Longhurst Group Limited (202002782)

Review Letter comp

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002782

Longhurst Group Limited

02 November 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of arrears on the resident’s rent account and the support offered in respect of the resident’s mental health concerns. The resident’s concerns were dealt with over six separate complaints:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Section 21 notice in August 2019 and the arear proceedings (3778972).
2. The level of support the landlord offered to the resident in relation to his mental health (Landlord’s reference 3778972).
3. How a member of the landlord’s staff handled a call with the resident regarding his rent account on 12 May 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3769803) and the content of the landlord’s follow up letter of 14 May 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3774431).
4. A member of the landlord’s staff refusing to read the resident’s letter during a meeting with him on 1 October 2019. (Landlord’s reference 3724824).
5. The landlord pursing the resident for court costs (Landlord’s reference 8499598).
6. This complaint is also about the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the resident’s front door.(Complaint reference 3774252).

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Section 21 notice in August 2019 and the arrear proceedings (3778972).

Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
On 14 August 2019, the resident was served with a Section 21 Notice Requiring Possession. The covering letter advised the resident that he had the right to appeal the landlord’s decision. The resident submitted his appeal and on 27 September 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had rejected his appeal. On 13 November 2019, the resident advised the landlord that he had submitted an appeal to the court and had that day received confirmation that the court had deferred the accelerated possession on the basis of the information he had provided. The resident advised that a new hearing had been called on 4 December 2019.
The landlord and the resident attended court on 4 December 2019 for the hearing. The case was adjourned as the judge had not seen the file and advised they would not be able to hear the case properly in the time available. On 31 January 2020, a possession hearing was heard in court. The hearing was attended by the landlord, the resident and his community law service representative. A 28 day possession order was granted by the judge together with a judgement for arrears and costs.
On 16 June 2020, the resident complained that, in August 2019, he was not offered the opportunity to appeal his Section 21 notice in person. On 8 February 2021, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about it pursuing him for court costs which the resident said he should not have to pay because the landlord had not allowed him to clear his arrears in mid-2019, and which the resident said would have resolved the issues without court action.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his Section 21 notice in August 2019 and the arear proceedings are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

How a member of the landlord’s staff handled a call with the resident regarding his rent account on 12 May 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3769803) and the content of the landlord’s follow up letter of 14 May 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3774431).

Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
On 12 May 2020, the landlord called the resident to discuss his arrears and to confirm that his eviction would still be going ahead, as the court had arranged. Following the call the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the call he had just had with a member of its staff. The resident received a stage one response from the landlord on 18 May 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3769803). In its response the landlord ended by advising the resident that if he were dissatisfied with its response he could ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to escalate this complaint. In an email to this service on 8 February 2021 the landlord confirmed that the last correspondence it had with the resident regarding this complaint was its Stage one response on 18 May 2020.
On 26 May 2020, the resident logged a new complaint with the landlord about a follow up letter from his telephone call with the landlord on 12 May 2020, which he had received from the landlord on 14 May 2020. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 10 June 2020 (Landlord’s reference 3774431). The landlord ended by advising the resident that if he remained dissatisfied with its response he could request that his complaint be escalated to Stage two.
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to escalate this complaint. In an email to this service on 8 February 2021 the landlord confirmed that the last correspondence it had with the resident regarding this complaint was its Stage one response on 10 June 2020.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about how a member of the landlord’s staff handled a call with the resident regarding his rent account on 12 May 2020 and the content of the landlord’s follow up letter of 14 May 2020 are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because neither complaint exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process. At the time of both complaints were made the landlord had a two stage complaints process. In its stage one response to each complaint the landlord invited the resident to request that his complaint be escalated if he was dissatisfied with its response. There is no evidence that the resident did so.

The landlord pursuing the resident for court costs (Landlord’s reference 8499598).

Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
The landlord and the resident attended court on 4 December 2019 for the possession hearing. The case was adjourned until 31 January 2020, when the possession hearing was heard in court. The hearing was attended by the landlord, the resident and his community law service representative. A 28 day possession order was granted by the judge together with a judgement for arrears and costs.
On 8 February 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about it pursuing him for court costs.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord pursuing him for court costs are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the costs were ordered by the judge and so this service has no remit with regards to this matter. If the resident wants to appeal the court costs he would need to obtain his own legal advice and contact the court which has its own process for appealing court costs.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 12 September 2018. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat.
In October 2020, the resident’s arrears were cleared by a Discretionary Housing Payment. The landlord noted that the resident would be making an application to the court to suspend his eviction, which it would not oppose. On 16 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his starter tenancy had been converted to a full Assured Tenancy with effect from 12 April 2020.

The level of support the landlord offered the resident in relation to his mental health.

On 21 June 2019, the landlord emailed the resident regarding arrears on the resident’s rent account. The landlord asked the resident to confirm what payments he was going to make to clear the arrears and when the landlord could expect to receive them.
On 10 July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident as it had not yet received a response to its email of 21 June 2019. The landlord advised the resident that rent arrears are a serious breach of his tenancy and that it would take steps to terminate his tenancy if payments were not bought up to date. The landlord also invited the resident to meet with its Money Advisor on 15 July 2019 to discuss the situation.
On 19 July 2019, the resident emailed the landlord, apologising for the delay in his response and explaining that he had been ‘‘severely unwell mentally’’, which he said he had previously explained. The resident said that, due to his mental health, he would like any meetings to be held at the landlord’s offices and not at his home, and as such he would not be available to meet with the landlord that day. The landlord emailed the resident the same day. The landlord said that:
Its money guidance councillor was now on leave for two weeks and so, in their absence, provided the resident with the contact details of a community law service for him to seek advice on benefits and finances.
It appreciated the points the resident raised in his email, although it was not sure to what extent these had affected his ability to make rent payments. The landlord also asked the resident if he had any support workers that he would like it to make contact with.
Its Income Manager would be available on either 22 or 24 July 2019 and invited the resident to attend its office on either day to discuss his arrears.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email later the same day. The resident said that the points he made in his email of 19 July 2019 related to his poor mental health situation, which he said had resulted in him taking an overdose a number of times in recent months. The resident said that the landlord was only interested in their residents ability to pay rather than their mental health. The resident said that he would update the landlord after he had seen his doctor on 22 July 2019.
On 7 August 2019, following further email correspondence between the landlord and the resident, regarding the direct payment of the Housing Element of the resident’s Universal credit payment and concerns about the resident’s mental health and his wellbeing, the landlord asked the resident to let it know if he would like it to make a referral to the Adult Social Care team at the local Council, his GP, or any other professional that he might be working with in regard to his mental health. The landlord’s records note that a referral to Adult Social service the same day and that two days later Adult Social service advised that they could not accept a referral without the resident’s consent.
