Hyde Housing Association Limited (202210688)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210688

Hyde Housing Association Limited

17 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of a fencing repair and the maintenance of the external decoration of the building.
2. The landlord’s response to a request to relocate a gas meter within the property.
3. Communication from the landlord regarding a breach of tenancy.
This report has also considered the handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. These issues are not matters that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. Several recommendations have been made below for the landlord to confirm its position in relation to these matters. If the resident remains dissatisfied, he may wish to raise a separate complaint to have these matters resolved.
The resident has stated the issue relating to the breach in tenancy has caused distress and depression. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant since May 1978. He lives in a one bedroom, first floor flat. The building occupies two other residents.

Summary of events

On 28 April 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The complaint included the following issues:
1. He had received a letter from a contractor regarding a cyclical decoration survey. The resident had phoned the contractor and cancelled the survey as it “was a waste of time” and he did not wish to take part. This was due to the landlord not acting on the issues he had raised previously, and it not upgrading his bathroom with a shower.
2. After he cancelled the survey, he received an email from the landlord telling him if he refused access, this would be a breach of his tenancy. He explained to the landlord this had caused him a great deal of stress and upset. Evidence shows the landlord accepted the complaint and was aware of how this issue had affected him.
3. He had been told by his utility company that the gas meter was at the end of its safety life and needed replacing. He asked for the gas meter to be relocated as it was boxed in under a cupboard making access difficult. He also wanted it relocating to allow the installation of a smart meter.
4. He stated the landlord completes Fire Risk Assessments but then no further action is taken, or communication provided.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord responded to the resident.
On 23 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord again. He stated:
1. The fence at the front of the building was falling into disrepair. He had told the landlord about this previously and although it initially refused in 2020, it did repair the fence.
2. A contractor “botched up” the fence in October 2020. It used rotten pieces of wood to repair it, so it was still rotting. He believed it should have been replaced with an iron fence, but the contractor would only replace what it thought needed doing.
3. He said he had reported a list of things that needed to be addressed but nothing was ever done, and he never got a response. This was the reason he cancelled the survey regarding the condition of the property.
4. He had been threatened with a breach of his tenancy agreement with the implication he could lose his home. This had caused him health issues. As a result, he wanted financial compensation.
On 28 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the issue with the fence. It confirmed it had sent the matter to the complaint team who advised that the issue had been resolved previously and compensation offered. It asked the resident if this was the case. The resident said he did not remember being compensated but may be wrong. He stated the landlord should know this. He said he was never happy with the fence repair and reiterated his comments regarding the standard of work by the contractor. The landlord responded and said it would ask the repair team if the fence was something it could pick up. Photographs of the fence were passed on. The resident confirmed he had received compensation in August 2020 which could have been in connection with the fence. He asked the landlord to check as he had received compensation from the landlord several times.
The landlord’s internal records show the photographs of the fence were sent to a superior on 28 June 2022. It was confirmed the fence looked fine, and no repairs were to be raised. It was a dividing fence which it could make safe, but that did not seem necessary, therefore it would not repair it.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord asked for a call to be made to the resident so his issues could be discussed. It stated the main issue seemed to be related to the breach of tenancy, but there were communal repairs that needed discussing.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident. After the call, it sent an internal email summarising the complaint as follows:
1. The fence repairs completed in 2020 were, in the words of the resident, “botched” and he received compensation as a result. It needed repairing again.
2. The resident had said no external decoration had been completed in over 12 years, but no specific issues were highlighted. He was told the Asset Team had a cyclical work programme and residents would be contacted when work was due.
3. The utility company had said the gas meter needed replacing as it was at the end of its safety life, but access was difficult. The landlord offered to dismantle the kitchen unit to allow the replacement, but the resident turned this down. The landlord told him there was not much more it could do. The landlord had refused to pay to relocate the gas meter to allow the install of a smart meter.
4. The landlord had told the resident he may be in breach of his tenancy if he did not allow access. The resident wanted compensation for the threat of eviction.
On 20 July 2022, the resident phoned the landlord about the call he had received. He said he was asked to repeat his issues again despite the emails he had already sent. He said he was told he may be in breach of his tenancy because the landlord could “send who it liked to go into his home.” He told the landlord he had had enough of the bullying and was so frustrated with the threats, he swore and ended the call. He apologised for this, stating the threat of losing his home had left him in a state of depression. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of a further email sent to the landlord by the resident in which he confirmed he was having problems with it.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord and resident exchanged several emails. The landlord apologised for the stress the call had caused and advised it would speak to the staff member who had spoken to him. The resident accepted he needed to allow access but maintained that unless something was done following inspections, it was a waste of time. He told the landlord it was wrong to threaten him with eviction. The landlord assured the resident no one was trying to evict him. It had to ensure residents were living in a safe property and so while it understood his frustration, he had to allow access. It confirmed the staff members had been reminding him of his responsibility regarding access. The resident thanked the landlord for the reassurance and confirmed if compensation was awarded as a resolution, due to the months of stress it had caused him, the complaint could be closed. He stated the fence was ok as it was but would eventually fall and potentially damage cars. He said he had contacted the landlord’s property services team about the external issues but had not received a response. The landlord confirmed it would contact the stock condition team regarding the external decoration.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of an email sent from the landlord on 22 July 2022. This was in response to the resident’s email on 20 July 2022. It asked him to elaborate on the problems he was facing so they could be investigated.
On 22 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response letter to the resident. The complaint was not upheld, and no compensation was awarded. The response confirmed the following:
1. It did not see any failure in its delivery of service.
2. A complaint regarding the fence had been raised previously in 2020 and compensation was awarded. The repairs requested had been discussed with the repairs team who confirmed no further work was required. It confirmed it would not replace the wooden fence with an iron fence as requested.
3. The resident had not confirmed any specific reason why repairs were needed to the external decoration. It had previously informed him the Asset Team had a programme of works and he would be contacted in due course.
4. The kitchen had been upgraded in 2011. No issues had been reported until October 2020. The resident had said that the utility company could not access the meter to replace it and so it had offered to remove and reinstate a kitchen unit to allow access. The resident had turned down this offer.
5. The resident had explained the electric meter was in the back of the house and the gas meter was in the kitchen. The resident said the utility company had told him both meters must be in proximity for a smart meter to be installed. It confirmed it had researched this and found that they do not need to be in proximity therefore it would not be relocating the meters. It suggested the resident contacted his supplier to discuss further.
6. Not allowing access when appropriate notice had been given could be a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord said it has an obligation to survey homes and has a right to instruct a third party to do this work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 July 2022 to reiterate the issues he was having with the fencing repairs, the external paintwork which had started to peel, the tenancy breach and the gas meter relocation.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It confirmed it would contact him within 5 working days as it believed the complaint could be resolved quickly. It confirmed the complaint would be tracked to ensure contact was made.
On 28 July 2022, the landlord visited the property. It confirmed via email later that day that it had raised the following repairs:
1. Repair/replace fencing to the front access. This repair was to be passed to a contractor who would contact and arrange an appointment.

There is evidence to suggest additional issues were discussed during the visit. As a result, the landlord confirmed it had also raised the following repairs:

Clearance of guttering.
Stain blocking of affected ceiling in living room and bathroom.
The bathroom was not to be replaced but it had contacted the local authority to request an occupational health assessment. If any adaptations were required, the local authority would contact the landlord directly.

On 29 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He said he had not heard anything following the acknowledgement email on 25 July 2022. He confirmed he still wanted to proceed with his complaint and be compensated for the stress he faced due to the breach of tenancy issue.
On 8 August 2022, the resident confirmed to the landlord that a contractor had attended and put a screw into the rotting fence post. He said until the rotten parts were replaced, he would contact the landlord constantly to ask for it to be repaired. He said had he been home when the contractor attended, he would have asked what repairs were to be done. He then said he would have sent them away if he had known that was all that was to happen. He said he was not happy with the stage 2 response received on 22 July 2022 and he was going to contact the Ombudsman but would give the landlord the opportunity to resolve things before he did.
There was an email exchange between the landlord and resident on 10 August 2022. The resident had received a text from the contractor with an appointment but was unsure if it was to repair or replace the fence. The landlord confirmed someone would contact him and keep him informed on what was happening with the fence. It advised that the contractor had initially attended to measure up, but saw the panel was loose which was why it was screwed back in.
On 18 August 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He stated he was having issues regarding repairs and maintenance and the landlord was slow in addressing these. He stated he had refused access to the contractor to inspect his flat as the landlord had done nothing about the issues he had raised previously. As a result, he had been told he would be breaking his tenancy agreement. He explained he felt the landlord should compensate him financially for the stress and anxiety it had caused him.
The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence to confirm the actions taken by the landlord following the end of the complaint process.

