Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202017341)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017341

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

16 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 relates to:
1. The landlords handling of the flooring repairs.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an accessible kitchen.
3. The landlord forcing entry to the property and changing the locks.
4. The landlord’s record keeping.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and the property in question is a one bedroomed flat. The tenancy began on 8 June 2013. The landlord’s records detail that the resident has both significant physical and mental health vulnerabilities but has no further detail of either.
In July 2018, issues were identified with the flooring around the bathroom at the property. The work to address the flooring issues was not undertaken which the landlord said was due to access issues.
In February 2021, the resident’s representative raised a complaint due to outstanding flooring work. They informed the landlord that the resident had been in hospital since May 2020 and was now in a position to return home. However, this was not possible due to the outstanding work at the property. The resident reports being unable to move back into the property until after 16 April 2021.
The resident followed the landlord’s complaint process but was not satisfied with the response or the compensation payment offered.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy describes three repair types with different target timeframes, these are:
1. Emergency repairs – these are seen as repairs that are required to avoid immediate danger to health and safety. These repairs have a 24 hour timeframe.
2. Routine repairs – repairs that can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience, nuisance or without long term deterioration. These have a repair timeframe of 28 days.
3. Major routine repairs – This covers remedial works that ensure the property remains habitable such as structural work, planned maintenance and service installations. These works should be completed within three months or as part of a planned programme of works.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord “will normally give you reasonable notice if we need to get into your home.” It says that this could be for the following reasons:
1. “Repair the property or any part of it.”
2. “Inspect the property.”
3. “Carry out works and improvements to the property.”
In relation to forced entry the tenancy states “if you do not let us in to your property after we have given you reasonable notice, you agree that we may force entry.” It specifies that “we may enter you property without giving notice if we believe you or other people are at risk of harm or that the property may be damaged.” It continues “we will do our best to contact you before we force entry to your property.”
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy as below:
1. Stage one should be acknowledged by the landlord within five working days and a response issued within ten working days. If it cannot provide a response within ten working days, it will keep the customer informed and agree new response times.
2. Stage two complaints will be acknowledged, investigated and a resolution provided within twenty working days. If it cannot provide a response within this time, it will keep the customer informed and agree new response times.
The landlord’s compensation policy from October 2020 details that “high failure” payments start from £151. It details two types of compensation payments and why they would be made, as follows:
1. Failure of Service – “We didn’t complete repairs when we said we would”, “You received a poor service from us”, “You had to move out of your home whilst we redeveloped it.”
2. Time and Trouble – “Expended unnecessary effort communicating with landlord”, Unnecessary circumstance such as vulnerability and disability.”
In a separate supporting document that the landlord uses for guidance on awarding compensation, its definition of “high failure” it uses the following:
1. “Long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs”
2. “Failure to make reasonable adjustments – Especially where there are vulnerabilities within the household”

Summary of events

Whilst this Service accepts that the resident first reported issues with their flooring in July 2018, a formal complaint was not raised by the resident until February 2021.
This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from six months prior to February 2021 until the end of the internal complaint process. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Events that occurred prior to this date are however referred to for context.
In July 2018, the landlord identified woodworm in the resident’s property, after finding a hole in the flooring near the bathroom. This was identified as a “tripping hazard” as it was “approximately two feet squared”. The landlord said that this was not repaired due to issues around access. An Occupational Therapy (OT) officer from the local council attended and found further damage to the flooring in June 2019. Works orders were raised by the landlord but despite the resident and their representative chasing these works, they were not completed. The landlord said that no access issues prevented it from completing the repairs.
In early July 2019, contact logs show the resident had contacted the landlord on four occasions to chase the works that were agreed during the visit in June 2019. The resident was told that its contractor would arrange the visits directly with them. On 24 July 2019, the same works order to “to renew defective flooring to bedroom and hallway” was rebooked.
On 5 August 2019, the resident requested an update on the flooring work and was told that the contractor would make contact that week to arrange. The landlord’s repair notes show that on 5 September 2019, an internal email stated that its contractor had “no knowledge of the job” but offered no explanation of why.
On 4 March 2020 and 22 September 2020, the repair logs show a works order “to renew defective flooring to bedroom and hallway” was rebooked stating that there was previously no access provided to complete works. This Service has not seen details of when, or if these visits took place and if they did, what the outcome was.
On 15 October 2020, the landlord attended and subsequently requested a specialist inspection in respect of the woodworm issue. On 26 October 2020, a survey was undertaken by a specialist contractor. The landlord requested a copy of the survey from its contractor on the same day.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord received a copy of the survey report and on the same day it raised works that were recommended within the survey. The landlord’s records show works orders were being raised with the same works order reference (6858217) as previous works orders, on 29 December 2020 and 27 January 2021.
On 6 February 2021, contact logs show that the landlord received correspondence requesting an update on the outstanding work. The notes do not show who made the request but the contact says they were told that the work should have been completed by then, as the resident was not currently living in the property. It advised that the resident needed to return to the property and that any work should be completed beforehand.
On 8 February 2021, a contractor attended the property to install adaptations, recommended by the OT, to the bathroom but found issues with the flooring in the bathroom. This was then reported to the landlord, as it could not carry out the work until the flooring had been replaced.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord’s notes show that it arranged a further survey around the woodworm/flooring issue.
On 17 February 2021, the repair officer made a request to arrange to move the resident and their belongings from the property while the required repairs were carried out.
On 18 February 2021, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord to discuss the requirement for the resident to be moved from the property. Later in the day, the landlord received the residents complaint via the residents representative in which they raised the following elements of complaint:
1. Planned work to address a long standing issue with flooring and woodworm had not been completed, despite assurances to the contrary.
2. Bathroom adaptation works had been stopped due to the issues with the flooring.
3. Resident was due to be discharged from hospital following an extended stay but this would not be possible without a habitable home.
4. They had been informed that the property would need to be emptied in order to carry out the required work but nothing had been arranged.

The resident’s representative requested that the landlord arrange for the removal of the resident’s belongings and the completion of the required work asap. They also requested compensation for the distress it had caused and for any additional time the resident had to stay in hospital due to the delays.

On 10 March 2021, the resident’s belongings were removed from the property by the landlord to allow work to start.
On 17 March 2021, the contractor attended and carried out much of the identified flooring works, except for in the kitchen. It was not able to complete the kitchen works due to the type of flooring in the kitchen, which it believed to contain asbestos. The landlord then requested the complete removal of the kitchen flooring. The flooring was removed on 22 March 2021.
On 24 March 2021, the contractor attended to apply woodworm treatment and replace the effected flooring but it found that the damaged area included to flooring located under the kitchen units, so these would need to be removed before it could complete the work. These units were removed the same day.
On 26 March 2021, the contractor attended and completed treatment and replacement works to the affected floorboards in the kitchen. Following the removal of the kitchen units, the resident’s representative, OT and the landlord discussed the potential for the installation of an accessible kitchen. It was suggested that this be installed while the property was empty and the kitchen works were underway. Due to the costs involved in providing the accessible kitchen, the landlord said it would not be able to approve the work, so it would not meet the request to install the requested kitchen at that time.
A works order was raised for 6 April 2021, to reinstall the kitchen units and relay the carpets. The landlord indicated that a post inspection would be carried out by 7 April 2021, in order to ensure it was ready for the resident to move back in.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response which partially upheld the complaint and said:
1. It was aware of the woodworm/flooring issues in July 2018 but access issues prevented it from attending to either carry out inspections, or the required work, on several occasions, delaying the inspection until October 2020.
2. It said that following the required surveys, the work was undertaken in March 2021. It explained that it would be reinstating the kitchen units and replacing the carpets on 6 April 2021 and following an inspection, the residents belongings could be returned on 14 April 2021 and they could move back in afterwards.
3. The landlord offered a payment of £25 for “poor complaint handling”.

Within the same email, the landlord says that the repairs team required access to the property on 6 April 2021 for the whole day, in order to carry out remaining repairs. The landlord requested a response from the resident to its request for access.

On 6 April 2021, the landlord says that it forced entry to the property as the resident’s representative “would not allow access to the property” to complete outstanding works. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident prior to forcing entry. The landlord later explained that it should have reinstated the original lock but failed to do so and installed a new lock. The resident was not made aware of this change and was not provided with the new keys to the property.
The landlord indicated that on the 6 April 2021 it received a request from the resident to escalate their complaint to stage two as they were not satisfied with its stage one response. This Service has not had a copy or record of the escalation request and it is only referenced in the landlords stage two response.
On 9 April 2021, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord as they were unable to access the property following the lock change. Following this contact, the landlord says that it arranged temporary accommodation for the resident to start that day through Airbnb.
On 13 April 2021, the resident was provided with keys to enable her to return to the property.
On 14 April 2021, the resident’s representative contacted the landlord as “she had gone to the property today to let the removal men in to put back all the furniture.” They advised “the carpet has not been put back down properly so has rolled up in multiple places causing tripping hazards.
On 15 April 2021, a meeting was held between the resident’s representative and the landlord to agree a plan to move the resident back into the property. It then extended the temporary accommodation as the carpets had not been reinstalled securely. This was eventually extended until 11 May 2021, the landlord said that this was “at the resident’s request, as she felt overwhelmed at the thought of unpacking” during this period due to personal circumstances.
On 26 April 2021, the OT made an application on behalf of the resident to the local authority for it to provide funding through a disabled facilities grant for the installation of an adapted kitchen.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, the reason for the escalation request is detailed as having four points. The first three of these are followed by a note to indicate that it was “awaiting further clarification” from the resident:
1. The stage one response is factually incorrect.
2. The response does not address the initial complaint.
3. Important information provided in the complaint has not been considered.
4. Actions agreed at stage one had not been completed
The stage two response said that it partially upheld the residents complaint and within its findings said:
1. It acknowledged that despite the access issues it experienced after being made aware of the woodworm/flooring issues, it should have made allowances given that the resident was vulnerable.
2. It acknowledged the ‘excessive’ delay in carrying out the works that were recommended following the inspection in December 2020.
3. It had been unable to meet the resident’s request to install an accessible kitchen during the works in March 2021, as there was no funding in place for the requested kitchen adaptations.
4. It explained that it had forced entry to the property due to being denied access. It claimed that its requests for access had been refused, as it had declined the request to install the adapted kitchen. It acknowledged that it had not replaced the locks to the original set, failed to provided notice of the lock change, failed to provide a spare key and not provided access to the lockbox at the property.
5. The landlord accepted that one of its employees had used unacceptable language during correspondence with the resident. It said this had been dealt with as an internal staff issue.
6. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the required works, which meant that the resident had to stay in an Airbnb property until they could move back in.
7. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £911, which was made up of £200 in service failure payments, a £350 time and inconvenience payment and a rent rebate of £361 for the time taken to prepare the property. It also offered to provide a refund of any costs incurred when moving back to the property, upon the resident providing invoices.
The resident disagreed with the outcome of the complaint and was not satisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and brought the complaint to this Service for investigation. This service deemed the case to be duly made on 2 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the flooring repairs

It is evident that the landlord was aware of the issues with woodworm and the flooring in the property in July 2018. The initial request was for treatment to a hole in the flooring that was seen as a ‘trip hazard’. The hole in the flooring was noted as a trip hazard within the first notes from July 2018. Given this description of the issue, the repair policy would define it as being an emergency repair as it is a “danger to one’s health and safety”. Given this definition, the landlord should have repaired, or at minimum made safe, the flooring within 24 hours.
Given that the landlord identified it as a woodworm issue, the landlord would have been aware that without suitable treatment, this was likely to worsen. However, the landlord did not carry out any relevant repairs or treatment until February 2021. This means that it left a trip hazard in the property of a vulnerable resident for over two and a half years.
The landlord explained that it attempted to carry out surveys and repairs during this 31 month period but the works orders were closed uncompleted due to several visits ending with no access. This Service has seen no evidence of these reported no access visits nor the total number of alleged visits involved. In the event of a no access visit, it would be reasonable for the landlord to leave notes on its system or communicate the failed visit to the resident. The lack of any such records or correspondence suggests significant failings in the landlord’s record keeping, as there is no audit trail to show why these urgent works were not carried out. Ultimately, even if there were access issues, given the urgency of this work and clear vulnerability factors involved, this service does not view access challenges as a justifiable reason to ignore a potential safety risk in a resident’s property and close down works of such a nature.
If the landlord experienced issues in accessing the property, it was in a position to progress legal action to enforce access so as to fulfil its repairing responsibilities. This is detailed within the tenancy agreement. Given that there was obvious concern that the outstanding flooring damage could pose potential hazard to a resident with known disabilities, the landlord should have progressed required actions to force entry to make the property safe. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord took any such actions.
The landlord attended the property in October 2020 and arranged for a survey but it then took it six weeks to obtain a copy of its contractors survey report. It then booked the required works but these did not begin until February 2021. When considering the nature of the work that was required, this level of delay is unreasonable. Of note is that a further survey of the bathroom flooring was instructed on 10 February 2021, despite the landlord having already had a survey carried out only four months previously. Given that the bathroom flooring was the original reported problem, it is unclear why an adequate or comprehensive survey hadn’t been carried out on 26 October 2020. The lack of any urgency in managing the required repairs between October 2020 and February 2021 contributed to the resident not being able to move back into the property once they could leave hospital. This then led to the complaint being raised in February 2021, which coincided with the works starting.
It is clear that the landlord has failed to address the flooring issue until two and a half years after it was first reported. This repair should have been completed within 24 hours. Had it acted more promptly, it would have ensured the residents safety and may have prevented or reduced the works later required. The repair logs provided by the landlord show different works orders being reported and completed within the property during this time but it has not taken any action to also address the urgent flooring works when attending to those repairs. As such access for works was indeed provided but not adequately utilised to progress these urgent works.
The resident’s belongings were removed from the property on 10 March 2021 and they were not able to move back in until after 16 April 2021. Although the work required was extensive, a vulnerable resident was prevented from moving back into their home, following an extended hospital stay. The transition from an extended period at a mental health facility back to independent living must be challenging. That the transition was hindered and not assisted is a significant failing and missed opportunity to assist a resident at a time of high need. When considered cumulatively, the landlord failures throughout this process, amount to severe maladministration.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an accessible kitchen

The landlord’s adaptations policy places an adapted kitchen in the ‘major adaptation’ category, with an estimated cost of between £2,500 and £5,000. In an internal email dated 1 April 2022, the landlord says that any adaptation requests with a cost of over £1,000 would need to have been funded through a grant. The application completed by OT for the funding of an adapted kitchen was dated 26 April 2021. During this time, the original standard kitchen had been reinstalled.
Due to the assessed need for an adapted kitchen, it is understandable that the resident’s representative and OT would suggest this be installed while the property was empty. If completed this would have removed the requirement for any further upheaval and allowed the resident to benefit from it once they were ready for discharge. The landlord rejected the initial requests in March 2021, as there was no funding in place for the requested adaptation at that time. In view of this and as the resident was waiting on the completion of all the works as a matter of urgency, the landlords decision to reinstall the original kitchen units was reasonable.
As the landlord was not funding the adapted kitchen, it was reasonable for it to reject the initial request to install it. The landlord was working to have the property safe and fit for the resident to return, so it was not in a position to wait on the outcome of the grant application for adaptations. The adapted kitchen was later fitted in January 2022. Although the delay was frustrating for the resident given that the property was previously empty it cannot be considered a failing on the part of the landlord. Having reviewed this element of the complaint, no maladministration was found.

The landlord forcing entry to the property and changing the locks

The landlord explained that it forced entry to the property due to a refusal of access by the resident’s representative. It said that it did so, “in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, as there was no legitimate reason for the works to not go ahead”. This Service has requested any evidence of it being denied access but the landlord has been unable to provide it. The landlord would be expected to keep a thorough record of such communication given it relied upon such in effecting an illegal forced entry. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, this investigation has progressed on the basis that access was not refused.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord can force entry to carry out essential works. However, the specifics of the circumstances in which it can force entry all require that it provided ‘reasonable notice’ before doing so. Despite requests by this service, the landlord had not provided evidence of any such reasonable notice or efforts to alert the resident or their representative in advance of its actions.
In its email dated 1 April 2021 to the resident and their representative, the landlord indicated that it would need access for the full day on 6 April 2021. There is no mention of a previous refusal of access, it just asked for a response, prior to the proposed date. Within that email, there is also no warning of the potential for forced entry, if access is not granted. The email was sent at 15:49 on 1 April 2021, which is the last standard business day prior to 6 April 2021, due to the Easter bank holiday weekend. As the landlord must have already made a decision in advance that it would force entry if no access was provided a reasonable notice period and some form of warning of the potential for forced entry should have been provided. The landlord has not provided either of these within its email, or prior to it forcing entry to the resident’s home. It is clear that the landlord has not acted reasonably, sensibly, or in line with the tenancy agreement when forcing entry to the property. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord as the resident has been denied fundamental rights set out in their tenancy agreement.
The landlord failed to reinstate the same locks as it said it planned to, meaning that the resident was unable to access the property on 9 April 2021. Although the landlord had said previously that the property would not be in a condition for the resident to move back into it until after 14 April 2021, access should have always been available to the resident. If it failed to reinstate the original lock, it should have ensured that it made the resident or their representative aware of a method by which they could gain entry to the property. The landlord notes that there is a lock box at the property and this could have been used to store a key, even if the landlord had no way to provide it to them on the day. This failing has left the resident with no access to her home following her return from an extended hospital stay. This would have caused unnecessary and avoidable distress during an already difficult and unsettling time. When considered cumulatively, the landlords failings, amount to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord acknowledged that it was aware of the resident having both physical and mental health vulnerabilities. However, it says that it has no further information on either. In order to ensure that these vulnerabilities are considered correctly, the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment or review to establish what reasonable measures it might put in place to assist the resident. Had it done so, it could have agreed a process for arranging repair visits with the resident or their representative. This would reduce the possibility of access or communication issues. The landlord failing to do so has led to delays in the completion of urgent work and the resident living in a potentially unsafe space.
Despite requests from this Service, the landlord was unable to provide any details of the no access visits that it said were the reason for the works remaining incomplete between July 2018 and February 2021. Although access issues can prevent the completion of works, landlord’s should maintain records that provide an accurate reflection of events. With the landlord being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have maintained clear and confirmed appointment records. In the case of no access visits, this could be log notes, photographs of no access cards being posted or letters being sent to the resident to make them aware of the failure to gain access. This Service has not had sight of any evidence that would suggest that the landlord used any alternative methods by which to arrange access, following previous no access visits. It is the view of this Service that it is unreasonable that the landlord could not provide any evidence of or dates for the failed access visits throughout such a significant period. Especially, given that those repairs would be classed as a hazard to the resident.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of any communications relating to the request for the installation of the adapted kitchen and its decision to reject the request. Although this seems to have taken place during conversations in person, the landlord should still have provided confirmation of those discussions, providing reasons for its rejection and then signposting the resident and their representative through the correct channels to obtain funding.
Prior to forcing entry to the resident’s property in April 2021, the landlord should have provided reasonable notice and warnings of the potential for it to force entry in advance of doing so. Despite this Service requesting this information, the landlord said it could not provide any. It was also unable to provide any communications in which the resident or their representative had denied it access to the property, which was the basis it relied upon for taking the decision to force entry.
It is clear that each element of this complaint surfaces evidence of significant record keeping failings, which have clearly adversely impacted on the quality of service delivered by the landlord and the experience of the resident. This could have been reasonable adjustments being made around the repairs, or a clear audit trail around actions that it may have taken but cannot evidence with any sort of audit trail. Having reviewed these failings, they are considered to constitute severe maladministration as they had numerous detrimental impacts.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered

The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 18 February 2021. In line with its complaint policy, it should have provided a response by 4 March 2021. However, the stage one response was not issued until 1 April 2021. Works and discussions had taken place during this time but this Service has not had sight of any communication detailing any agreed extension to the complaint timeframe. This is a failing by the landlord as the delay in providing the response is unreasonable. Although the stage one response detailed work that was completed in March 2021, none of this addressed the complaint elements that had been raised earlier in February 2021 regarding the failure to complete outstanding works.
The landlord records indicate that the resident’s representative requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on 6 April 2021. In line with its complaint policy, it should have provided the response by 5 May 2021. However, it did not issue the response until 10 May 2021. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord has failed to acknowledge the complaint and failed to provide a response in line with its own policy.
In the stage one review, the landlord suggests that the majority of the delays were due to access issues that it could not evidence, but fails to acknowledge the delay in the works being arranged or completed. This does not address the complaint as it focuses on previous unsubstantiated claims of no access, rather than addressing why it hasn’t carried out the required works since October 2020, during which time it was provided with access for other works.
It is clear that the landlord had been made aware of the resident’s welfare needs but failed to acknowledge or show anything like an adequate or reasonable degree of empathy towards the resident, despite these delays meaning they could not return home. It made an offer of £25 for ‘poor complaints handling’ but it did not adequately acknowledge or detail issues with its complaint handling. It partially upheld the complaint as it acknowledged ‘there have been some delays in arranging the works to treat the woodworm.’ It does not specify if this is the two and a half years between July 2018 and February 2021, or between October 2020 and February 2021. Given these factors and the extended time and trouble in the pursuance of a resolution required of the resident and their representative, the compensation amount offered falls considerably short of a reasonable proportionate remedy.
The stage two complaint escalation request was made on 6 April 2021. This Service has not been provided with a record of this escalation request. Maintaining an accurate audit trail throughout the complaint process is important in making sure that all concerns are addressed in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
The delays in addressing the woodworm and flooring issues were upheld as part of the stage two response. In its stage two response the landlord agrees that the stage one complaint was not sufficiently investigated or considered. The landlords response makes it clear that the delays were avoidable and that it contributed to them in the lack of any real ownership being taken of the outstanding repairs.
Within the stage two response, the landlord acknowledges it “identified several issues within the service which were not addressed at stage one.” The landlord maintained that access issues prevented earlier works but says “given the specific circumstances and vulnerability of the resident, reasonable adaptations should have been made, which were not.” