Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202213536)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213536

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

21 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:
1. The conduct of the landlord’s contractors and its notification of appointments.
2. How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about how it records and shares information about asbestos within properties.
3. Conditions applied by the landlord to an offer of compensation.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background, legal and policy framework

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. He has held the tenancy since 22 June 2009. The property is a 1-bedroom semi-detached house with a private garden and garage.
Through correspondence with the Service, the resident has advised that he has post-traumatic stress disorder. The landlord has advised that it has no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. This places an obligation on the landlord “not to interrupt or interfere with the tenants right to peacefully occupy the premises except where … access is required … to carry out repairs”.
Point 13 of the agreement says “the tenant agrees to allow the [landlord’s] employees and contractors acting on behalf of the [landlord] access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice. The association will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice, but immediate access may be required in an emergency.”
The landlord reviewed and updated its complaints policy during the course of the resident’s complaint. The policy dated February 2021 included the following definitions at section 4:

4.3: an expression of dissatisfaction – “an issue which can usually be promptly resolved at an early stage. It will be recorded … and used to inform and improve services. Where a customer is not satisfied with the response … they may request that the issue is escalated to a complaint”.

4.4: a complaint – “is likely to be a more serious issue requiring further investigation, or an escalated expression of dissatisfaction”.

Section 9 of this policy said that a written acknowledgement would be provided within 2 working days of receipt of a complaint. A full written response would then be provided within 10 working days. Where the landlord was unable to meet this target, it would agree a revised target with the resident. This should not exceed a further 10 working days.
If the resident remained unhappy, they were to contact the landlord’s resolutions team within 90 days to agree the next steps. There were 3 possible options for review which would be agreed with the resident:
1. referral to a more senior manager to review.
2. referral to a head of service for a review or;
3. an offer of a panel review hearing.
Where a panel review hearing was agreed, this was to be held within 20 working days of the request being made. The policy further sets out the process for and make up of the panel for the review.
The landlord introduced a revised complaint and resolution policy on 11 February 2022. This removed the panel review hearing and introduced a 2 stage formal complaint process. This established clear timescales for each stage. At stage 1, it was to acknowledge the complaint within 1 working day and a member of the landlord’s staff was to contact the resident within 3 days about their complaint. It then had 10 working days to provide a full response to the complaint. As with the previous policy, if further time was needed for its investigation, this should be no more than a further 10 working days and should be agreed with the resident.
If the resident remained unhappy, they could seek a review at stage 2. This would be carried out by either a senior manager, or head of service, not previously involved in the case, or responsible for the service provided. The response should be provided within 20 working days. The same provisions, as at stage 1,were made should an extension to its response time be required. It further says at point 3.32 that “new emerging issues or concerns raised at this stage may be considered as a new complaint”.
3.27 of the complaint and resolution policy says, “customers may be entitled to receive compensation or redress as a consequence of a service failure and as part of [the landlords] remedy to put things right”. This refers the reader to the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy establishes its commitment to “be fair, reasonable and consistent in its approach to compensation requests”. This policy focuses on cases where a resident has experienced a financial loss for which the landlord is liable. It refers to its complaint and resolutions policy for discretionary compensation payments.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 24 November 2021. He said that he had received an email on 1 November 2021 notifying him that a contractor would be attending on 2 November 2021 to change his smoke alarms. He informed the landlord that he would not be available and asked that it contact him again in 2 weeks to arrange a new appointment. On 24 November 2021, without giving any prior notice, a contractor attended the resident’s home to carry out the works. As he had not been informed of the attendance in advance, the resident refused access. He said that he had previously told the landlord about his mental health issues and the impact that unannounced visits had on him. He set out that he had previously, over the course of his tenancy, asked the landlord to provide him with reasonable notice of appointments in line with his tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s records show that it called the resident on 26 November 2021 to discuss the events that had transpired and provide him with an apology. It noted that a letter had been sent advising of the appointment but accepted that he had not received this. An alert was placed on the landlord’s system, to make its staff aware that the resident should be notified by letter of all appointments, with confirmation sent via text message.
On 2 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint (complaint A). He referred to his earlier complaint from November 2021 and the assurances he had been given that he would receive written notification of appointments. He said:
1. the landlord had failed to provide him notice of an appointment arranged for 21 February 2022.
2. he had previously told the landlord that he believed that an operative, who had attended his home on 7 December 2021, had been displaying symptoms of COVID-19. This had not been acknowledged by the landlord. He explained that he had been advised by the NHS that he was “at increased risk if exposed to the virus”.
3. There was a separate occasion, on 12 August 2020, when a contractor had failed to wear the relevant personal protective equipment (PPE) within his home despite a requirement, at that time, to do so. He said that he believed these incidents showed a failure by the landlord in its duty of care to its residents. He asked the landlord to provide him with evidence that it, and its contractors, had followed government guidance around COVID-19. he had been told that it carried out a “schedule of regular testing” and wished to receive a more “definitive explanation” of this.
