Homes Plus Limited (202210312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210312

The Housing Plus Group Limited

7 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom and the adequacy of radiators within the property.
2. Response to the resident’srequest for a disabled parking bay.
3. Complaint handling.
The report also examines the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s household vulnerabilities.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a three-bedroom house. The tenancy began on 2 May 2011.
The resident has told this Service that she had now given notice to terminate her tenancy and it would end on 28 May 2023.

Bathroom ventilation and adequacy of radiators.

On 15 December 2021, the resident called the landlord. In summary she said:
1. The radiator in her bathroom was rusted to the extent it was sharp.
2. The radiators downstairs were inadequate to heat the property.
3. She had an 18-month-old baby with medical difficulties and the nurse had advised her that some of his health issues were due to the cold.
4. There was no window, vent or extractor fan in her bathroom and the condensation was causing problems.
In response, the landlord asked the resident to provide photographs. The resident responded on the same day with photographs of the bathroom, the rusted radiator and the hallway and kitchen area. She added:
1. There was no window in the bathroom; and she had been told that the fans were not extractors as they did not turn on or do anything when the light was used.
2. The radiator in the bathroom had rusted owing to lack of ventilation. She added her daughter had already scraped her foot on it because the rust had made it sharp.
3. There was one radiator in the hallway and kitchen area, and it was “very small.” The radiator was only 20 inches long and the house downstairs was “freezing”. She stated this could cause her son a lot of pain due to his severe medical condition that affected his joints. She had tried to make the house warmer by purchasing thermal curtains, but this had not made any difference.
The landlord responded on the same day and viewed the photographs that the resident had provided. It said that the extractor fan was adequate; and the rust on the radiator was due to drying clothes or the age of the radiator. It suggested that the resident would need to rub this down and repaint with specialist paint which could be purchased from a DIY store. It added that an energy performance certificate (EPC) had been completed and this indicated that there was sufficient heat source within the property.
The resident responded on the same day and said that the landlord should check its records as an EPC had not been completed since the property was built in 2011. She added that if it was an extractor fan in the photograph, it had never worked and needed to be repaired; and she had never dried clothes on the radiator. She asked if it could send an inspector to her property to assess the issues.
The landlord responded and explained that it would refer the matter to a senior manager.
On 22 February 2022, the resident called for an update as she had not heard anything for two months. She stated the house was “constantly freezing.”
On 7 March 2022, the resident again contacted the landlord and advised that her baby was due an operation on 14 April 2022 and the cold could prevent him from being allowed to return home. She had been advised that the matter had been passed to senior management and that an inspection was required.
On 11 April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. She had reported poor ventilation in her bathroom in October 2021. She had no window and no extractor fan which had caused mould. She had provided photographs. She did not receive any reply so she chased it again in December 2021 and was advised it would be passed to a senior manager.
2. She chased it again in January 2022 asking who the senior manager was; and on two further occasions in February and March 2022. She still had not had a reply and had chased several times since then.
3. Her heating was inadequate as she had just one 18-inch radiator to heat a large hall and kitchen, and one medium size radiator to heat a double room and lounge diner.
4. Her son was due for an operation to have his leg amputated and his physiotherapist had advised her that his health was being impeded by the cold conditions in her property.
On 22 April 2022, an inspector attended the property. The inspector stated that the walls were very wet to touch and fittings including the radiator were suffering as a consequence of the excess moisture. The extractor fan unit was switched off but when switched on there was nothing to suggest it was working. He was doubtful that the unit itself was suitable enough to remove the excess moisture from the bathroom and suggested its specialist contractor complete a survey.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It said:
1. In order to investigate the ventilation in the bathroom an inspection was conducted on 22 April 2022. During the appointment it identified that the vent in the ceiling of the bathroom was connected to a ventilation system, but it was switched off. This was potentially why the bathroom was holding moisture and damp.
2. As the unit was switched off it was difficult to establish if it would resolve the ventilation issue. To investigate further it had asked for a survey to be completed by a specialist. Its specialist contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange the survey and any remedial works.
On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord. She said:
1. The stage one response had failed to address the part of her complaint relating to the lack of adequate radiators or heating in the property. She had been advised that a heat dissipation test needed to be completed. She had been told a request had been sent and had been chased but was still waiting to hear.
2. Alongside the need for an extractor fan to be added to the bathroom, the damage caused by the lack of correct ventilation needed to be addressed. The radiator needed to be replaced as it was split and rusted.
On 20 May 2022, the resident called and asked for her complaint to be escalated. On 25 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It provided timescales for its response and asked if it could discuss the complaint over the phone in the first instance. The landlord then contacted the resident by telephone, but it is unknown what was discussed.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response. It said:
1. During its recent conversation with the resident, she had mentioned that she was expecting a heat space calculation. This did not form part of her stage one complaint so it would not be investigating this but would discuss it with its gas team as a separate issue and provide an update by 1 July 2022.
2. It had given her contact details to its contractor on 10 May 2022 for it to contact her directly. This was with the aim of carrying out a survey and compiling a report for a new ventilation system to be fitted. It had chased for an update and was waiting for a response. It would provide the resident with an update on 1 July 2022.
3. It was sorry that she had experienced lengthy delays and a lack of service with regard to communication. It would monitor the matter to conclusion and the complaint would not be closed until the issues had been resolved.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord’s specialist contractor completed a ventilation survey. The report identified mould in all the upstairs bedrooms, bathroom, hallway, and landing. The survey recommended that a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery and humidity tracking controls was installed.
On 26 June 2022, the resident responded. She said:
1. She had already had a heat calculation survey and had been advised that larger radiators were required. The landlord’s contractor had informed her that it could not complete the work until the landlord made the order.
2. The heat calculation was part of her stage one complaint and she had asked for all four elements of her stage one complaint to be escalated to stage two as none of them had been resolved.
3. The check had been completed on the ventilation system and the current unit was not doing anything. She had been advised that it had never worked as it was not installed correctly. She had been advised to turn it off.
4. To avoid any misunderstanding, she confirmed the elements of her complaint were:
  1. Her bathroom did not meet building regulations and required an extractor fan and the household air system replaced.
  2. Her heating downstairs was not adequate and caused her child a lot of pain due to the cold.
Call records showed that on 19 July 2022 the resident called in about the outstanding repairs and the radiators. She requested a call back.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. In summary it said:
1. It apologised for not getting back to her sooner.
2. It had time to speak with her on the telephone that afternoon.
3. In respect of the heat loss calculation, it had instructed its contractor to upgrade the kitchen radiator from a single to a double. The calculation had confirmed that the living room radiator was already sized correctly and would not be changed.
4. It had asked its contractor who had been allocated the ventilation works to prioritise the job and was waiting to hear back.
On the same day, the resident responded to dispute the heat loss calculation. She stated that there was no radiator in her kitchen and that she had seen the report which stated that the hallway and living room radiators were not adequate. She said the heat loss calculation showed that the radiator in the living room needed to be double in size, or that a second radiator needed to be installed. The radiator in the hallway needed to be bigger and changed to a double radiator.
The landlord called the resident on the same day to apologise for the misunderstanding. It said that by “kitchen radiator” it meant the radiator in the hallway that heated the hall and the kitchen. The lounge radiator was adequate, but it would provide more information once available.
On 13 August 2022, the resident contacted this Service for assistance, and we asked for confirmation that she had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident called the landlord on 10 and 15 August 2022 to chase up a response to her “on-going complaint”. It is unclear whether the landlord called the resident back.
On 16 August 2022, a positive input installation (PIV) was installed as a replacement system to the extractor fan. The installation report stated that no air could be achieved in the kitchen due to defective duct work. It stated that the boxing in would need to be removed before it could fully complete the remaining works required in the kitchen.
On 30 August 2022, the resident asked for her complaint be escalated to stage three as she was not receiving any response.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord sent a stage two follow up letter to the resident. In summary it said:
1. It had reviewed the heat loss calculation and could confirm that this did state the lounge radiator was big enough, but the hall radiator was slightly undersized. It agreed to upgrade the hall radiator to one which would exceed what was required and the resident would be contacted by its contractor to arrange installation.
2. In respect of the ventilation its contractor would be attending to install the unit, negating the need for an extractor fan. It was waiting for an update from its contractor in respect of the installation.
3. It was again sorry that the resident had experienced lengthy delays and a lack of service regarding communication. It was looking into better systems to improve communication.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. The resident advised that in order to put things right, she wished for the landlord to install adequate ventilation in the bathroom and carry out mould treatment.
In correspondence to this Service in November 2022, the landlord advised that works to complete the installation of the kitchen ventilation had been raised but had been postponed at the resident’s request. The landlord explained that the resident asked to defer the repairs until the New Year as she was concerned about the disruption that would be caused to her household, especially with her son’s medical issues. It had therefore postponed the works and would be contacting the resident in January 2023 to ensure that they were rebooked.
The landlord has since advised this Service that the outstanding works in the kitchen were completed on 28 February 2023.
This Service contacted the landlord on 14 April 2023 to establish when the hallway radiator had been replaced. The landlord advised that the repair had been delayed as it was waiting for the radiator to come into stock. The repair was booked to be completed week ending 21 April 2023.
This Service has since spoken to the resident who advised that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 28 April 2023 and replaced the hallway radiator.

Request for a disabled bay

On 16 February 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested a call back regarding parking issues. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
On 14 June 2021, the resident called the landlord and advised that she would be sending in a medical letter about her son’s medical conditions which would confirm why she needed a disabled bay.
On 24 June 2021, the resident sent the landlord a medical letter from her health visitor. The letter was dated 27 May 2021 and within this, the health visitor:
1. Asked if the landlord could allocate a disabled bay to the resident directly outside of her property.
2. Explained that the bay was required because theresident’s son had a lifelong mobility problem due to a diagnosis of “bilateral fibular hemimelia.” The diagnosis meant that in the future he would need a wheelchair and could also require a prosthesis. More room would therefore be required for the resident and her son to get in and out of the vehicle.
The landlord responded on the same day to acknowledge receipt and stated it had sent the information to its neighbourhood team.
On 7 March 2022, the resident called the landlord enquiring about the decision regarding the disabled bay. She advised that the matter had been raised in June 2021, but she had not heard anything since. She requested a call back.
On 11 April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said her request for a disabled parking bay had not been sorted and had been going on since the previous year. She had had three different neighbourhood officers since she had applied for the disabled parking bay.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It said:
1. It understood that there had been a delay in providing a response to the resident’s request for a disabled bay marking on an allocated parking spot. It had spoken to its neighbourhood team, and it confirmed that it would contact the resident directly by Friday 6 May 2022 to provide an update. It apologised for the delay.
2. It apologised for its lack of communication and confirmed it had reminded colleagues of the need to ensure prompt and effective communication with customers on all matters.
On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord. She wanted to know what level of update she would receive from the neighbourhood officer. She said that if it was going to be that “it understood that parking was an issue and was looking at it,” which she had been told for the past two years, then she did not feel that this was an adequate solution.
On 20 May 2022, the resident called and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She advised that the neighbourhood team had visited the street the previous week to assess the parking. The neighbourhood team told her that it needed to complete a consultation with the neighbours to establish if there were any objections to the re-allocation of parking bays. She said that she was unhappy about the time it had taken to get to this point.
On 25 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It provided timescales for its response and asked if it could discuss the complaint over the phone in the first instance.
On 26 May 2022, the resident:
1. Confirmed when she would be available to discuss matters on the phone.
2. Explained that the issues with the car park had been going on for two years. During this time, she had had three different neighbourhood officers and multiple consultations had been promised but never actioned. Over a year ago the correct letters were received, and she was assured a consultation would be completed and would only take a few weeks, and the work would then be ordered. However, she was still waiting.
3. Said she made the complaint after trying for over a month to contact the neighbourhood officers. She was told she would be called to arrange an assessment, but she did not receive any calls. She was still waiting for correspondence about the consultation.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response. It said:
1. It was apparent that it had failed to communicate effectively. It apologised that it had failed to follow its procedures and return her calls. It advised that this issue was being dealt with by its internal procedures and would be addressed with individual officers.