Post completion of the complaint process

The landlord sent a follow-on response letter to the resident on 12 January 2024 and explained the following:
1. It had reviewed its handling of the resident’s previous complaint and increased its award of compensation as a result. As part of its review, it had looked at the resident’s experience, its policies and procedures and the historical information.
2. It acknowledged the complaint handling had let the resident down. It had not formally acknowledged or responded at stage 1 in line with its own policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It failed to make it clear that its final response was at stage 2. It did not recognise its own failures.
3. It appreciated the worry and distress that words such as ‘breach of tenancy’ may have caused. It confirmed the final response provided reassurance that no further action was taken, however, it acknowledged it should have provided this sooner.
4. Its decision on compensation did not consider enough the impacts of both distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It did not address the delays in correctly addressing the situation.
5. It was awarding the resident with £650 compensation for the following:
  1. £350 for the complaint handling failures experienced.
  2. £100 for the resident’s efforts.
  3. £100 for the delays responding to enquiries.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. For complaints that do not need a formal investigation, the resident may choose the informal complaint route.
2. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In exceptional circumstances, an additional 10 working days may be needed. If additional time is needed, the resident will be informed, and a new date given.
The landlord’s fencing and boundary wall procedure states that:
1. Existing fences separating gardens from a neighbour’s garden are a resident’s responsibility to maintain, unless stated otherwise in the tenancy or lease agreement.
2. Where the landlord accepts responsibility for a fence replacement, it would usually replace the fence with post and wire fencing. Alternatively, the resident can choose to replace it with wooden fencing panels as an improvement.
The landlord’s responsive repairs operational procedure states the following:
1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of its properties.
2. Emergency repairs will be attended within 4 hours and will be made safe within 24 hours. Anytime/Responsive repairs will be attended within 20 working days. Major repairs will be undertaken as part of its stock investment procedure.
The landlord’s website confirms it will carry out stock condition surveys to determine when improvements are required. It also states decoration of communal areas and the outside of buildings (cyclical decoration) is carried out on a 7-year cycle and is co-ordinated with major works. This is to make sure work is carried out in the most cost-effective way.

Fence repairs and external decoration

The Ombudsman is aware of a previous complaint in 2020 when the landlord initially refused to repair the fence, but then accepted responsibility and completed the repairs. Due to the lack of a tenancy agreement, it is unclear as to who is responsible for repairing the fence. The garden area is shared between other residents in the block and so it was reasonable for the landlord to take ownership of the repairs in this case.
On 23 June 2022, via his complaint, the resident informed the landlord that further repairs were needed to the fence. The landlord reviewed photographs provided and confirmed no repairs were to be raised. It established it could do a make safe, but it did not seem necessary. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of qualified staff when determining whether a repair or replacement is required and there is no evidence to suggest the fence needed replacement. This decision was made on 28 June 2022. There is no evidence this was communicated to the resident until he received the stage 2 response on 22 July 2022 despite chasing this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide this outcome as soon as it was known to prevent any additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns with various members of staff.
On chasing this issue internally, the landlord confirmed the fencing issue had been resolved and compensation had previously been awarded as part of a previous complaint. The landlord asked the resident to confirm this. It is expected that the landlord has effective record keeping in place so it should not have needed the resident to confirm this. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s record keeping, complaint management and repair knowledge.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence of a disjointed approach to managing contacts from the resident. While it is evident that the resident was in contact with several different staff members, it remains unclear who had taken ownership of his concerns. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to have an effective contact management system from which staff can record and view contacts. This system would avoid the need for residents to repeat themselves. In this case, the resident spent time and trouble pursuing his concerns. He was asked to repeat himself which was likely to have caused inconvenience and indicates wider issues with the landlord’s knowledge and information management systems. It is acknowledged that the landlord advised in its follow-on response that it had now taken steps to address this in an attempt to improve its service in the future.
In its stage 2 response dated 22 July 2022, the landlord confirmed it would not replace the fence with an iron one as requested and that the repairs team had confirmed no further repairs were required. The landlord did not provide any additional information to explain how it reached its decision to the resident which would have been appropriate.
Following a home visit on 28 July 2022, the decision not to repair the fence was overturned. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out the visit, however it missed the opportunity to carry out this inspection prior to its final response letter. Given that the resident had continued to pursue his concerns regarding the fence repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the fence at an earlier stage of the complaint process.
The fence repair was raised on 8 August 2022, with a target date of 5 September 2022. Evidence was provided to confirm an inspection was completed and measurements taken, but it is unclear if the repairs have been completed in full. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine the length of time it took the landlord to complete the repairs or whether the repairs have now been completed.
The resident raised concerns regarding the conditions of the external building in April 2022. There is no evidence of a response to these concerns until July 2022. Without an explanation to justify this, the Ombudsman finds this delayed response unreasonable. In July 2022, the landlord confirmed it would pass the concerns to the stock condition team but there is no evidence of any further response being issued to the resident. The landlord focused on the fencing issues but failed to respond to the concerns regarding building condition. It failed to demonstrate it was addressing all the resident’s issues, which was likely to have caused him inconvenience and frustration.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated the resident had not raised any specific issues or concerns with the building. The resident had raised concerns in his complaint regarding the paintwork, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to advise him of the cyclical programme. However, the landlord failed to provide to clarify why this type of work was classed as cyclical maintenance and not responsive repairs which would have been appropriate, along with providing some idea of timeframe for work to be completed.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fencing repairs and external decoration. This Service has seen evidence of poor record keeping, inconsistent decision making, and a lack of coordination and collaborative working. This in turn heightened the resident’s frustration and led to unreasonable delays in work being completed. A lack of ownership failed to offer the resident any reassurance that the landlord had listened to his concerns and was willing to act on these.
In the landlord’s follow-up letter dated 12 January 2024, it has acknowledged its own failures in managing the issues raised by the resident. While the level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would suggest, it is a concern the award has only recently been made and appears to have required the resident to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman and for an investigation to be opened. Given the landlord did not use its complaints process to offer this redress and the lengthy period since the final complaint response was issued, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.