4. There was a known presence of asbestos within the ceiling of his property and that the landlord had failed to ensure that its contractors were provided with this information. This related to the proposed works to relocate and replace his smoke alarms, which required the attendance of specialist contractors.
The landlord’s case records include an action alert to telephone the resident dated 13 March 2022. It is unclear if contact was made with the resident at this time. However, it is recorded that the landlord contacted him on 23 March 2022 to agree an extension to its response time.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint A on 29 March 2022. This said:
1. the repair’s appointment had been arranged by its customer service team. It was noted that the resident had declined to give access due to his concerns about the presence of asbestos in his ceiling. He also wanted confirmation of the operative’s COVID-19 status.
2. point 3.3.4 of its asbestos procedure said it would “share information about the location and condition of identified asbestos containing materials with those who are likely to disturb them, and effectively control works that are likely to affect asbestos”.
3. a lateral flow test was not a prerequisite for visits to a resident’s home. It said that it had a clear COVID-19 policy which was reflective of government guidelines and included an extract of this in the text of the letter. Its advice was that no visits should be carried out by any staff members who had COVID-19 symptoms, however mild.
On 18 April 2022, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said that the landlord had failed to follow its complaints procedure, that its stage 1 response had been inadequate and had failed to address the substantive issue of his complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 May 2022. This letter was headed stage 1 complaint response. In opening it said that complaint A had been reviewed at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this it:
1. apologised for the delay in responding and advised that his complaint had been fully upheld. Further it noted that his original complaint had been submitted on 2 March 2022. It apologised for the level of service he had received.
2. acknowledged that he had been told who would be dealing with his complaint, only for this to be changed. It explained why this had happened and said that there had been a “lack of communication in the complaint journey”.
3. confirmed that the landlord had agreed to provide written notice of all appointments. It said that it would normally provide a text message after a repair was booked. It noted that its last notification had been sent via email. It had reminded its customer services team to check where contact preferences had been expressed to ensure that these were followed.
4. explained its position on COVID-19. It said that if a contractor was displaying symptoms prior to a visit the necessary testing should have been carried out and the appointment rescheduled. It further noted that it should have addressed this, alongside the resident’s report of inappropriate comments made by a contractor, at the time the resident raised these. It should also have acknowledged the reported failure to wear PPE.
5. said that to put things right it was rolling out training to all its officers on how complaints should be responded to. It recognised that communication was a key part of this, and it would be changing its internal process. It said that timescales for complaint handling would be closely monitored.
6. offered the resident £250 compensation, as a gesture of goodwill. This was in recognition of its failure to follow its own policies and procedures, and the delay in responding to his complaint.
On 2 September 2022, the resident requested a panel review of his complaint. He said that there remained a number of issues that had not been satisfactorily answered. He said that:
1. there was a failure to issue proper notice of appointments and a breach of the tenancy agreement in this. He had been raising this with the landlord throughout his tenancy and that it was not only inconvenient but also contractually unacceptable.
2. the landlord’s complaint process had been ineffective. He said that he had previously raised complaints and despite reassurance by those responding about “lessons learned” the same problems had arisen. He further said that he was disappointed to see that under the landlord’s revised complaints policy that the panel review stage had been removed.
3. it had failed to address the issues he had raised around COVID-19. It had provided conflicting advice around the testing of contractors prior to visiting residents’ homes.
4. it was unacceptable to attach conditions to an offer of compensation which had been made as a “gesture of goodwill”. He further referred to a previous determination by the Service (case reference 201810287) that had advised that no conditions should be attached by the landlord to the payment of compensation.
5. he considered that the landlord showed “a culture of contempt towards its residents and their rights”. He further said that its processes failed to provide effective outcomes. As an illustration of this the resident highlighted his garage roof and the landlord’s handling of this. In September 2018, the roof was identified by the landlord’s surveyor to “be at the end of its serviceable life” but no remedial works were carried out. This failed in May 2022, causing water ingress into the garage and damage to his property.
6. he wished for a panel review as the CEO and the board had been signatories to his previous complaints. Further he said that he did not want other residents to be involved in the panel review to ensure confidentiality.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a panel review on 6 September 2022. It said that, in line with its policy, the panel would contain 2 members of its customer influence committee. It explained that as a community led organisation many of its board members were also residents. It advised that they were bound by the rules of GDPR. As an alternative, it suggested that it could arrange for a stage 2 review to be carried out by a head of service. This was in line with its revised complaints procedure.
On 12 September 2022, the Service provided information to the resident, with reference to his earlier complaint case. It said, “the landlord should not be attaching stipulations to compensation payments.” It further advised that he could bring his complaint to the Service on this point.
At the resident’s request a panel review meeting was held on 16 December 2022. This was to consider the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with its handling of complaint A. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 December 2022 to thank him for attending the meeting. It said that it would now “investigate and fully respond” to the complaint by 27 January 2023. It acknowledged the length of time taken and thanked him for his patience.
On 16 January 2023, in response to an enquiry raised by the landlord on 3 January 2023 the Service provided the following advice to the landlord:

“The Ombudsman’s position is that any acceptance of compensation from the landlord may be in full and final settlement of its complaint procedure, but it does not affect the resident’s right to refer the complaint to this Service for review at the end of the complaint procedure”.

On 18 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to provide feedback on the panel meeting. He said:
1. he felt that it had not met the required standards of fairness under the complaints process.
2. he had been given incorrect information as to who the panel members would be, having been given an incorrect name for one of the members.
3. he felt that he had been “put on the spot” when asked to speak at the beginning of the meeting. He explained that he had an anxiety disorder and that this was unfair on him. He had covered all the details of his complaint in his previous letters and had provided a number of documents to the panel to support this.
4. he believed that the panel showed a lack of preparation and that it had not been given sufficient time to review the information provided.
5. he felt that the panel lacked an awareness of mental health issues and that the complaints process have been inadequate.
6. wished to know how the landlord’s new 2 stage procedure would improve the process. He said that “from beginning to end the handling of my complaint has been an ordeal, and a parody of its intended purpose”. He said that he had hoped that his complaints would have contributed to improvements in the landlord’s complaint handling but felt that “accountability still appears to remain out of the reach of the tenant”.
On 27 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint, confirming that it had been dealt with under the landlord’s old complaint policy. It identified 7 issues it had considered. It said:
1. it had strengthened the message on its system to say that it was a requirement that he received appointments in writing in advance, and that anyone attending should wear a face mask. It said that the tenancy agreement did not stipulate the form of notice it had to give to residents before attending their home. It considered its use of email and text messages to provide an acceptable form of notice. It understood the resident’s request that it communicate with him in a different way and recognised that residents’ preferences should be respected. It said that it would do its best to comply with this but wanted to be “transparent”. It could not guarantee that he would always receive a letter in advance of an appointment. There was occasion where appointments needed to be made at short notice and “human error cannot be completely ruled out”.
2. it apologised that its contractor failed to adhere to its COVID-19 guidelines and that this did not meet the professional standards it expected. It said that it no longer worked with this particular contractor so was unable to investigate the matter further.
3. that there was a record on its IT system that there was asbestos in the ceilings at his home. It further confirmed that the appointment arranged for 1 February 2023 would be attended by its in house team and a licenced asbestos contractor.
4. that it had considered his concerns about a possible conflict of interest in the handling of his complaint at the initial stage 1. It said that as the complaint had not been directly about the officer’s colleague, it considered it acceptable for her to respond. It further addressed the presence of another resident on the review panel. It said that his role as a member of the landlord’s customer influence committee was to ensure that the landlord was “treating customers fairly”. It did not consider this to be a conflict of interest.
5. it apologised for the delays in its complaint responses and that it had failed to cover all the points he had raised. It thanked him for his feedback and for giving it “the opportunity to learn from this”.
6. it did not agree with his view that there was a culture of contempt. It acknowledged that there had been mistakes made that had led to his repeated complaints. It believed that it could learn from these.
7. on his final point around the conditions applied to the award of compensation it had approached the Ombudsman, who had provided it with guidance. The Service had advised that it could use the terminology of “full and final settlement” but that this was not a condition that would prevent a resident bringing their complaint to the Ombudsman. In line with this guidance, it had amended its acceptance form. It then reoffered the compensation of £250, made at stage 1, together with a further £25 for travel expenses incurred attending the panel hearing.
8. it thanked him for his letter of 18 January 2023 raising concerns around the panel hearing. It said that this would be considered as a new complaint (complaint B) and would be investigated by its housing director.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to complaint B. It apologised that the resident had been unhappy with the panel process. It set out how it had investigated his complaint and confirmed that it had not spoken with the resident, as it understood he preferred to be contacted in writing. It concluded that his complaint was not upheld. It provided a detailed response on the points he raised, including feedback from the panel members. In its conclusion it said that:
1. it was satisfied that it was complying with the terms and conditions of his tenancy.
2. it had reviewed its complaints process and now has a dedicated team to manage complaints.
3. it had added a message on its system to ensure that repair appointments were sent to him in writing.
On 9 February 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and thanked it for offering to meet with him. He also thanked it for the steps it had taken to resolve his outstanding concerns. He said that he was very confused by the process and did not understand how his letter had been treated as a new stage 1 complaint without any notification to him. He felt that he should have been included in the decision making.
The resident contacted the Service on 27 February 2023. He said that there had been conflicting advice given by the Service to himself and his landlord about the wording used by the landlord on its compensation acceptance form. He asked that this be reviewed.
On 10 March 2023, having met with the resident, the landlord provided a revised stage 1 response. In this it explained why it had considered this as a further complaint and responded to the specific points highlighted through their meetings. On a separate issue, it offered compensation for items damaged by the leak from his garage roof of £300. It confirmed its misunderstanding and acknowledged that he had received, on occasion, no notice of appointments for those attending his home. It said that this was unacceptable and that in accordance with his tenancy agreement it was required to give him notice. It further addressed its handling of his complaint and his view that the landlord’s staff did not always demonstrate an understanding of mental health matters. It had noted the advice from the Ombudsman that had been given to the resident and it was reviewing its compensation process and acceptance form.
On 23 March 2023 the resident wrote to the Service. In this he explained that prior to the landlord’s final response to his complaint, he had been invited to provide feedback on the panel hearing. He had done so, and his landlord had then taken this to be a fresh complaint. He said that the landlord had acknowledged through this complaint that its previous response had been incorrect, and he wanted the Service to consider the other complaint within its review. The Service accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 7 April 2023.
The resident asked his landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 May 2023. He said that there had been no further communication with him as agreed and that the offered compensation of £300 had not been paid. He further said that he should receive additional compensation for “timewasting” and the distress caused to him. He said that:
1. the panel at the review hearing had agreed to look at why he was getting no notice of appointments but there was no evidence that it had done so.
2. he acknowledged that the revised stage 1 had accepted that the landlord was required to provide notification of appointments under its tenancy agreement. He felt that he should be compensated for its continued breach of these terms.
3. the landlord should consider how its contractors were told of the requirements for contact with residents and that the continued use of the same system was “a reliable predictor of future failure”.
4. he was concerned that the landlord was in breach of health and safety regulations by not correctly notifying its contractors of the presence of asbestos within his home.
5. he felt that there had been mishandling of his complaint throughout and that this had “caused needless distress, complication and confusion and endless disappointment”. In his view this showed a contempt for the process and “a collective organisational failure”.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 10 August 2023 having met with the resident to discuss his complaint. In this it upheld his complaint and said that by speaking with it about his experience, he was enabling it to make improvements to its service to benefit all residents. It further said that:
1. its stage 1 reply issued on 10 March 2023 should have upheld his complaint and offered compensation, having identified a service failure.
2. there had been an administrative error that had led to the £300 offered in respect of the damages caused by the leak from his garage roof to not be paid. It increased its offer to £350.
3. it had removed the term ‘full and final settlement’ from its compensation form. It agreed that the wording was superfluous and could lead to the incorrect assumption that a resident could not pursue a complaint where they remained dissatisfied. It offered further compensation of £75 in reflection on the effort and distress placed on the resident.
4. there had been a failure to carry out review, as promised by the review panel, as to why he had not received written notification of appointments. It confirmed that there was an alert on its system. It further advised that a review was underway into the delivery of its repairs service to improve communication with its residents. It offered compensation of £100.
5. its systems contained information about the presence of asbestos within his home and that it was the responsibility of its staff when raising a repair to ensure that the correct trades were identified. It further said that it was reviewing how information around asbestos within its properties is shared with residents.