On 9 August 2019, the landlord’s internal safeguarding team noted that it could ‘‘not see an immediate risk to the resident at present’’ but suggested that a housing officer visit the resident to talk to him about his mental health issues, hospital admissions and what support he had in place. It was suggested that the housing officer could ask to see documentation around the resident’s hospital admissions and potentially signpost him to support services. The safeguarding team went on to explained that the landlord’s main responsibility was to ensure that, even though the resident would be served a Section 21 notice, he had the right support in place to keep him safe as far as possible. If there were any immediate concerns for his welfare e.g. threats of suicide, the safeguarding team said that the police should be contacted straightaway to do a welfare check on him. I have not seen evidence to show that there was a visit from the housing officer until 3 March 3030.
The landlord visited the resident on 3 March 2020. The landlord’s records note that the resident’s mental health concerns, what had happened with regards to the police attending his property, him being taken to hospital, what support he was receiving and what agencies may be able to help him were discussed. The landlord noted that it advised the resident that it would be opening a safeguarding case for him.
On 16 June 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about the level of support it had offered him in relation to his mental health. The resident also complained about comments made in documents supplied by the landlord as part of his subject access request.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 June 2020. The landlord said that:
Its records show ‘‘a good level of contact’’ was made by its income team since the resident’s rent account fell into arrears and that his mental health had been taken into consideration at all times. An alternative payment arrangement was put in place as a direct response to the resident’s mental health difficulties, however he stopped this payment arrangement.
Whilst it was aware that the resident was receiving support from the mental health team he did not provide it with any contact details when asked.
In June 2019, the resident had advised that he was receiving counselling and that with their support he would be able to clear any arrears.
The resident was in regular contact with its Income Team and at no time indicated that his mental health issues were the reason stopping him from making payments. The landlord said that at no point was there a sign of a lack of mental capacity to deal with the issues of the rent becoming due and that when the resident referred to a gambling addiction, it offered its free money guidance service to him, however he did not take up this offer.
In his email sent in July 2019 he told the landlord that he did not want anyone to visit him at home and so it offered opportunities for him to come into its office at his convenience but the resident failed to accept these offers of support.
The email the resident sent in August 2019 led it to believe more specialist intervention may be needed, so the resident’s income officer wrote to him offering to make a referral to the adult social care team, his GP or similar bodies. The landlord said that the resident failed to respond even though he was sending it other correspondence. The landlord said that it did, nevertheless, contact adult social services but was advised that they would need his consent to become involved.
The landlord noted that it had not found a record of the resident’s housing officer making contact with the resident as advised by its safeguarding team in August 2019, but that it was evident there was regular contact between him and his income officer at that time. The landlord said that this aspect of the resident’s complaint highlighted the importance of colleagues following up on actions, however when taking into account the amount of support services that were made available to the resident, it was satisfied that he did receive a good level of safeguarding support from his income officer and that he was regularly made aware of the options of support available to him.
The support he had received from his new housing officer, since January 2020 had been comprehensive and that following his spending time in hospital after taking an overdose the landlord had carried out welfare visits, made regular check in calls and in March 2020 the resident provided consent for a referral to adult social care which was then made.
On 24 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction at not being able to request a full investigation of his whole tenancy which he said caused him ‘‘undue anguish and is a way of avoiding responsibility and of adjusting the narrative when responding in an official capacity’’.
The landlord responded to the resident escalation request on 3 July 2020. The landlord said that it had considered his request to escalate his complaint and was unable to progress it to stage two as it did not meet any of its stage two criteria.

