GreenSquareAccord Limited (202304099)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304099

GreenSquareAccord 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
2. Decision to request that the resident was only visited in pairs.
3. Complaint handling.
4. Management of knowledge and information.

Background

The resident resides in a ground floor flat under an assured tenancy in a property that is owned and managed by the landlord.
The landlord has confirmed that it considers the resident to be vulnerable, and that it is aware that the resident is in receipt of support.
The resident received the assistance of an advocate when raising complaints with the landlord. For the purpose of this report the advocate is also referred to as ‘the resident.’
The resident raised 2 separate complaints concurrently about the above matters, both of which were escalated to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. Both complaints are investigated and assessed within this report.
During a conversation, this Service held with the resident on 22 December 2023 the resident reported that a fault with the boiler in the property in 2015 had caused the resident to experience headaches and sickness. The resident’s doctor has suggested this was related to a release of carbon monoxide in the property. This Service was told that the resident has reported concerns about the release of carbon monoxide on the resident’s health to the landlord. Furthermore, that the landlord subsequently sent contractors to the property to address the boiler repairs. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the boiler fault and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if the resident considers that the resident’s health had been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against the resident in the provision of its housing services. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. It is not clear to this Service if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination.

Relevant policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep things that supply the heating, water heating, gas, water, and electricity in repair and working order. The tenancy agreement also says it will not allow anyone living in the property to be verbally abused or harassed by a contractor or person employed to carry out duties under the agreement.
The landlord’s diversity and inclusion policy dated July 2018 says that everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness, regardless of their background and it may need to treat people differently, to make sure that the end result is fair. It also says that staff should consider diversity and inclusion in everything they do.
The landlord’s compliments and complaints procedure refers to a 4-step ‘customer process’. At step 1, the landlord will seek to resolve the issue within 2 working days. At step 2 a customer care specialist will call the resident to understand the issues, investigate what has happened and provide a response within 10 working days. If the matter is not resolved, a step 3 executive review can be requested for a director to review whether the case was handled fairly and reasonably within 10 working days. Step 4 refers to the tenant’s right to escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation procedure says that it will consider making a compensation payment for loss or inconvenience due to a service failure, poor complaint handling, and where residents have suffered inconvenience or distress to recognise a failure in the way the landlord delivered a service.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the complaint stage, complaint definition, the decision on the complaint, any reasons for the decisions made, and details of how to escalate the complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the answer. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The landlord sent an email on 5 December 2018 that asked its gas contractor to send 2 engineers to the resident’s address because of previous accusations of harassment that had been made by the resident about the contractor. Furthermore because the resident had complained that a previous engineer had tried to kill the resident, had been verbally abusive and had broken the cooker and damaged the work surfaces.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 8 October 2020 about the gas service arrangements at the resident’s property because the resident had cancelled a gas servicing appointment that morning. The landlord said that every year it had an issue with the resident and asked what was being done to put measures in place. It also said that it was unfair on other residents because the resident was treated entirely differently.
The landlord sent an internal email on 9 October 2020 that said the resident had been very impressed with the gas servicing engineer who had been described as thorough, very professional and had done an exceptional job. The landlord said that the resident had requested the same contractor every year and that it felt like it had started to build an excellent relationship and regain the resident’s trust.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint (complaint A) to the landlord on an unknown date in September 2022 about the communication the resident had received from different members of staff. The resident said that one staff member had been transphobic which had resulted in the resident feeling bullied because the staff member had said they could not take the resident’s call as it was not an emergency. The resident also referred to a conversation that the resident had held with a different staff member who had said “if we are transphobic then why stay with us” and “how do you know I’m not trans” after sniggering during the phone call. The resident also said another member of staff had continue to call the resident “sir” after previously agreeing not to refer to the resident as “sir.” The resident said that a compensation payment was the expected resolution to the discrimination that the resident felt had occurred.
2 engineers attended the resident’s property on 20 September 2022 to complete a gas service. The resident raised the matter with the landlord during a discussion that was held on 22 September 2022.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to complaint A to the resident on 22 September 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in sending the response and for the way the resident’s phone call had been handled. The landlord explained that the staff member had been new, and their attitude and overall manner was not the level of service the landlord strived to deliver. The landlord confirmed that it had held a discussion with the staff member, had implemented further staff training and forwarded an apology from the staff member.
The resident made another stage 1 complaint (complaint B) on 23 September 2022 during a telephone conversation the resident held with the landlord. The resident requested an investigation into why the gas contractor has sent 2 operatives to complete a gas service at the property. The resident said that the gas contractor had confirmed that the landlord had instructed it to send 2 contractors. The resident said that the resident would be willing to accept a substantial financial offer to resolve the complaint.
The landlord sent an email to the gas contractor on 26 September 2022 to enquire about the history of the decision to attend the property in pairs due to accusations the resident had made about the contractors. The contractor replied to the landlord later the same day to advise that the resident had appointed an NHS advocate due to the decision to send 2 engineers to the property. The gas contractor asked the landlord to confirm if there was any way it wished it to approach the resident going forwards.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 October 2022 which said that it used to get numerous complaints from the resident concerning gas contractors and how they had treated the resident. The landlord said that it had struggled to find an engineer to conduct a gas service and so the visit in pairs direction was put in place to safeguard the engineer and to avoid any further accusations being made by the resident.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 October 2022 which referred to a record on its housing database dated November 2018 and asked if the resident had been advised that the contractor would attend in pairs as this had appeared to be a surprise to the resident. The landlord asked for any other records to confirm how the arrangement had come about. The landlord sent an internal email later the same day to say that it had not made any notes but that a few different contractors had attended the property and that the resident had accused them all of different things. The email also said that a previous member of staff had agreed all callouts should be in pairs.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 October 2022 that confirmed a risk assessment panel (RAP) meeting had been scheduled on 11 October 2022 to look at unacceptable behaviour and to establish who should be on a visit in pairs list and what behaviour would trigger this.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 October 2022 which said that it had taken on the residential property because other contractors had not been willing to attend in the past. The email also asked why the resident’s previous behaviour had not been mentioned as the reason for visiting in pairs, why the behaviour of the resident had not been addressed, and why a visit in pairs alert had not been set for everyone.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 October 2022 to find out if there had been any notes recorded to confirm why a visit in pairs arrangement had been put in place, how often it was reviewed and why the property hadn’t migrated to its new gas contractor. The landlord replied later the same day to say that the advice had been added to the gas contractor’s contract 3 years previously. The email also said that the resident had praised the contractor, so the arrangement had been kept in place instead of migrating the property to a new gas contractor.
The landlord sent an internal email on 9 October 2022 which said it would attend an asset management meeting on 11 October 2022 and would discuss the visit in pairs arrangement with those in attendance. The landlord said that although the visit in pairs direction may not have been documented, it had justification.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 October 2022 which confirmed that it had discussed the resident’s case at a risk assessment panel meeting it had held that day. The landlord said that the panel had not been aware of any existing or historical management plan for the resident. The only related management action it had been aware of related to a joint visit decision that had been communicated to the resident in response to complaints that the resident had made about the housing officer. The landlord said that if it intended to extend this agreement for 2-person visits to other teams and contractors it would need to be clear on the reasons for it and explain this to the resident.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 October 2022 which confirmed that the resident’s property would be migrated to the new gas contractor when the property ‘management plan’ was clear. The landlord requested information about the management plan and for the details to be recorded on the housing database. The landlord also said that any decision to progress with a visit in pairs service should be shared with the resident in line with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord send an internal email on 12 October 2022 that said that the change of service had been addressed in an email dated 5 December 2018. An extract from the email was copied into the body of the email for reference. The email said that if it changed the services it provided to a resident it needed to be clear why and communicate this to the resident. The landlord said if it did not have reasonable grounds to justify the change of service it could result in an accusation of unfair labelling. The landlord also said that a change of service should be reviewed periodically. The landlord said that moving forward if contractors felt that there was a need to provide a different service they could attend the RAP meetings to discuss the case. This would ensure that cases were checked, and any measures put in place were reasonable.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 October 2022 which said that matters had been going on for years. The landlord said that one previous gas contractor had attended the resident’s property, but the resident had accused them of different things and had refused to allow the contractor to visit again. The landlord had employed a different gas contractor, but the contractor subsequently refused to return to the property again because of abuse. An alternative operative had been subsequently asked to attend but the resident accused him of breaking the washing machine. The operative agreed to return but with an additional staff member just in case the resident made further accusations. The landlord arranged for the contractor to attend but there had been a little trouble and so it had been agreed it would attend in pairs.