6. it would be addressing any potential conflict of interest within its complaint policy review and recognised that it should listen to residents when they raise concerns about impartiality.
7. there had been complaint handling failures throughout the process since the resident first raised his complaint. It offered an apology and £100 compensation for this.
8. it understood why the resident felt that at times its actions had been contemptuous. It further said that through its conversations with the resident that it had spoken about the new regulatory focus on tenant satisfaction. That this had “given many social landlords cause to stop and think about how they are listening to their customers and allowing feedback to influence service delivery”. It said that it wanted to ensure that its residents views were integral to the design of its services for residents. Its complaints process “has been under a review, which will continue for the remainder of this financial year. We have improved communication, timescales, and resourcing, so we can respond to complaints more effectively”.
9. it apologised for the poor level of service received through the complaints process and said that the resident’s feedback had been extremely valuable. It confirmed that it had increased its offer of compensation to £625.
The resident responded to the landlord on 1 September 2023. He thanked the landlord for upholding his complaint but said that he felt that the letter lacked accuracy. On the issue of his garage roof, he accepted that the offer of compensation in respect of the items damaged was correct, as this restored him to the position he was in before the leak occurred. However, there had been no recognition of the landlord’s failure to act to prevent the leak in the first instance. He further questioned the landlord’s explanation of its use of the words ‘full and final settlement’ on its compensation acceptance form, its challenge to the Ombudsman’s position on this and the level of compensation offered to him given the length of time over which this had been considered. He reconfirmed he was receiving no notification of appointments to his home, whether by letter, email, or text. He raised the issue of health and safety regarding the asbestos in his home and his continued concerns around a conflict of interest. He said that “the level of compensation offered shows that the landlord still hasn’t grasped the severity of the impact of its failures upon me in terms of distress, lost sleep and ill-health which makes me feel unsafe in my own home, not to mention the time wasted trying to resolve this rigmarole laced as it is with obfuscation, evasion, distortion, omission and delay”.
The landlord spoke directly with the resident on 8 September 2023 and arranged to meet with him further about his complaint. On 20 September 2023 it confirmed that it was reviewing the level of compensation offered.
On 22 September 2023, the resident wrote to the Service. He asked the Service to assess whether his landlord had been fair and reasonable in its actions. He set out five elements of his complaint.
1. “The landlord’s failure to observe due process at every stage of the complaints process and its unacceptably dysfunctional complaint handling in general.”
2. “The landlord’s failure to fulfil the terms of what has been agreed to settle complaints, present and past, and failure to adequately change its policies, procedures or practices to achieve this.”
3. The landlord’s “ongoing failure to observe the terms of his tenancy agreement by frequently failing to provide any notice, by any means, of visits” to his home. This was despite numerous previous assurances that this would be addressed.
4. “The landlord’s failure in its duty of care to ensure that its contractors do not jeopardise the welfare, health, or safety of its tenants.”
5. “The landlord’s failure to remove stipulations from its compensation acceptance forms despite having been instructed to do so by the Housing Ombudsman Service in its previous determination (case reference 201810287)”.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 29 September 2023. In this it expressed how seriously it had taken his complaint and how badly it believed it had let him down. It said that had it dealt effectively with his complaint in November 2021 the process that followed would not have been required. It increased its offer of compensation to £1655. This included previous offers of compensation made which the resident had declined to accept due to the wording contained within its compensation acceptance form. It further identified that there were issues outstanding that it would be following up internally. This covered how it ensured that it provided notification of planned visits to the resident’s home, its sharing of information about asbestos within its residents’ homes and the matter of conflict of interest when responding to complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Through his correspondence the resident has said that the protracted nature of his complaint, and the issues that he raised through it, has had a detrimental effect on his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health and understands the impact this situation may have had on his wellbeing. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience as a result of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