A member of the landlord’s staff refusing to read the resident’s letter during a meeting him (Complaint reference 3724824).

On 19 February 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that, during a meeting on 1 October 2019, a member of the landlord’s staff refused to read his letter and would only accept a verbal conversation.
On 2 March 2020, the landlord issued its first and final response to the resident’s complaint of 19 February 2020. The landlord said that the resident had provided it with a recording of his meeting with the landlord on 1 October 2019. The landlord explained that the reason the Income Officer had asked the resident to speak to them rather than read his letter was that they had difficulties reading his letter and wanted to understand the points he was making. The landlord said that since that meeting the resident had had other opportunities, including telephone conversations, emails and a court hearing with his Community Law Service officer, to raise his concerns
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, saying that it believed that it had followed the correct procedures and had taken the resident’s individual needs into account. The landlord ended by advising the resident of his right to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 5 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The resident said that the landlord’s response was not as in-depth as one would expect it to be. The landlord responded to the resident the same day to say that the next step for the resident was to take this matter to the Housing Ombudsman.

The landlord’s response to reports of repair to the resident’s front door.

The resident has advised this service that at some point between late February and early March 2020, the police had to gain entry to his flat as he was unresponsive.
During a visit to the resident’s property on 3 March 2020, the landlord noted that there was damage to the resident’s front door. A job was raised on 5 March 2020. The landlord’s records note that the front door, which had been damaged during a forced entry by the police, was secure, but needed replacing. No evidence has been provided of the resident reporting the repair prior to this date.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord noted that it had brought forward the repair to the resident’s front door from 31 to 18 March 2020. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 March 2020 to advise that its contractor had attended that day regarding his front door but had only taken some measurements. The resident said that he was still left with an insecure front door. The landlord’s notes record that a new door was required.
On 26 May 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that his front door had still not been repaired. The resident said that as the repair was to his front door it should have been dealt with as an emergency. The resident said that he felt this was also unsafe due to the fire risk.
On 4 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again to chase the repair to his front door. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint the following day. The landlord:
Acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the resident’s door, apologised and offered a goodwill payment of £50.
Said that it understood the resident had spoken to its area surveyor the previous day, who had explained that the delay was due its contractor not informing it that they were unable to carry out the required works. The landlord said that was not the service it expected from its contractors.
Said that the job had now been passed to its planned works team and a contractor would be in contact with the resident shortly to make an appointment to measure up before a new door was ordered. The landlord said that once the order had been placed it would take a further 6 to 8 weeks for the door to be received and fitted.
Apologised once again for the delay and advised the resident that if he were not satisfied with its response he could request that his complaint be escalated to stage 2.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. The resident said that the landlord had been aware since late February 2020 that his front door was not only insecure but also no longer compliant with fire safety regulations. The resident said that his housing officer had seen this for themselves when they visited in March 2020. The resident said that he had given the landlord ‘‘some grace because of lockdown’’ but had been constantly told that it was not an emergency or that the works were awaiting the landlord’s approval. The resident said that he had not had adequate protection from fire for over four months.
Later on 4 June 2020, the landlord emailed its contractor to advise that it had been contacted by the local Fire and Rescue Service Fire Protection Officer regarding the resident’s front door, which the landlord described as a fire door. The landlord advised its contractor that the Fire officer had visited the resident’s property and had given the landlord one week to replace the door. The landlord said that the fire officer said they would be going back to the resident’s property the following week and if the works were not completed the fire officer would formally notify the landlord.
The landlord emailed the local Fire and Rescue service Fire Protection Officer on 10 June 2020 to confirm that the works had been completed. The local Fire and Rescue service Fire Protection Officer emailed the landlord the same day to thank the landlord for its ‘‘prompt assistance in getting this resolved’’.
The landlord issued its Stage two, and final, response on 1 July 2020. The landlord noted that the resident had complained that his door was deliberately left insecure and non-compliant with fire safety regulations due to an imminent eviction. The landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure by itself and its contractors but rejected the resident’s allegation the delay was deliberate. The landlord explained that the delay was due to the replacement being held up with its contractor and that once it was aware of the replacement being necessary it arranged to replace the door within five days of the replacement survey.
The landlord went on to explain that when significant repairs were necessary to fire doors, it asks its contractor to complete repair work to the best possible standard. As the resident’s door was secure, the landlord said that an emergency repair was not required and so a routine repair was raised to improve the condition of the door until it could be replaced. The landlord explained that fire regulations allowed it to take reasonable steps by repairing until a new door could be obtained which could take a number of weeks. The landlord said that ‘‘although these repairs may not fully meet fire certification as this can only be achieved when a full replacement is installed, these repairs will assist with providing an acceptable level of fire protection to residents in the interim’’. The landlord also said that the resident’s flat was fitted with smoke alarms which enable it to ‘‘provide interim protection until full compliance could be reinstated’’.
The landlord ended by saying that, following further investigation, it was increasing its offer of compensation to £250, from the £50 it had offered at stage one, and that it was reviewing its procedure with its contractor to ensure that lessons were learnt by both parties in order to ensure such delays did not occur again.

Assessment and findings

The level of support the landlord offered the resident in relation to his mental health.