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 October 2022 that confirmed the visit in pairs arrangement had been agreed by a member of staff that no longer worked with the landlord. The landlord said that the staff member had confirmed that they would communicate the matter to the resident.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to complaint B to the resident on 12 October 2022. The landlord said that the complaint was about why the gas contractor had been instructed to visit in pairs. The landlord explained that an arrangement for a different gas contractor to attend the property had been made in 2018. The contractor had been due to complete a gas service at the property on 7 December 2018, but the resident had made it aware of incidents that had occurred with the previous contractor. The contractor subsequently asked the landlord if it could send 2 engineers as a safeguarding measure. The landlord had agreed the request, and a marker was retained on its systems for future reference. The landlord said that it could not confirm why the resident had not been informed of the decision at the time because the staff member no longer worked for the organisation. The landlord confirmed that it had asked the contractor to remove the warning marker from its records and for visits to be conducted by a single engineer. The landlord also said that it had implemented more robust systems which ensured a more thorough audit trail of decisions. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised to the resident, and explained the process for escalating the complaint to stage 3 of the complaint procedure.
The resident escalated the stage 2 complaint concerning complaint B to stage 3 on 21 October 2022. The resident said that this was because the gas contractor had blocked the resident from their callers list which resulted in the resident being cut off and an incorrect number message being played when subsequent phone contact attempts were made. The resident also said that the landlord had allowed its gas contractor to send 2 engineers at a time and had not communicated its decision to the resident when it was agreed. The resident said that the resident had made a comment about poor workmanship to the previous gas contractor but that this was not a justified reason to send 2 people to the resident’s home thereafter. Furthermore that a marker placed on the resident’s property had never been reviewed. The resident said that the gas contractor had confirmed that the visit in pairs direction had come from the landlord.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to complaint A to the resident on 4 November 2022. The landlord thanked the resident for agreeing to an extension of time for the complaint to be investigated. The landlord confirmed that it had listened to the phone calls and apologised for the way they were handled and for advising that the resident could only call the contact centre in emergencies which was not true. The landlord confirmed that it had spoken to staff members so that the matters did not happen again. The landlord also confirmed that it had held a further conversation with a single staff member about the comments he had made. The landlord said that the staff member did not have any malicious intent. The landlord said that another matter that had been referred to in the resident’s complaint had not been made at the time of the incident and the staff member had since left the organisation so it could not be pursued further. The landlord confirmed that it had updated its housing database so that no pronouns would be used when addressing the resident. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, apologised for the matters, and provided information about how to escalate the complaint.
The landlord sent a stage 3 complaint response to complaint B to the resident on 7 November 2022. The landlord restated advice it had provided in its previous complaint responses and upheld the complaint. The landlord said that it was aware that the resident had been contacting the contractor and had left negative reviews on its website. The landlord referred to its unacceptable behaviour policy and asked the resident to contact the landlord instead of the contractor about repairs. The landlord said that the words and tone the resident had taken when speaking to the contractor were considered to be unacceptable behaviour and that if it continued it would be required to take appropriate steps in line with the policy. The landlord advised the resident that a different gas contractor would undertake future appointments. The landlord said that the letter was its final response and that as there was no further action to take it considered the matter closed and referred the resident to this Service.
The resident sent a stage 3 escalation request on complaint A to the landlord on 30 November 2022. The resident said that a member of staff had lied about 2 different matters, was unprofessional and had a poor attitude. The resident said that despite upholding the complaint the landlord had not addressed all of the incidents where the staff member had caused the resident concern, such as whispering to colleagues during the resident’s phone calls. The resident asked the landlord to confirm what it had done to stop others experiencing the same difficulties. The resident said that the desired outcome was a financial remedy in recognition of the stress and anxiety the matter had caused.
The landlord sent a stage 3 complaint response to complaint A to the resident on 9 December 2022. The landlord repeated comments it had made in its previous complaint responses and concluded that the previous decision to partially uphold the complaint was unchanged following the review. The landlord explained that it had been satisfied that a feedback and coaching process had been put in place following the resident’s complaint. It also confirmed that a member of staff that had been referred to in the complaint as unprofessional and with a poor attitude had left the organisation since it had been investigated. The landlord also said that it completed quality checks on a sample of calls it received each month. The landlord advised the resident that an offer of financial remedy is not something it would pay in line with its compensation policy and procedure, but it apologised for the upsetting experience. The landlord said that its response concluded its investigation and directed the resident to this Service.