The conduct of the landlord’s contractors and its notification of appointments

The resident raised 2 specific issues within complaint A. One about the behaviour of contractors when visiting his home and a second regarding the lack of notice of appointments. He specifically reported that a contractor had attended while symptomatic with COVID-19 and a second had failed to wear the appropriate PPE in September 2020, when specific restrictions remained in place.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed up on these specific instances with the contractor concerned. In its response at stage 1 it said that it had clear policies in place that reflected government guidance and that its staff and contractors should not carry out visits if they had symptoms, however mild. It did not address the resident’s specific report of a failure by its contractor to follow these guidelines. The landlord’s procedure from December 2020 is clear in its guidance that its staff must not attend work if they are showing any symptoms of the virus. This also advises as to the use of PPE, hand hygiene and social distancing. It would have been appropriate considering the resident’s complaint, for the landlord to have spoken with its contractor and carried out an investigation. The outcome of this should reasonably have been shared with the resident and an apology issued as necessary.
The second point about a lack of notice of appointments appears to have been subject to an element of misunderstanding throughout the complaint’s process. This was an area which the resident sought to clarify in his feedback to the panel, which then promoted a fresh complaint review (complaint B).
The tenancy agreement makes it clear that residents should be provided with at least 24 hours’ notice where the landlord requires access to their home, with the exception of emergency situations. This does not specify the format that this notice should take. The landlord has reflected that it usually uses both email and text messages to inform its residents of appointments. It is apparent that there are 2 aspects to this part of the resident’s complaint; his wish to be provided with notification of appointments via letter and a lack of notice of appointments by any means. It is apparent that this distinction has on occasion been lost through the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should have a system in place for ensuring that it provides all residents with notice of appointments, whether these are to carry out routine or planned repairs or for its housing staff to meet with residents. It cannot be assumed that residents will always be at home so a failure to provide notice of appointments leads to an increased likelihood of failed appointments which is wasteful to everyone. The landlord should be aware that many of its resident’s will be working and will need to arrange to be at home. Similarly, some resident’s may be particularly vulnerable and will need advance notice so that arrangements can be made with carers, friends or family to facilitate access.
It is not clear from the evidence provided what the landlord’s process is when arranging for a contractor to attend a resident’s home. Its repairs policy only records that its residents are required to provide access to allow repairs to be carried out. It does not capture its obligation under its tenancy agreement to provide 24 hours’ notice of appointments. It would be appropriate for the landlord to develop a process and guidance around appointments and include this within its procedure.
The resident explained to the landlord through his complaints why he preferred to receive notification via a letter and the landlord has placed a note on its system to ensure that its staff are aware of this requirement. This is an appropriate reasonable adjustment and one which the landlord should be able to adhere to. In conversation with the Service, the resident has not indicated that he is averse to receiving notification via the other formats used by the landlord. He has advised that he had made the request for written notification in the belief that in adding a further method, it would ensure that he received some notification of an appointment. This has proved ineffective. Such a request should not be seen by the landlord as onerous as it should recognise that there will still be residents who do not have access to either email or a mobile phone and it should be able to adapt its systems accordingly.
The landlord’s misunderstanding on this point was clear in its stage 1 reply to complaint B. However, it appropriately corrected this in its revised stage 1, when it acknowledged that it was failing to adhere to the terms of its tenancy conditions by not providing notice of appointments written or otherwise. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, it should reasonably have explained what it would do to put things right. This could reasonably have included carrying out a review of its processes to ensure that residents were being notified of appointments in accordance with its obligations under tenancy agreements. That it did not was a missed opportunity, and a failing in the circumstances.
In not addressing the resident’s complaint about the behaviour of its contractors and in failing to review its processes to ensure that it has an effective system in place for notifying residents of appointments there was maladministration by the landlord. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about how it records and shares information about asbestos within properties.

