London Borough of Redbridge (202306203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306203

London Borough of Redbridge

8 July 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking.
3. Handling of the resident’s requests that her kitchen and bathroom be replaced.
4. Response to the resident’s request for re-housing.
5. Response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
6. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
7. Response to the resident’s request to move the electricity meter.
8. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) and 34 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking.
The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
It is accepted that the resident has stated that she has been reporting concerns regarding the behaviour of her neighbour since she moved into the property. This Service has seen evidence that the resident has reported extremely concerning behaviour on several occasions between 2017 and 2022. It is acknowledged that the resident has stated that the ASB was ongoing between 2022 and 2023 and that she did not report it because she did not have confidence that the landlord would address the issue.
The resident’s last report to her landlord of ASB from her neighbour however was in January 2022. She did not make a formal complaint to the landlord until January 2023. This Service therefore considers that the resident did not bring her concerns to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.
Given the extremely serious and concerning nature of the ASB reported by the resident this Service would urge the landlord to make contact with her to address the issue as a matter of urgency. The resident is also urged to report all further incidents to the landlord and the police. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB she should make a further formal complaint to the landlord within 6 months of the date of her last ASB report.
The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “Relates to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property”.
This Service has been provided with information that shows the parking spaces do not form part of the resident’s tenancy for their residential property. The parking spaces may fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property, a 1-bed flat, since 2010. The resident’s son lives with her. The landlord has not stated that the resident has any known vulnerabilities.
In January 2023 the resident made a formal complaint regarding the condition of her kitchen and bathroom and issues not within the scope of this investigation. The landlord provided its formal stage 1 response on 2 February 2023. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response around 2 weeks later and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 August 2023. This complaint was recorded as a housing complaint and is referred to within the report as Complaint 1.
In May 2023 the resident made a further formal complaint regarding an infestation of mice, the condition of her kitchen and bathroom, her re-housing request, staff conduct, and issues outside the scope of this investigation. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. The resident escalated her complaint and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. This complaint was recorded as a corporate complaint and is referred to in the report as Complaint 2.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation

It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident had been requesting that the landlord replace her kitchen and bathroom since the start of her tenancy in 2010.
As previously explained however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
This investigation has therefore focussed on the resident’s requests from June 2022, 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint. Any reference to events prior to this date are made for context only.

Summary of events during the period of investigation

On 24 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she had “had enough”. She said:
1. Her kitchen and bathroom were “decrepit”.
2. Her son was 9 years-old and for the past 5 years she had been sleeping on the sofa as the landlord would not help her move to a larger property.
3. She asked the landlord to help her move to another property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 27 January 2023 and said:
1. The resident’s property had been surveyed for a new kitchen and bathroom in May 2022. The works were scheduled for completion in the 2025 financial year. If the resident wanted to query this, she could contact the asset management team.
2. The resident had been registered on the landlord’s choice based lettings (CBL) system since July 2013 but had only bid on 4 properties, all 2-bed houses, since July 2022.
3. The allocations team had advised that only bidding for houses would lengthen the wait for rehousing. She may wish to consider bidding on flats and maisonettes. She could also apply for a mutual exchange.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day copying in her MP. She asked the landlord to log a formal complaint (Complaint 1). She said:
1. When she moved into the property in 2020 she was told that the kitchen and bathroom were very old and would “probably be upgraded within a few years”.
2. The property had been surveyed several times at her request. On each occasion she had been told by the surveyor that the kitchen and bathroom needed replacing. She was then later told that the works had been refused.
3. She only wished to apply for a house so that her could have outside space. She had only bid on 4 properties as there had not been any other suitable properties to bid on.
4. She was already registered for a mutual exchange but properties rarely came up in the local area and she did not want to move her son to another school.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 2 February 2023. It said:
1. The resident’s complaint had been dealt with by the senior housing officer.
2. If the resident’s kitchen had “deteriorated to a point where it is unusable” the resident should contact the landlord’s contractor who would arrange for an inspection to be carried out.
3. As the housing officer was not responsible for capital works, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
4. All requests for rehousing were managed via a CBL system and the housing management team had no involvement in this process.
5. It would increase the resident’s chances of rehousing if she were to bid on flats as well as houses.
6. The housing officer was not responsible for transfers and this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1. She said that the officer’s comments regarding her beliefs causing her “unwarranted anxiety” were “condescending, patronising and…rude”. She also pointed out that the landlord had told her to contact its contractor regarding her repairs. She had done this several times but no action had been taken.
The landlord responded on the same day and said that the kitchen renewal was planned for the 2025 financial year. If the resident felt the renewal should be completed sooner, she should contact the landlord’s repair contractor and ask for a survey. It reiterated that all available properties were allocated via the CBL system.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2023 and copied in her MP. She said:
1. The resident had been complaining since she moved into the property in 2010 about the condition of the kitchen and bathroom. The condition was poor at that time and she was still waiting.
2. She wanted the landlord to escalate her concerns further.
The landlord responded to the resident by email on 23 February 2023. It said that while the resident was within her rights to raise a further complaint it “would not be a good use of [her] time or [the landlord’s]” to “continue a circle of stage 1 complaints”. It said that if the resident remained unhappy she would “have to escalate [her complaint] via the stage 2 procedure”.
Internal landlord emails of 2 May 2023 demonstrate that a pest control appointment was booked for 15 May 2023 to treat the mouse infestation.
The resident emailed the landlord copying in her MP on 4 May 2023. She said:
1. She had an infestation of mice.
2. The kitchen and bathroom were in “an awful state”.
3. The landlord’s staff had been “rude”.
4. She was experiencing “severe mental health difficulties” as a result of the condition of the property and the situation was upsetting her son.
5. She wanted to make a further formal complaint.
The landlord replied to the resident on 5 May 2023. It stated that the property had been treated on 4 May 2023 for mice and that its contractor would attend as soon as possible to fill the holes the mice were gaining access through.
The landlord’s complaint log demonstrates that on 9 May 2023 it put the resident’s allegations regarding rude conduct to the staff member involved and asked him to respond. The staff member denied the allegations and provided an account of his communications with the resident.
The landlord’s repair records show that its contractor attended on 11 May 2023 to block the holes in the cupboards to prevent mice from entering the property.
The resident contacted her MP on 16 May 2023. She said that the week before a repairs operative had attended the property to fill the holes which mice were using to enter the property. She said that the operative left “half way through” as he had “run out of time”. The resident said that mice were continuing to access the property. The MP escalated this to the landlord on the same day.
The landlord carried out a survey of the property on 18 May 2023. The survey report stated:
1. Both the kitchen and bathroom were approximately 25 years old, in poor condition and in need of replacement.
2. There were “numerous holes” in built-in cupboards in the living room and hallway through which mice were entering the property.
3. The had been “a complete lack of any Decent Homes Works” in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 22 May 2023. It said:
1. The landlord had inspected the property and identified the following repairs:
  1. The kitchen was old, in poor condition, and required replacement.
  2. The bathroom was also old, in poor condition and required replacement.
  3. Mice were accessing the property through holes in built-in cupboards in the living room and hallway. These needed to be filled and the cupboard doors replacing.
2. These repairs had been approved but the landlord did not yet have a start date for the works.
3. The windows were also inspected and it was deemed that a full replacement programme was not required at that time. This would be reviewed again in 5 years.
4. While the holes had not yet been filled, pest control had attended on 4 May 2023. The repair and pest control element of the complaint was upheld.
5. The emails from the staff member had been reviewed and the landlord accepted that “the tone of his emails…can come across as being hard as they are sometimes direct”. The landlord had arranged training to address this issue.
6. The staff member had explained the resident’s options in relation to applying for a transfer.
7. The landlord partially upheld the staff conduct element of the resident’s complaint and apologised that the resident had not received the level of care she expected.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it was in the process of obtaining quotes for the works required to the resident’s property. The landlord emailed her again on 1 June 2023 and confirmed that the works to replace the kitchen and bathroom and repair the cupboards were approved.
On 26 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of the complaint process.
On 19 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that she slept on the sofa because the property was overcrowded. She stated that the repairs required to the property would cause “major upheaval” for her and her son.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2023 and said she had not received a response to her stage 2 complaint. It is not clear which complaint she was referring to.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2023 and advised it to provide a response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 21 August 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the length of time taken to provide its response.
2. The resident had stated that she had been asking the landlord to replace the kitchen and bathroom since the start of her tenancy 13 years previously. The landlord was unable to track any previous repairs raised. This may have been due to “crossover of contractors and their differing systems”.
3. The landlord had identified “numerous opportunities…where [it] could have managed works within shorter timeframes”.
4. The works to the kitchen and bathroom had been completed.
5. The resident was registered on the CBL system on 12 July 2013 and was given reasonable preference due to overcrowding.
6. The resident was advised that limiting her bidding to only houses would lengthen her wait for rehousing “considerably”.
7. The landlord offered compensation of £150 comprising:
  1. £100 for “distress”
  2. £50 for “length of time”.
On 22 August 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs to the property. It upheld the complaint and offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests that her kitchen and bathroom be replaced.

The resident has stated that she had been requesting that the landlord replace the kitchen and bathroom since the start of her tenancy in 2010.
The landlord has not disputed this account but has said that it is unable to track any previous repairs raised due to “crossover of contractors and their differing systems”.
The landlord should have been able to access this information in its own records and as such this indicates record keeping failures.
Thorough record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents and to this Service.
The Limitations Act 1980 obliges landlords to retain property maintenance records for a period of 6 years. This Service suggests that the landlord’s inability to provide repairs information for the past 6 years demonstrates a failure in its information management and an order has been made in respect of this.
The landlord identified following a survey of the property on 18 May 2023 that both the kitchen and bathroom were approximately 25 years old and in poor condition. It also stated that there had been “a complete lack of any Decent Homes Works” in the property.
Social housing landlords are required to ensure that their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard (DHS). A property fails to meet this standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout;
3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC;
5. Adequate external noise insulation; and
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
While it is clear that the kitchen and bathroom within the property were not of a “decent” standard due to age and poor condition, this Service has not seen evidence that the property failed to meet any of the other requirements of the DHS.
As the landlord has not provided full repair information this Service is unable to ascertain the exact date the kitchen and bathroom works were completed. It is evident that they were completed at some time between May and August 2023. The kitchen and bathroom were clearly in very poor condition and this cannot but have had an adverse impact on the resident and her child. This Service has been unable to evidence when the issue was first reported and what actions the landlord took. This is also a knowledge and information management issue and therefore when all factors are considered there has been maladministration in relation to this complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-housing.

The resident did not have a son at the time she moved into the property in 2010. Her son was born 4 years later and, at the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in January 2023 he was 9 years old. This Service accepts that the household is overcrowded and the resident is sleeping on her sofa.
In January 2023 the resident said that she felt the landlord had not supported her to move to another property.
This Service considers that when the landlord offered the resident the property it was the appropriate size for her needs. It was not within the landlord’s control that the property because overcrowded and there is nothing to indicate that the landlord was obliged to resolve the overcrowding.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has explained to the resident on several occasions between January 2023 and August 2023 the process for applying for rehousing.
The information provided by the landlord was reasonable. It provided advice on how the resident could increase the likelihood of being rehoused more quickly by applying for different types of property and for mutual exchanges.
It is accepted that the resident is within her rights to only bid on properties of her preferred type and area. It is also accepted that the availability of such properties is not within the landlord’s control and will depend on the turnover of tenancies in these properties.
Overall, the landlord has provided reasonable advice to the resident in relation to her housing situation. Therefore there is no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.

The landlord has not provided this Service with full records in relation to the pest control actions of its contractor.
The first mention seen by this Service of a mouse infestation at the resident’s property was on 4 May 2023. It is accepted that the resident must have reported the issue prior to this as the landlord’s pest control contractor also attended on this date.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 11 May 2023 to block the holes mice were using to access the property. The resident has stated that the operative left “half way through” the work as he said he had “run out of time”. On 22 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged that the holes had not yet been filled. This supports the resident’s account.
This Service has been unable to carry out detailed investigations of the landlord’s pest control actions as it has not provided the requested information. The Ombudsman considers this is a further failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
Overall, the landlord has not provided sufficient information to evidence its actions in response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation. The extended delay in pest proofing the property clearly had an adverse impact on the resident and her son. Therefore there was maladministration in relation to this issue.

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

The available evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s allegations, gave them reasonable consideration, and responded appropriately. The landlord acted properly by carrying out an investigation and discussing the matter with both the staff member and their manager.
The landlord acknowledged that the tone of the staff member’s emails came across as being “hard” and “direct”. This was reasonable.
The landlord said that it had arranged training for the staff member to address this issue. This Service considers that this was appropriate.
Overall, the landlord reasonably investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. Therefore there was no maladministration in respect to its response to the resident’s concerns.

Request to move the electricity meter

The resident’s energy supplier owns and maintains the electricity meter and the meter tails which connect from the main incoming electricity supply. This means the only people that can legally move the electricity meter are the energy supplier or their authorised contractors. As such, the landlord is not expected to move an electricity meter itself. However, once a landlord is informed of a resident’s request to move an electricity meter, the landlord is expected to visit the property to consider the meter location and its set up. The landlord should also ensure it understands why the move is necessary and the scale and possible impact of the work if it was completed. The landlord should then, if it agrees the move is necessary, provide consent for the move and explain to the resident what action it will take in the process of moving the meter.
Most electricity meter moves are completed by the energy supplier. However, when the proposed move is more than 3 metres, it is likely that the electricity network operator would have to firstly move the electricity board. The resident has provided email correspondence between her and the landlord from March 2023 which shows that they were discussing the need for the electric meter to be relocated at that time. Based on the evidence available, it appears that the resident was referred to her energy supplier. As explained above, the energy supplier owns the meter, so this was not an unreasonable response from the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord should have taken a more active role in finding a resolution. The landlord’s failure to visit the property to consider the meter location and assess the options available at that time is a shortfall in service.
After the resident spoke with her energy supplier, she referred the matter back to the landlord. Its complaint response dated 21 August 2023 confirmed that it would visit her and her neighbour with a view to progressing the electric meter being moved into the resident’s home. The landlord assured her that it would cover any costs for moving the meter.
The landlord has provided a copy of the surveyor’s report following their visit on 29 August 2023. This confirmed that number 59 (the flat immediately below the resident’s property) stored the electricity meters for both numbers 59 and 63. The surveyor called the resident’s energy supplier and network operator to begin the process of moving the meter.
The electricity network operator emailed the resident on 27 September 2023 to explain that it would not be able to help move the meter. This is because the incoming supply did not need to be moved. It explained that the resident would need a qualified electrician to do the internal wiring in conjunction with the meter operator who would isolate and move the meter in to the flat.
The resident referred the matter back to her energy supplier. It emailed the resident and the landlord on 20 October 2023 to explain that the landlord would need to arrange for an electrician to complete the re-wiring work and it would then install the meter in its new location. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it expected the work to be completed on 5 December 2023. This did not happen and the meter was not moved until March 2024.
It was appropriate that the landlord confirmed it agreed that the electricity meter should be moved and that the resident was not expected to pay for any of the work. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to resolve the matter within a reasonable timeframe. After the resident’s energy supplier clearly explained what action the landlord needed to take, it took the landlord about 5 months to move the meter. The landlord’s failure to complete this work sooner is a shortfall in service.
It is acknowledged that a lack of access to the electricity meter over the last 14 years will have caused the resident difficulties in managing her electricity account and she will have experienced stress as a result. However, ultimately, it is the resident’s energy supplier’s obligation to read the electricity meter and send her accurate bills. This is not the landlord’s responsibility. Equally, although there is a direct access right for gas meters, there is not a similar right for electricity meters. As such, the landlord was not compelled to move the meter as soon as it was made aware of it.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s handling of this matter since March 2023 has been poor. It appears that the landlord initially took no investigative action and simply referred the resident to her electricity supplier. When the resident raised the matter again in August 2023, the landlord initially responded appropriately and, with the resident’s help, identified what steps were required to complete the move. However, the resident then experienced an unreasonable delay waiting for the landlord to complete the work and arrange the move. It is therefore decided that the landlord’s handling of this matter is indicative of maladministration.
It is clear that the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge its previous poor response to this issue. Although it has now moved the meter, the landlord has not put things right by providing redress. It is therefore ordered that the landlord provides the resident with £350 in compensation for the delays, stress and inconvenience she has experienced.

Complaint handling.