The landlord’s Income Management Policy states that the landlord will act in a “firm but fair” way communicating clearly expectations on paying rent whilst offering support where needed. The policy goes on the state that the landlord will refer cases to its Tenancy Sustainment Officer, where appropriate, who will provide 1-2-1 support in helping the customer sustain their tenancy by working with internal stakeholders and external partners to provide the customer with the opportunity to sustain their tenancy.
The landlord’s Tenancy Management Policy states that where support needs have been identified the landlord will offer resident’s a range of services to support them in sustaining their tenancy including in-house money advice and welfare benefit support.
The landlord’s Safeguarding Adults policy states that where it is believed that a resident may be at risk, the landlord will ensure that the appropriate referral is made to the local authority. The policy goes on to state that referrals will usually be undertaking by the colleague who identified the concern with the Designated Safeguarding Leads providing advice and support as required.
As the resident’s rent account was in arrears, it was reasonable for the landlord to write to the resident on 21 June 2019 to raise its concerns about those arrears. Having had no response from the resident the landlord acted in accordance with both its Income Management Policy and Tenancy Management Policy, writing to the resident again on 10 July 2019 explaining the risk to his tenancy were the arrears to continue and offering him initial support by way of its in-house money advisor.
The landlord again acted reasonably in response to the resident’s email of 19 July 2019 in which he advised the landlord that he had been ‘‘severely unwell mentally’’ and due to his mental health he would like any meetings to be held at the landlord’s office. This it did by asking the resident if he had any support workers that he would like it to make contact with and giving the resident the option of two dates where he could attend the landlord’s offices to discuss his arrears.
Following further correspondence on 19 and 31 July 2019 in which the resident spoke about his poor mental health and concerns regarding his finances, the landlord again offered the services of its in-house money advisor. Having identified that the resident was vulnerable and potentially at risk it was appropriate, and in accordance with its Safeguarding Adults policy, for the landlord to ask the resident if he would like it to make a referral to Adult Social Services. The landlord made the referral to Adult Social services on 7 August 2019, despite the resident not providing the landlord with his consent at that time. Two days later Adult Social services advised the landlord that it could not accept the referral without the resident’s consent. There is no evidence of the landlord going back to the resident to seek his consent at that time.
At the same time as making a referral to Adult Social services the landlord also sought advice from its internal safeguarding team, which was again in accordance with its Safeguarding Adults Policy. The safeguarding team did not identify an immediate risk to the resident and suggested a number of steps for the landlord to take to ensure that the resident had the right support in place. These included the housing officer visiting the resident to talk to him about his mental health issues, hospital admissions and what support he had in place. It was suggested that the housing officer could ask to see documentation around the resident’s hospital admissions and potentially signpost him to support services. There is no evidence of the landlord carry out any such visit until 3 March 2020. This was confirmed by the landlord in its Stage 1 response of 23 June 2020.
In it’s response of 23 June 2020, the landlord said that there had been a good level of contact with the resident and that his mental health had been taken into account at all times. The landlord also referred to the support he had received from his new housing officer, since January 2020, which it described as being comprehensive, including welfare visits and regular check in calls. The landlord also confirmed that in March 2020 the resident provided consent for a referral to adult social care which was then made.
Whilst that may be the case, the advice given by the safeguarding to do as much was given in August 2019, four months earlier, and the landlord failed to follow that advice at the time, resulting in it missing the opportunity to gain clearer understanding of the resident’s needs and thus provide the resident with appropriate additional support at a much earlier date. The landlord also failed to get back to the resident in early August 2019 following Adult Social services advising that it could not take a referral from it without his consent.
In its stage one response on 23 June 2020, the landlord acknowledged that this aspect of the resident’s complaint highlighted the importance of colleagues following up on actions. However, the landlord did not provide any further information about what actions it would put in place to ensure that a similar situation did not occur in the future.
With regards to the landlord not escalating the residents complaint to Stage two. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a customer can only use stage 2 if one or more of the following criteria has been evidenced:
1. The response received is factually inaccurate;
2. The response received does not address the initial complaint; and
3. There is evidence that our complaints process was not followed.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states that the landlord would expect complaints to be reported within a reasonable timescale, such as no more than six months of the customer being aware/notified of the issue.
Given that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response was that he was not able to request a full investigation of his whole tenancy, and that his tenancy commenced on 12 September 2018, is was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to escalate his complaint and for that complaint to exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints process at Stage one.

A member of the landlord’s staff refusing to read the resident’s letter during a meeting him.

On 19 February 2020, the resident logged a complaint that a member of its staff refused to read his letter during a meeting with him on 1 October 2019 to discuss his rent account, four months earlier.
Having considered the evidence, there was no service failure by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s complaint. This is because:
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an investigation into the resident’s concerns this included the landlord listened to a recording of the meeting in question, provided by the resident.
The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident explaining that the reason its Income Officer had asked him to speak to them about his concerns, rather than them reading the letter, was because they were having difficulties reading the letter and wanted to understand the points he was making. Given the purpose of the meeting it was necessary for both parties to be able to discuss the issues with the resident’s rent account and for the landlord to understand the resident’s position and concerns. There is nothing to indicate that this did not happen because the staff member did not read the letter.
It is unclear whether the landlord retained the letter for its records as this has not been seen by this service. However, this service has seen other correspondence from the resident that would indicate that he was provided with other opportunities to raise his concerns in writing, as necessary.