Within his complaint the resident raised his concern about the presence of asbestos within the ceiling of his home and the landlord’s failure to pass on this information to its contractors. He said that contractors attending to remove and relocate his smoke alarms were unaware of the presence of asbestos. The failure to share the information with its contractors, and to make the necessary arrangements for specialist contractors to attend, led to delays in the completion of works to replace and relocate his smoke alarms. Ultimately this led to frustrate the resident and heighten his concerns around safety within his home. The landlord also has a responsibility through health and safety legislation to ensure that those working on its behalf are made aware of the presence and location of asbestos.
Landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in the common areas of their residential properties (under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012). This requires landlords to identify any asbestos containing materials, to assess the risk, and to plan to manage that risk. There is, however, no ‘duty to manage’ or to maintain an asbestos register for domestic properties, and no legal obligation to inform residents of where the asbestos is in their homes. A landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos from a domestic property if it is in a sound condition and can be left undisturbed. However, where asbestos containing materials needs to be disturbed or removed during maintenance, this should be carried out by competent and appropriately trained asbestos professionals.
The landlord’s asbestos procedure says that the landlord will identify and categorise asbestos through a survey and re-inspection programme. It further says that it holds and maintains an asbestos register detailing the type of asbestos, its location, condition, quantity, re-inspection, and management recommendations. Its procedure specifies it will “share information about the location and condition of identified asbestos containing materials with those who are likely to disturb them and effectively control works that are likely to affect asbestos”.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord informed him of its procedure, and that its systems recorded the presence of asbestos within his home. In its stage 2 response to complaint B, the landlord said that it was reviewing how information around asbestos within its properties was shared with residents. While this was reasonable, the landlord’s complaint responses did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns. There is no obligation on the landlord to share information about communications or contractual arrangements between it and those acting on its behalf with residents. However, given the resident’s concerns it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise of steps that it was taking to ensure that it was sharing information with its contractors appropriately. It was not necessary for the landlord to divulge any confidential details; however, to leave the resident’s concerns unaddressed was a failing.

Conditions applied by the landlord to the acceptance of compensation.

As an outcome to complaint A the resident was awarded £250 compensation on 25 May 2022. The acceptance form that he was asked to sign contained the following statement:

“I accept the sum of £xxx in full and final settlement in respect of the above occurrence, such a sum being accepted by me as being without reference to, or admission of, liability. By accepting this sum, I agree that this relieves [the landlord] from any further responsibility in this matter”.

