburse the £760 of bedding and repairs costs incurred by the resident. Its total compensation offers to the resident for its failures to raise follow on works totalled £200, and was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation for the delays in its complaint handling from £75 to £175, 35 weeks after it had originally made the offer to the resident. While this was some months after the resident’s complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to also detail its complaint handling learning, and staff training. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this element of the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the extent of the failings in its handling of the resident’s safety concerns, and associated complaint.
Despite its failure to follow its own policy, the landlord also considered that it had handled the resident’s management transfer request appropriately, and offered her no redress. Furthermore, having offered the resident compensation, the landlord then took at least 4 months to begin arranging the payment. While the landlord said that this was due to the impact of the cyber-attack, it would have added further to the resident’s frustration.
As such the Ombudsman has considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance. Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. This was particularly relevant in this instance, as the landlord was aware that the resident’s vulnerabilities significantly increased her fire safety concerns, and the anxiety and distress she experienced. This is considered in the Ombudsman compensation award below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of repairs to her property, safety issues with the building, and associated record keeping;
2. fire safety concerns, and associated complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord handled the resident’s 2021 management transfer request in a largely empathetic and timely manner. However, the landlord’s failure to follow its own policy, and advise her in writing of its appeals process, deprived her of the opportunity to dispute the matter. This was then further compounded by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord acknowledged its failure to appropriately arrange follow on repairs at the resident’s property. It also acknowledged that it had replaced the soffits that had melted in the fire at the resident’s building, with similar material, which it then replaced again.
The landlord told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This was despite the resident discussing her son’s autism, and her mental health issues with it. The resident had explained to the landlord how her understandable fire safety concerns, were increased by her mental health issues.
The landlord’s lack of records unduly hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Nevertheless, the information that was provided, in particular relating to the resident’s complaint and safety concerns, failed to evidence that the landlord had given any consideration to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The first fire at the resident’s building had occurred within 2 months of her moving into her property, and at least 1 further fire occurred not long prior to her making her complaint. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and elevated fire safety anxiety, and tailored its approach to her accordingly. This should have included dealing sensitively and promptly with the resident’s complaint, and responding to her various safety concerns with appropriate assurances.
The landlord’s delays in handling the resident’s complaint, lack of consideration of her vulnerabilities, and failure to even respond to some of the fears she had raised, would have significantly added to her distress.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the identified failings in this report.
2. Pays the resident £1460 compensation, made up of:
  1. £760 for the bedding and repairs costs she incurred;
  2. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of follow on works;
  3. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s management transfer request;
  4. £400 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns, associated complaint, and record keeping.
3. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards totalling £1135 (if any or all those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £1460).
4. The landlord is further ordered to review its staff training needs regarding the identification and recording of resident vulnerabilities, and writes to this Service with its findings.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.