Relocation of the gas meter

The resident told the landlord his utility company had informed him his meter was at the end of its safety life and needed replacing. Following the resident’s request to relocate the meter to allow access, the landlord offered to remove the kitchen unit. It also confirmed it would reinstate the unit once the meter was replaced. The resident turned this offer down and so the landlord confirmed there was no more it could do, but the offer was still available. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was fair and reasonable. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to support its response by confirming to the resident that the meter did not belong to it, and it was not its responsibility to relocate.
The resident also asked the landlord if it would relocate the gas meter. He wanted a smart meter but said the electric and gas meter had to be close for this to happen. While the landlord’s advice for the resident to contact his supplier was reasonable, as the supplier would ultimately be responsible for moving and replacing the meter, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have confirmed who was responsible for the meter and explain its decision more clearly – this was a shortcoming.
The Ombudsman does not find any maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to relocating the gas meter. It offered a reasonable solution to allow access to the meter which was declined by the resident. Following the request to relocate the meter to allow a smart meter, it signposted the resident accordingly.

Communication regarding a breach in tenancy

The resident has maintained that he received an email from the landlord in which he was told if he refused access to his property, it would be a breach of his tenancy. This was following a letter he received regarding a survey. The landlord has not disputed this, however, has not provided a copy of this email in its submissions to the Ombudsman for further review.
It is not known when the email was sent, although the landlord reiterated the message in a call on 20 July 2022. This was several months after the resident raised his concern and made the landlord aware of how this had affected him. He did not receive reassurance that no legal action had been taken until 21 July 2022, 3 months after his initial complaint. This was an unreasonable length of time in which to provide reassurance to the resident or further comment on its position, especially as the resident had spent time and trouble pursuing his concerns.
The Ombudsman accepts that allowing a landlord access to the property to complete necessary inspections and repairs is a standard, accepted, clause in the majority of tenancy agreements. This is necessary to allow the landlord to carry out its legal obligations to keep the property in good repair. While it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm its position regarding accessing the resident’s property, it is of concern that it quoted the resident’s tenancy agreement within its complaint response but has not been able to provide a copy of this to this Service for further review. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide this information when asked, and it remains unclear as to whether it provided correct information to the resident within its response.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s communication regarding the breach of tenancy. The landlord took too long to provide reassurance to the resident and knew the impact it had had on him. In the follow-up letter from the landlord dated 12 January 2024, it apologised and acknowledged it should have provided clarity sooner than it did. The latest compensation award is at the level that the Ombudsman would suggest for this type of failing. However, the landlord had the opportunity to address this at the time of its internal complaints process. It remains unclear if the offer of compensation would have been made, approximately 18 months later, had the case not been referred to the Ombudsman for further review.

Handling of associated complaint

The resident submitted his complaint on 28 April 2022. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement, a stage 1 response, or contact with the resident following this. The landlord has therefore failed to follow its own policy which resulted in the resident needing to raise his concerns again in June 2022. This highlights issues with the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.
Although the landlord replied at stage 2 of its process on 22 July 2022, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident’s further complaint was acknowledged or responded to at stage 1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code states that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any communication confirming that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident or confirmed which stage his complaint was at. As such, the landlord failed to follow its complaints process or act in line with the Code.
In addition, the landlord’s failure to provide a stage 1 complaint response meant that the resident was not given fair opportunity to respond to, or challenge, the landlord’s position as part of its complaints process. As a result, the resident needed to continue to pursue his concerns following its final complaint response. The stage 2 complaint response was also issued on 22 July 2022, approximately 3 months following the resident’s initial complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was kept informed as to when he would receive a response, or that the landlord had acted in line with its policy timescales, which was likely to cause inconvenience.
In the resident’s initial complaint, he raised concerns regarding the lack of action following Fire Risk Assessments. The landlord did not address this within its complaint responses which led the resident to raise further concerns on 23 July 2022. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint in its responses. In this case, it missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns at the time. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these matters have been addressed.
The landlord recorded a further email dated 23 July 2022 from the resident as an informal complaint. It stated it would respond within 5 working days as it believed the issues could be resolved quickly. It advised the complaint would be tracked to ensure contact was made. The landlord’s complaint policy states the resident can choose the informal complaint route; therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed this with the resident. There is no evidence this happened and so the landlord has taken the element of choice away from the resident. Also, despite the deadline of 5 working days being set by the landlord, there is no evidence a response was provided. The landlord failed to fulfil its commitment to respond or communicate with the resident via its own informal complaint process.
The landlord accepted failures with its complaint handling in its follow-up complaint response of 12 January 2024. It offered compensation, which was proportionate to the failings identified, however, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord had the opportunity to identify delays in its handling of the complaint, address these within its internal complaints process and offer suitable redress to the resident at the time. It would have also had the opportunity to take points of learning from the complaint and explain how it would prevent similar failings and delays happening in the future.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord to review the resident’s complaint, although it was aware that the case was due to be investigated by the Ombudsman at the time of its response in January 2024. It remains unclear if the landlord would have taken steps to acknowledge its failures or offer additional compensation had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of a fencing repair and the maintenance of the external decoration of the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman does not find any maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a request to relocate a gas meter within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to communication regarding a breach of tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Fencing repair and external decoration

The landlord failed to communicate its decisions not to carry out the repairs to the resident. There was evidence of poor record keeping, and an uncoordinated approach led to inconsistent decisions and delays in work being completed.

Relocation of gas meter

The meters did not belong to the landlord. It made a reasonable offer to allow access to the meter. In relation to the installation of a smart meter, it appropriately referred the resident appropriately back to his supplier.

Communication regarding breach in tenancy

The landlord took too long to provide reassurance to the resident that it was not taking legal action against him or his tenancy.

Handling of associated complaint

The landlord demonstrated poor record keeping and communication with the resident and failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It did not address all of the issues raised within the resident’s complaint and failed to acknowledge its failures as part of its complaint process.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm the following to the Ombudsman:
1. The resident has received the £650 offered as compensation, as confirmed in the follow up letter to the resident on 12 January 2024.
2. The dates when the complaint training was completed, as referred to in the follow up letter dated 12 January 2024.
The landlord should confirm if the fence has now been repaired. If this has not been completed as yet, it should provide the resident and this Service with a date as to when it will be completed.
The landlord should confirm its position in relation to the fire risk concerns regarding the communal door and communicate this to the resident and this Service.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks to evidence compliance with these orders.
In recent determinations made by the Ombudsman (such as case 202121443), we have already made orders that the landlord reviews its knowledge and information management practices, so this has not been repeated here.

Recommendations

In recent determinations made by the Ombudsman (such as case 202205351), we have already made recommendations that the landlord reviews its complaint handling practices. It should ensure it recognises and responds to complaints within the relevant timeframes. As a result, this recommendation has not been repeated here, but the landlord should demonstrate the action taken to address this recommendation.
The landlord should confirm if the front door to the property has been replaced. If not, it should provide this Service and the resident with an update as to when this will be completed.
The landlord should contact the resident and this Service with an update on the action taken relating to the anti-social behaviour case.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss a recent email sent regarding service charges.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its actions against these recommendations.