Events that took place after completion of the internal complaint procedure.

This Service wrote to the landlord on 12 September 2023 to obtain the date of the stage 3 complaint response to complaint B which had not been included on the letter. The landlord confirmed that the response date was 7 November 2022.
The landlord provided a statement and evidence related to the complaint to this Service on 17 November 2023. The landlord said that it did not offer a goodwill gesture when the complaint had been investigated even though it had upheld the complaint. Furthermore that it was willing to be guided by the determination of this Service and any orders we might wish to make.
The landlord provided a statement and evidence related to the complaint to this Service on 17 November 2023 and said that its records in relation to the case were few and not up to the standard it would expect them to be. The landlord recognised that a lack of records was a failure on its part and apologised that it was unable to provide full a response to this Service that was supported with evidence.
The landlord updated its code of conduct procedure in January 2023 which says staff must not act in a way that discriminates against, or unjustifiably favours, particular individuals, groups, or interests, including on the basis of any protected characteristics they may have.
The landlord implemented a new customer contact procedure in November 2022 which says customer contact staff should treat customers with dignity and respect.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The resident reported 3 incidents related to staff conduct and the way the resident had been spoken to in a stage 1 complaint dated September 2022. The landlord initially investigated the matter and recognised that a new member of staff had handled a phone call inappropriately and that their attitude had been below the level of service expected. The landlord explained that it had provided the member of staff with additional training, and this was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken. However, the landlord’s response failed to address the additional staff conduct matters the resident had referred to in the complaint and this was inappropriate and has been considered below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord completed an executive review of the complaint in which it appropriately explained a series of actions it had put in place in response to the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to have set out the lessons it had learned from the complaint and what it had done to put right the matters in keeping with reasonable dispute resolution principles. However the landlord inappropriately said that it could not provide compensation to the resident in line with its policy despite recognising its own service failures and partially upholding the complaint. This was inappropriate and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to recognise the distress and inconvenience the staff conduct matters had caused to the resident. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s decision to request that the resident was only visited in pairs.

The landlord first made arrangements to visit the resident in pairs in 2018 following allegations that the resident had made about the conduct of the operatives that had attended the resident’s property.
This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm what contact restriction processes the landlord followed prior to implementing contact restrictions in 2018 and thereafter. The landlord approved the visit in pairs decision in 2018 based upon an informal email request that sought to safeguard the contractor from complaints about the conduct of operatives attending the property. The landlord also left visit in pairs markers on its housing databases thereafter without clearly recording the reasons for the decision. This was unreasonable and not in accordance with the provisions of the landlord’s diversity and inclusion policy that residents should be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness, regardless of their background.
It is evident that the landlord did not communicate its decision to operate a visit in pairs arrangement to the resident when it was put in place in 2018. Furthermore the landlord failed to communicate the ongoing nature of the visit in pairs arrangement when the contractor completed all subsequent gas safety visits to the property. The landlord was expected to explain its decision to the resident when it changed the way it provided its gas services so as to provide a fair and transparent service. The landlord’s decision not to update the resident was unreasonable.
The landlord appropriately recognised failings in how it had applied contact restrictions in its email of 12 October 2022 which was sent after the resident had submitted complaints about the matter. The email sets out a requirement for the landlord to have communicated its decision to the resident and for it to have reviewed the decision at regular intervals. The email also explains that if it did not have reasonable grounds to justify a change of service it could result in an accusation of unfair labelling..
The landlord recognised its service failures and upheld the resident’s complaint at both stage 2 and 3 of the complaint procedure. The landlord also appropriately explained what it had done to put matters right such as by implementing robust procedures to ensure that contact restrictions were appropriately assessed, recorded, and reviewed at regular RAP meetings. Furthermore, it confirmed that it had removed the visit in pairs direction it had previously imposed. However, the landlord did not appropriately consider the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused to the resident, or the time and trouble that had been caused to the resident in seeking a resolution. The landlord operated a compensation procedure which gave it provision to issue a compensation payment where a service failure had been recognised. Furthermore the landlord had confirmed that the resolution the resident was seeking was financial compensation. Therefore the landlord’s decision not to offer the resident an award of compensation for the detriment that had been caused inappropriate .
The landlord has explained to this Service that it was not able to provide a full set of evidence related to this complaint. Furthermore that the lack of records was a failure on its part. This Service is reliant upon the contemporaneous records of the landlord to evidence its handling of matters and for us to reach a decision. If there is an absence of information, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is the view if this Service therefore in the lack of any other evidence that its decision to impose a visit in pairs direction without clear explanation and evidence was unreasonable and caused avoidable detriment to the resident.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s decision to request that the resident was only visited in pairs .