The resident declined to sign this document. He said in his request for a panel review that he did not believe that conditions should be attached to an offer made as a “gesture of goodwill”. He further directed the landlord to an earlier determination by the Service. This case was adjudicated in 2020 and in correspondence with the landlord and the resident in October 2020, the Service advised that the resident should only have to provide his payment information for accepting the payment and that it should not require the resident to sign a form which said that that it was “in full and final settlement”. It advised that to continue to do so could lead to a finding of service failure.
It would be expected that the landlord would have taken this guidance on board and revised its compensation acceptance form for the future. Instead it has either reverted to its previous documentation or developed one which contains a more stringent clause to acceptance. This was discussed at the panel review and the landlord subsequently contacted the Service to seek advice on the continued use of “full and final settlement” on its acceptance form. The advice given by the Service contrasted with the original advice provided. It did reinforce that the use of such wording did not restrict a resident bringing their complaint to the Service. It is acknowledged that this differing of position could have led to a lack of clarity for the landlord. It is unclear why the landlord chose to raise the question with the Service informally, having already received direction on the wording as part of a previous adjudication.
The use of the phrase “full and final settlement” is both unnecessary and misleading. The landlord may include this on its compensation forms, but this does not deny the resident’s right to approach the Service and our duty to consider the complaint. The offer may constitute the landlord’s final offer, but this is different from there being a “final settlement” which is for the resident to decide. The landlord has advised that it has reviewed its compensation acceptance form and removed this wording from it. While this is appropriate, its insistence on the inclusion of this phrase at the earlier stage of its process seems only to have prolonged the resident’s complaint and does not seem compatible with the principle of dispute resolution set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code of be fair, put it right and learn from outcomes. As the landlord had not taken on board the previous guidance in relation to using this phrase, the resident found it necessary to raise a further complaint and felt unable to accept the offer of compensation made. This caused further inconvenience to the resident and impacted on his relationship with the landlord. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident first raised his complaint with the landlord in November 2021. This was treated as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’ under the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 March 2022 as the matter remained unresolved. The landlord’s complaint records indicate that no contact was made with the resident until 23 March 2022, 15 working days after the complaint was raised. When the landlord did make contact, it asked for an extension to its response time, to allow for further investigation. Given that the target of 10 working days had already lapsed, the resident indicated that he felt obliged to agree to this extension. The landlord should reasonably have contacted the resident to agree an extension prior to the 10 working days expiring. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity”. It further advises that landlords should maintain regular contact with the resident through out its complaint’s process, providing regular updates and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. Contacting the resident after the initial target time had elapsed was not an appropriate use of the extension period, as set out within the policy.
The complaint response provided on 29 March 2022, failed to effectively address the issues raised by the resident. It simply included sections of the landlord’s policies about COVID-19 and asbestos. It did not say what steps it had taken to address the resident’s complaint about breaches of these policies. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 18 April 2022 and was provided with a response on 24 May 2022, a full 25 days later. This was again headed as stage 1, rather than reflecting an escalation within the landlord’s procedure. At his request, the resident’s complaint was then escalated to a panel review, which provided its written conclusion on 27 January 2023. The process of responding to the resident’s complaint from when this was first raised in early March 2022, to the written outcome of its complaint panel took a total of 47 weeks. This was both inappropriate and was a disproportionate length of time. This also does not align with the principle’s set out within the Complaint Handling Code, or the established timescales.
The resident’s letter to the landlord of 16 January 2023 was not responded to. It was only acknowledged within the written outcome of the panel review, where it advised that this was being treated as a new complaint.As the resident has said that this was feedback on the panel hearing, the landlord could have appropriately included a response to his comments within its letter of 27 January 2023. However, given that the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the panel process, it was not inappropriate for the landlord to treat his comments as a new complaint. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate, and in line with its procedure, for the landlord to contact the resident on receipt of this letter and ask if he wished for the matter to be dealt with as a new complaint given his dissatisfaction. That the landlord did not do so was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s complaint handling has been poor throughout, its responses were delayed and were lacking in detail. Through his complaints the resident has consistently sought clarification on the same points and been provided with responses that give incorrect information, show a misunderstanding of the issue and a failure to fully investigate or hold its contractors to account. The landlord has therefore failed to engage with the complaints in a meaningful way and missed the opportunity to try to restore the landlord-tenant relationship with the resident.
Having provided its stage 2 response on 10 August 2023, the landlord continued to engage with the resident and provided a final reply on 29 September 2023. This provided a significantly increased level of compensation which was accepted by the resident. The landlord advised that the amount of £1655 included offers previously made that the resident had been unable to accept due to the wording on its compensation acceptance form. No further breakdown as to the basis for this level of compensation was provided. As such, it is unclear what factors were taking into account by the landlord when making this offer. It is noted that through the complaints process the resident had been offered compensation of £250 in the second stage1 for complaint A, an additional £25 following the panel hearing, £350 at stage 1 of complaint B and £325 at stage 2 of this complaint. A total of £950.
This increased offer of compensation, and the change to the landlord’s compensation acceptance form, came at the end of a lengthy and complicated complaints process. While it is recognised that this offer was appropriate in the circumstances, the landlord failed to deal with complaint A effectively. Given the numerous failings and missed opportunities to effectively address the resident’s complaint there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology recognising its poor complaint handling. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance the level of compensation offered by the landlord is considered appropriate and no further compensation has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the conduct of the landlord’s contractors and its notification of appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about how it records and shared information about asbestos within properties.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was service failure in the conditions applied by the landlord to the acceptance of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to fully investigate and acknowledge the resident’s concerns that its contractors had breached its policy and guidance regarding COVID-19. It also did not effectively address the lack of appropriate and timely notice of appointments. Indeed, it appeared to confuse the context of the resident’s complaint with his request to receive written notification via the post, rather than acknowledging that he had received no notice by any means.
The landlord acknowledged that it had a duty to record and share information about the location of asbestos within the resident’s home. It further advised that it was reviewing its position on sharing this information with residents. It did not however provide an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about whether its contractors were being duly informed about the risk of asbestos at its properties.
The landlord persisted in using wording on its compensation acceptance form, despite a previous finding by the Service. This dissuaded the resident from accepting the compensation offered and hindered its complaint resolution process.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns led to it considering his concerns through 7 stages over a period of almost 2 years. Had the landlord dealt with and responded to complaint A appropriately, this could reasonably have been avoided.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this case.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Undertake a review of its repairs process. This should ensure that it has a process in place for delivering appointments for repairs. It should also ensure that it has a robust contract management process in place to effectively address poor performance or breach of it accepted standards of behaviour.
2. Further review its complaint handling in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024, this should affectively address issues around conflict of interest.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the recommendations made it the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights. These include recommendations around the introduction of minimum staff training in areas of customer care and mental health.