It is unclear to this Service why the landlord was actively investigating 2 complaints concurrently in relation to the same issues. It has caused confusion in the investigation of the case and cannot but have caused confusion for the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 1 within the timeframe in its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at the time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1 was not clear. While it addressed each of the resident’s complaints, it failed to properly grasp the issues. The stage 1 repeatedly stated that it did not uphold aspects of the complaint as they were not within the control of the housing officer. The issues were nonetheless related to the landlord’s obligations and therefore any failings by any of the landlord’s housing teams should have been considered. This was a failing.
On 20 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her concerns. This Service considers that this was a clear request for the landlord to raise a stage 2 complaint.
It is understandable that the landlord’s comments to the resident that it was not a good use of her time to “continue a circle of stage 1 complaints” were considered by the resident to be rude. The landlord said that if the resident remained unhappy she would have to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, it failed however to raise a stage 2 complaint or advise the resident how to do this.
The landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response to Complaint 1 until 22 August 2023, this was 6 months later. The landlord’s response timeframe far exceeded that outlined in its own policy and the Code operated at the time and this was a failing.
On 4 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a further formal complaint in relation to her kitchen and bathroom and an infestation of mice. This Service considers that at this time the landlord missed an opportunity to identify that it had not raised a stage 2 complaint in relation to Complaint 1. Had it done so it could have dealt with all the resident’s concerns within the same complaint and avoided unnecessary confusion and duplication.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 2 was provided within 11 working days. While this is slightly outside of the timescales in the landlord’s policy and the Code operated at the time, this Service does not consider that it was unreasonable.
The stage 1 response to Complaint 2 was more thorough and reasonable that its stage 1 response to Complaint 1. It outlined the repairs required to the property and confirmed that the works had been approved. It also acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct and explained the actions it was taking to prevent the issue happening again. This was reasonable and proportionate.
While the landlord was unable to confirm the start date for works in its stage 1 response to Complaint 2, it has demonstrated that it regularly updated her following the response in relation to the proposed works.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of the complaint process on 26 May 2023. The resident then asked the landlord again to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 of the complaint process on 19 June 2023. This was a further opportunity for the landlord to identify the duplication in its complaint handling which was missed by the landlord.
As a result of the landlord’s confused complaint handling, its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 was issued after its stage 2 complaint to Complaint 2.
The landlord provided its final response to Complaint 2 of 21 August 2023. This response addressed all the issues of complaint and offered an apology and £150 compensation for “distress” and “length of time”. It did not provide any further detail regarding what specific issues the distress and delay were related to. This was a failing.
The next day, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1. It again apologised for delays and offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.
In total the landlord has offered the resident £250 compensation for its failings. This Service does not consider that this compensation was reasonable or proportionate for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident and therefore an order for further compensation has been made.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and drawn-out. It missed several opportunities to rectify the duplication in its handling. The landlord failed to offer proportionate redress for its failings. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests that her kitchen and bathroom be replaced.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for re-housing.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move the electricity meter.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding parking.

Reasons

The landlord has been unable to track any previous repairs raised in relation to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom due to “crossover of contractors and their differing systems”. This indicates a knowledge and information management issue. The kitchen and bathroom were clearly in very poor condition and this had an adverse impact on the resident and her son.
The landlord has provided reasonable advice to the resident in relation to her housing situation.
The landlord’s delays in pest proofing the property had an adverse impact on the resident and her son. The landlord has not provided sufficient information to evidence its actions in response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation. This indicates a further knowledge and information management issue.
The landlord reasonably acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. It investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and explained the actions it had taken to prevent the issue happening again.
The landlord’s handling of the electricity move since March 2023 has been poor. The landlord initially took no investigative action and simply referred the resident to her electricity supplier. When the resident raised the matter again in August 2023, the landlord responded appropriately and identified what steps were required to complete the move. However, the resident then experienced an unreasonable delay waiting for the landlord to complete the work and arrange the move.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and drawn-out. It missed several opportunities to rectify the duplication in its handling and failed to offer proportionate redress for its failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1,100 in compensation (this amount includes the £250 already offered by the landlord). This is comprised of:
  1. £250 regarding distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s requests that her kitchen and bathroom be replaced.
  2. £250 regarding distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a mouse infestation.
  3. £350 regarding distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its response to the resident’s request to move the electricity meter.
  4. £250 regarding time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
2. Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management Spotlight recommendations. The landlord must provide this Service with the outcome within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
3. Review its document retention policy and consider making changes in line with the statutory requirement and best practice. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
4. Carry out a case review of the complaint handling failings identified by this investigation. . The landlord must provide this Service with the outcome within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider:
  1. How the landlord can prevent duplication in its complaint handling.
  2. What staff training is required to prevent the failings identified in this case from happening again.
  3. Whether the landlord’s compensation guidance is in line with the Ombudsman’s redress guidance.
  4. How it will ensure that it is clear what its compensation offers relate to and how they have been calculated.

Recommendations

The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss the recent ASB incidents. If it has not already done so, the landlord should investigate her reports, offer the resident support, formulate an action plan and share this with the resident, complete a risk assessment, consider possible preventive measures and actions to tackle the ASB and prevent problems escalating. Given the repeating nature of the reports, the landlord should consider offering the resident a single point of contact.