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not issue complaint acknowledgements to the resident within 5 working days of receipt in line with the Code.
2. Did not provide information about whether the resident’s stage 1 complaint had been upheld in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 September 2022.
3. Did not act in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Code as it did not respond to all the points about staff conduct raised by the resident in the resident’s complaint.
4. Did not provide information about how to escalate the complaint in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 September 2022.
5. Did not include a date on the stage 3 complaint response of 7 November 2022 which resulted in this Service seeking the information separately.
6. Advised the resident that it would not offer compensation for the experience the resident had received from staff in its stage 3 complaint of 9 December 2022. The landlord inappropriately explained that this decision was in line with its compensation policy and procedure, despite partially upholding the complaint.
7. Did not consider making an offer of compensation for its complaint handling failings in line with its compensation procedure which refers specifically to poor complaint handling as a reason for providing a financial award.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing the resident of the lessons it had learnt from the complaints. However, the landlord did not offer an award of compensation payment for the distress and inconvenience that had been caused to the resident in the handling of visits to the property. Furthermore it did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaints when reviewing the services it had provided to the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact its service provision had on the resident which caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
The landlord referred to its decision not to offer an award of compensation when it provided evidence to this Service related to this investigation. The landlord said it recognised the omission and agreed to be advised by this Service. Whilst it is in keeping with appropriate dispute resolution principles to review its complaint handling, on this occasion this was completed after a final response had been issued which was after a reasonable award of compensation could have been provided. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.

The landlord’s handling of knowledge and information

The landlord provided a statement related to the complaint to this Service on 17 November 2023 in which it acknowledged that its records were few and not up to the standard it would expect them to be. The landlord recognised that a lack of records was a failure on its part and apologised that it was unable to provide full a response to this Service that was supported with evidence.
Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord confirmed that since responding to the resident’s complaint it has reviewed this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and has carried out a self-assessment. The landlord also confirmed that it has taken steps to meet the standards expected of it including implementing a new customer contact procedure. Whilst the landlord has demonstrated that it has learnt lessons from the complaint, it only did so once this Service had accepted the complaint for investigation.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to request that the resident is visited in pairs only.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of knowledge and information.

Reasons

The landlord recognised a service failure in the attitude of its staff and the information it had provided about access to housing services under emergency circumstances only. The landlord implemented staff training and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. However the landlord inappropriately said it could not make a compensation award in line with its policy and therefore did not provide an appropriate remedy for the detriment the matter had caused.
The landlord did not follow a reasonable process when deciding to operate a visit in pairs direction. It is recognised that the resident had made complaints about the conduct and workmanship of the contractor, but it is not clear on what basis this justified putting a lasting contact restriction in place.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to investigate its own complaint handling and therefore consider whether compensation was appropriate.
The landlord was expected to retain and supply accurate records of events so as to evidence the actions and decisions it has undertaken in the provision of its housing services. The landlord confirmed that it had not been able to provide this Service with accurate records and/or evidence in response to this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its decision to apply a visit in pairs direction, staff conduct and for its complaint handling and knowledge and information management failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience associated with staff conduct and communication with the resident.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s decision to operate a visit in pairs direction.
3. £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of the approach it had taken towards the resident. As part of the case review the landlord should consider the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights: A relationship of equals into the provision of its housing services. The landlord should provide an update to this Service following completion of the review within 4 weeks of the date of this Report.