2. It would complete the consultation process by 28 July 2022. It would be a seven-day consultation period and neighbours would have rights to make objections. Following this it would then mark out an additional disabled bay. It could not allocate a bay directly to the resident but hoped that the additional bay would assist her.
3. It would be closely monitoring this process to conclusion and would provide weekly updates starting from 1 July 2022. It apologised again for the delays.
4. It was sorry that she had experienced lengthy delays and a lack of service with regard to communication. It would monitor the matter to conclusion and the complaint would not be closed until the issues had been resolved.
On 24 June 2022, the landlord sent a letter to all residents to consult on parking allocation proposals. A copy of this letter has not been provided to this Service.
On 26 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. In summary she said:
1. The letter dated 24 June 2022 was badly written and had caused more upset and confusion resulting in the majority wanting to oppose.
2. The letter did not enclose a pre-paid envelope.
3. The attached plan did not show the proposals and as a result people believed that their space could be anywhere in the car park and that they would not be able to park outside their house.
4. The letter stated that the disabled bay could be directly allocated to a resident, but she had been advised previously and in the landlord’s complaint response that it was unable to allocate the disabled bay to a specific resident.
5. She was advised that the consultation was for one week, but the letter stated it was for two weeks, so the consultation would not end until 9 July 2022.
6. The residents of part ownership properties owned their spaces and had queried how the landlord could change this.
7. To avoid any misunderstanding, she confirmed the elements of her complaint were:
  1. Lack of communication as a housing officer never contacted her back.
  2. Lack of action regarding putting the disabled bay in place.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the mistakes in the consultation letter. It said that it would deliver new consultation letters the next day starting a two-week consultation period. It had already instructed its contractor to proceed once the consultation period had ended unless it received something that would warrant a review of its proposals. It said that it was confident this would all go through.
On 21 July 2022, another parking consultation letter was sent to all residents. It said:
1. That the previous consultation letter dated 24 June 2022 should be ignored. It apologised for any inconvenience or confusion that this letter may have caused.
2. Historically there had been issues with the allocation of parking bays. Residents had reported that numbers had been swapped or removed leaving residents without allocated bays or a bay which was not in the position it was originally allocated.
3. To ensure residents had an allocated bay within close proximity of their home it was consulting with residents regarding the re-allocation of a number of parking bays.
4. It attached a plan outlining the proposals. It stated that this showed corresponding property and bay numbers to show the location of each proposed parking bay. It confirmed that not all parking bays would be changed.
5. It was proposing that visitor bays be grouped together in the car park at either end of the street. The changes would also accommodate the need for an allocated disabled bay.
6. It asked for responses to this consultation to be returned by 4 August 2022.
On 22 July 2022 the resident called the landlord, she said:
1. She was receiving abuse from neighbours suggesting that she was getting special treatment because her son was disabled.
2. The plan enclosed with the consultation letter stated the disabled bay had been allocated to her when she had been previously told it could not be allocated to anyone.
3. She tried to speak to the neighbourhood officer when she was delivering the letters, but the officer declined to do so.
4. She asked for compensation as the matter had been ongoing for some time and for the stress and hassle the consultation had caused. The resident also believed there had been a data breach as the landlord had put her house number against the disabled bay in the plans sent to all neighbours.
The landlord called the resident on the same day and then emailed her on 26 July 2022 to advise that it was looking into the parking plan issue and compensation. The officer was currently on leave and would contact the resident on their return on 3 August 2022.
On 4 and 15 August 2022 the resident and landlord tried to discuss this matter over the phone but were unsuccessful. On 30 August 2022, the resident asked for her complaint be escalated to stage three as she was not receiving any response.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord called the resident back. During this conversation, the resident said she had received a stage two response, which she remained unhappy with, but no one was responding to her emails or returning her phone calls.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord sent a stage two follow up letter to the resident. In summary it said:
1. After discussions with its development and legal team it would unfortunately not be creating a disabled parking bay. This was on the basis that the majority from the consultation opposed the new disabled bay being marked out.
2. There were already five disabled parking bays available. The resident had raised concerns over the sizing and positioning of the current spaces. These had been installed by the developers, and no specific requirements were in place at the time. If the resident had any additional information or occupational therapist report, then it would consider new information.
3. It apologised for the mistakes that had been made and reiterated the apologies made in its stage two complaint response. It incorrectly placed her door number on the plans for the disabled bay. It was there as a reminder but should not have been sent out on the plans to the other neighbours.
4. As it was a number placed on a plan with no specific details a breach of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) had not occurred. This was because it was purely the number of the property meaning if the resident moved out that space would be associated with that number not the resident specifically.
5. It apologised for its mistake and oversight and offered £100 compensation for the error.
6. It asked the resident to report any alleged discrimination and antisocial behaviour from her neighbours to her neighbourhood officer so that it could investigate.
Correspondence to this Service from the landlord on 16 January 2023 stated that the resident had access to two disabled bays and it had asked the resident for an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment. It also stated it was assisting the resident to move to a four-bedroom property, but this may take considerable time.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the resident’s occupancy agreement, but not the tenancy terms and conditions. As such, we have not had sight of what the tenancy agreement states in relation to the rights and obligations of both parties. Nevertheless, as per section 11 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to maintain the exterior and structure of the property. The landlord is also responsible for maintaining and repairing the installations for the provision of water, heating, drainage, gas, and electricity.
The landlord’s repair policy states:
1. Its aim is to allocate all requests for repairs based on the information provided by the resident and their answers to any clarification questions it asks and not to have to carry out further inspection. It acknowledged that this may not always be possible, for example where the scope of the work is unknown or if diagnosis has not been possible based on the information provided by the customer.
2. When an inspection is required, an appointment will be offered to investigate further. Inspection appointments will be offered within ten working days of the repair request. Orders or instructions for work will not be raised until the inspection has taken place and resulting repairs will be raised in the appropriate timescales. The landlord will endeavour to facilitate response repairs without the need for an inspector visit.
3. Prioritisation of repairs will be made based solely on the nature of the repair, although at the discretion of staff these may be amended, based on the individual circumstances. Residents will be advised of the priority and timescales when the repair is requested.
4. The policy states it will respond to faulty mechanical extractor fans in an internal kitchen or bathroom within seven days.
5. If the repair is classified as a major repair, it will be completed within 60 days after completion of an inspection. Exceptional circumstances may warrant some major repairs requiring 90 days.
6. A major repair is defined as a repair that requires significant extra work that cannot be completed under the parameters of a standard responsive repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that the purpose of the policy is to ensure that it is fair and consistent in how complaints are investigated and that it responds in a structured and comprehensive way. It aims to have a customer friendly process that enables residents to be heard and understood.
1. Stage one will be acknowledged in writing within 2 working days and full response within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 will be acknowledged in writing within 2 working days and full response within 20 working days.
3. Remedies it can offer include providing financial remedy and it will consider a claim for discretionary compensation where it has failed to meet publish standards and/or has been clearly negligent and this negligence has resulted in the loss or damage for which the claim is made.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom

The resident stated that she first reported her concerns about a lack of ventilation and the adequacy of the radiators in October 2021. However, the evidence provided shows the first report being received by the landlord on 15 December 2021. This Service will therefore treat this date as the first report.
The landlord did not complete an inspection to ascertain what repairs were required in respect of the lack of ventilation until 22 April 2022, four months after the resident reported her concerns. Its policy states that an appointment to investigate would be offered within 10 days of a resident’s report. The time taken to complete the inspection was unreasonable. It was 78 working days outside of its own policy’s timescales and was a failing in its handling of the reporting of the repairs.
In addition, the evidence that is available does not demonstrate that the landlord kept the resident informed of what action it would be taking, and the likely timescales. This was a further departure from the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident had contacted the landlord by telephone and email on several occasions to query what action it would be taking. In addition, the resident had also expressed concern about the impact that the outstanding repairs, and conditions within the property, were having on her and her family – with reference to their vulnerabilities.
It was not appropriate that the resident had to then complain in order for the landlord to take action, and this caused her additional time and trouble. These failings, and the impact of the failings, were not identified or acknowledged by the landlord when it investigated the complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, but also a missed opportunity to try to put things right.
Once the inspection had taken place, the resident then had to wait a further two months for the ventilation survey to be completed. Then another two months after that for the installation of the new ventilation system despite mould being highlighted in the specialist survey as a result of the excess moisture.
The landlord did not advise in either the stage two correspondence or in communication with this Service why there was a delay in the survey being undertaken. In addition, it is unclear why there was a further delay between the survey being completed and the new ventilation system being installed. While this Service acknowledges that this was not a responsive repair, the time taken from the resident’s initial report to the unit being installed was not reasonable.
The landlord stated in its stage two response that it would update the resident on 1 July2022, but no records have been provided to this Service to show that it did.Correspondence provided shows that the resident then had to continue to chase up the works. The landlord reassured the resident withinits complaint response that it would closely monitor the works and update her. Part 6.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Codestates that a landlord’s remedy offer must set out what will happen, and any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. That the landlord did not act in line with the Code and follow through on its assurancewas unreasonable. This compounded earlier failings and did not foster an improved tenant landlord relationship.
The final works for the ventilation in the kitchen were then completed in February 2023. As detailed above, the works were postponed at the resident’s request as she was concerned about the upheaval that would be caused, given her son’s medical condition. However, it took approximately 14 months in total, and this was a long time in the circumstances, particularly as the resident had made the landlord aware of how the lack of ventilation was impacting her son’s medical conditions.
While the landlord had taken action to improve the ventilation within the property, the evidence does not demonstrate what action it had taken in relation to the radiator within the bathroom that had rusted, or that it considered whether the mould in the property, as highlighted in the report of June 2022, required treatment. This was a failing in the circumstances, and of concern given that there was a vulnerable child in the resident’s household.
The landlord initially advised the resident to rub down the radiator and apply paint herself based on the photograph that the resident had provided, considering that the rust was due to either drying clothes or the age of the radiator. This response was unreasonable as these appear to have been theories not based on evidence, and an inspection was clearly required to confirm the cause, particularly as the resident had said that there was no ventilation in the bathroom.
The landlord’s inspection then later confirmed that the moisture in the property, due to the lack of ventilation, was affecting the fittings including the bathroom radiator. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have repaired or replaced the radiator, as required, as part of the repair works. This is because the issue had been identified as damage caused by the lack of ventilation. The resident advised this Service that the bathroom radiator was not replaced and she had not been advised that it would be. This further failing has been considered in the compensation and order below.

Adequacy of the radiators

The resident reported her concerns about the adequacy of the radiators within the property on 15 December 2021. However, the landlord did not complete the heat calculation survey until six months later. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the survey was carried out sooner. In addition, it would have been reasonable to explain why the survey was delayed when it responded to the resident’s complaint, and to take steps to try to put things right. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing, and a missed opportunity to put things right.
The evidence provided to this Service does not show that the recommended works from the heat dissipation test were completed. As such, we queried this with the landlord in April 2023. In response, it advised that there had been a delay in waiting for the radiator to come into stock and that the radiator installation would be completed by week ending 21 April 2023.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord attended to upgrade the radiator in the hallway on 26 April 2023. The time taken to resolve the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the radiators took over 16 months, which is outside of its own timescales and was unreasonable. The resident had informed the landlord in December 2021 that it was impacting her child’s medical condition, but this was not acknowledged by the landlord, and another winter passed before the situation was resolved.
The evidence does not suggest that the replacement of the radiator was a complex matter. In addition, no evidence has been provided to this Service which suggests that the delays were unavoidable. In the circumstances, it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the inconvenience caused by the delay, and to put things right. This has been addressed in the orders made below.
Overall, the cumulative failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom and the adequacy of radiators within the property amount to severe maladministration.

The resident’s request for a disabled bay

The resident has expressed concern about the parking arrangements at the development, and that she required a disabled bay as a result of her son’s health conditions. The landlord does not have an applicable parking policy in place. As such, this Service has considered whether its response to the resident’s request, and handling of the matter was reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The landlord has advised that the parking bays were originally allocated to properties as part of the development of the site when it was originally built. Before making any changes to the allocated parking bays, the landlord decided to consult with all residents. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, evidence provided to this Service showed that the parking consultation did not begin until sixteen months after the resident’s original request. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show why this was delayed.
The evidence shows that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord and it only began the consultation process once the resident had raised a formal complaint. This was inappropriate. In addition, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities despite being provided with medical evidence. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord failed to explain or address the delays within its complaint responses. In the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider compensation in accordance with its own policy. Its policy states that compensation can be considered for inconvenience and distress caused due to an unacceptable delay. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling and has been considered in the orders and compensation below.
Within the complaint responses, the landlord then made an assurance that it would contact the resident by a certain date. No evidence has been provided to this Service to show that it did. It was inappropriate the landlord raised the resident’s expectations but did not follow its assurance through.
The landlord stated in its stage two response that the consultation would be for a seven-day period. It also stated that the bay could not be allocated to the resident. The first parking consultation commenced a few days after the stage two complaint was issued. However, the information provided within the consultation stated the changes would accommodate the need for an allocated disabled bay and it was a 14-day consultation. These errors caused further confusion and upset for the resident, as well as inconvenience due to delay because the consultation had to then be repeated. This was in addition to the already lengthy delay which had been experienced waiting for the consultation to begin. There was a missed opportunity by the landlord here to put matters right at an earlier stage.
The landlord then appropriately withdrew this consultation but consequently made an error in its second consultation. The resident reported that the error in the second consultation was a data breach and had caused further hostility from other residents. She added that the hostility was being directed towards her and her family as neighbours believed that she was receiving preferential treatment.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to investigate whether a data breach has occurred, and the Ombudsman has not sought to make a finding in this matter. However, the landlord appropriately apologised and explained why the error occurred. It also offered £100 compensation for placing her door number on the plans. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer some compensation, it is not known how the landlord reached its figure.
Within the second stage two response the landlord informed the resident ofthe outcome of the parking consultation. While it informed the resident that neighbours had opposed the recommendations it failed to consider how its own errors may have impacted the consultation and the neighbours’ responses. It also failed to considerwhy the resident required the positioning of the disabled bay. It stated that no requirements were raised when the development was originally built, but this was irrelevant to the circumstances.
In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a disabled bay. The delays in its service were unexplained and unreasonable. It made multiple errors in the action it did take, and failed to give appropriate consideration to the resident’s circumstances in its decision making. The landlord did not reasonably address its failings in its complaint responses and do what it said it would, and confused matters further by giving the resident incorrect information.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. While the landlord’s complaint responses were issued in line with the timescales set out in its policy, it failed to respond to all elements of the complaint, and this was inappropriate.
The adequacy of the radiators was raised by the resident at stage one, but the landlord failed to address this element in its response. The correspondence provided to this Service shows that the resident queried why this was not investigated at stage one prior to her escalation request. The landlord then declined to investigate it in its stage two on the basis that it was not part of the original complaint. This was inappropriate and indicates that the landlord had not considered all the correspondence and the resident’s original complaint as part of its investigation.
The landlord stated in its stage one response that it had raised the ventilation survey to investigate further. It incorrectly stated that the issue may have been resolved as the ventilation was switched on. Its stage two response also stated that it hoped the resident had seen an improvement since the original system had been switched on. This contradicts the records provided to this Service which state the original ventilation system did not work when switched on and was inadequate. This response was therefore not in line with its own records and would have caused further confusion and frustration for the resident.
TheCode encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which underpin the Code, include that a landlord should learn from outcomes of complaints. The landlord did appropriatelyuphold the resident’scomplaints,but it did not explain what had gone wrong and how it could improve.
The landlord did not demonstrate in its complaint responses that it had considered the vulnerabilities of the household and how these should have prioritised its responses. It focused solely on what it would do at the time, which meant that it did not provide clear reasons or fully answer the complaint and identify where it had failed. By not fully recognising what had gone wrong, it failed to take appropriate action to put things right.