The landlord’s response to reports of repair to the resident’s front door (Complaint reference 3774252).

Under the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is obliged to keep the structure of the building and exterior of the resident’s home in repair and working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy has two categories of repairs: Emergency repairs – attend between 2 hours and 24 hours and make safe and Appointed repairs – complete within 21 days.
At some point between the end of February and 3 March 2020, the resident’s door was damaged as the result of the Police forcing entry to check on the resident’s welfare. There is no evidence of the damage to the door being reported to the landlord by the resident at that time. The first report of repair to the door was made by the landlord following a visit to the resident’s property on 3 March 2020.
As the landlord had reported that the door was secure it was reasonable for the landlord to categorise as an appointed repair. The landlord initially attended on 18 March 2020, 15 days later and within the 21 day timescale for an appointed repair set out in its repairs policy. The landord’s contractor confirmed that a new door was required.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to agree actions and timescales for responding in line with its policies and obligations, and confirm these in writing to the resident, informing the resident of any delays and explain why these are necessary.
In this case there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any of the above information regarding the replacement of his front door following its visit on 18 March 2020.
It was not until its complaint response of 4 June 2020 that the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the resident’s door, for which it apologised and offered a goodwill payment of £50. The landlord explained that the delays were as a result of its contractor not informing it that they were unable to carry out the works required. The landlord said that it would need to take measurements and that a new door would take a further six to eight weeks to be received and fitted.
Following the visit from the local Fire and Rescue service Fire Protection Officer, the date for the replacement door was bought forward and the door replaced on 10 June 2020, three months after the repair was first reported. The Fire Protection Officer was advised by the landlord that the works had been complaint and thanked the landlord for its ‘‘prompt assistance in getting this resolved’’.
The Ombudsman expects landlord to acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again.
In its final response the landlord again acknowledged that there had been a delay in replacing the resident’s door. The landlord explained that whilst that was the case it was satisfied that the door had been secure and as such an emergency repair was not required and that a repair was carried out to improve the condition of the door until it could be replaced. The landlord also offered the resident reassurance regarding the level of fire protection provided by those repairs.
As a resolution to the resident’s complaint the landlord increased its offer of compensation from the £50 offered at stage one to £250.
Both landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman Remedies guidance recommends compensation in the range of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
Having considered all the evidence, the extent to which the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its service failures, the landlord’s own Compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance, I am satisfied that the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was fair and proportionate given the service failures identified.
The landlord also evidenced that it was seeking to learn from the resident’s complaint, saying that it was reviewing its procedure with its contractor to ensure that lessons were learnt by both parties in order to ensure such delays did not occur again.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the level of support the landlord offered the resident in relation to his mental health.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of a member of the landlord’s staff refusing to read the resident’s letter during a meeting with him.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of repair to the resident’s front door.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord took a number of steps to support the resident with regards to his mental health, the landlord failed to contact the resident again after Adult Social Services had confirmed that they could not accept a referral from the landlord without the resident’s consent. The landlord also failed to carry out the actions suggested by its Safeguarding team in a timely manner.
The landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. Having found there to be no service failure the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable explanation as to why the officer had asked him to speak to them rather than read his letter and confirmed that the resident had had other opportunities to raise his concerns in writing.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay in repairing his front door and offered the resident a level of compensation that provided the resident with reasonable redress for the service failures identified. The landlord also said that it had taken steps to ensure that ensure that lessons were learnt by both itself and its contractor in order to ensure such delays did not occur again.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within six weeks of the date of this determination the landlord shall:
Write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the failures identified in relation to the level of support the landlord offered the resident in relation to his mental health
2. provide him with an explanation of what steps it is taking to ensure that going forward colleagues follow up on recommendations made by its safeguarding team.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, that the landlord pay the resident the £250 goodwill payment in its final response to his complaint about the repairs to his front door.