Part 5.5 of the Code states that outstanding actions required to address the issue must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
The landlord made commitments in its stage one response about how it would monitor the outstanding actions such as it would contact the resident on 6 May 2022 to provide an update. There is no evidence to support that it did and that it tracked the issues to ensure completion. It also did the same in its stage two response by stating it would provide an update by 1 July 2022 but again no evidence has been provided to this Service to show that it did. The evidence provided to this Service showed that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord to ascertain what if any action it was taking. This was the cause of further time, effort, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It failed to investigate and address all elements of the complaint. While it did acknowledge that its level of service was inadequate it failed to consider any remedy of compensation in its stage one and two responses. It also failed to track the complaint issues, as it said it would, to ensure that they were resolved.

Resident’s household vulnerabilities.

The resident drew the landlord’s attention to her son’s vulnerabilities on at least four occasions from June 2021. This included:
1. Providing a medical letter from her health visitor confirming her son’s diagnosis and lifelong disability in support of the stated need for safe and direct parking to enable her to access her property.
2. Explaining that her son’s medical condition affected his joints and that this was being further impacted by cold conditions within the property.
3. Explaining that her son was due to have an operation to have his leg amputated in April 2022. She added that his physiotherapist had also advised that the cold temperature within the property could prevent him from being allowed home.
It is concerning that the evidence does not demonstrate how the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances, and her son’s vulnerability. It had been told about the impact of the cold within the property, but this did not lead it to consider whether the radiator replacement needed to be expedited or if alternative arrangements, such as providing a temporary heater, should be made in the interim.
In respect of the parking situation, evidence provided does not show that the landlord had fully taken the resident’s concerns into consideration. The resident’s request was not solely about having a disabled bay but accessing the bay.
Ignoring the resident’s disclosure of her child’s vulnerability was unsympathetic and insensitive to the resident’s situation. The landlord’s lack of consideration of the resident’s household vulnerability constitutes severe maladministration.
The resident has now advised this Service that she is moving out of the property so compensation is now more appropriate than ordering other actions to put things right. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s own Guidance on Remedies. While the guidance is not prescriptive, it includes the following suggested ranges of compensation:
1. Awards of £50 to £100 – for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, but where this was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
2. Awards of £100 to £600 – where the Ombudsman has found maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.
3. Awards of £600 to £1000 – for instances of maladministration/severe maladministration that have had a significant impact (physical and/or emotional) on the resident.
4. Awards of £1000 and over – for severe maladministration which has a severe long-term impact. There was a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom and the adequacy of radiators within the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a disabled parking bay.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s household vulnerabilities.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs as the landlord failed to attend in good time, and there was a sustained failure to manage and follow up the repairs, despite being aware of the impact it was having on the resident’s child. This resulted in a great deal of time, trouble, and stress for the resident in pursuing the matter and further distress over the impact the matter was having on the child’s health.
The landlord failed to progress the application for a disabled bay within a reasonable time frame and then made many errors in its consultation process. It also failed to consider the resident’s circumstances in its decision making.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint. It did not do what it said it would and failed to ensure that the outstanding matters were monitored through to completion. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or consider the resident’s household vulnerabilities despite the resident drawing its attention to the impact that the issues were having on those vulnerabilities.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3,300, comprised of:
  1. £100 which was offered on 2 September 2022 if not already paid.
  2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the effectiveness of the ventilation.
  3. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the adequacy of the radiators.
  4. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the request for a disabled bay.
  5. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s household vulnerabilities.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its current processes for recording repairs to ensure that appointments, progress, communication with the resident and completion of repairs are captured accurately in its records and can be accessed by relevant repairs and complaint handling staff. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.
2. Carry out refresher training with its complaint handling staff to ensure that complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website) The training should include:
  1. The setting out of the complaint definition and the outcome the resident is seeking.
  2. The need to seek clarification with the resident if any aspect of the complaint is unclear and the full definition agreed.
  3. Assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues.
  4. What outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether any urgent actions are required.
  5. Addressing all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
3. Carry out a review of any existing procedures and its approach in relation to considering and addressing residents’ vulnerabilities. In doing so, the landlord should consider how it will use information about a resident’s vulnerability to provide additional support that may be required. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.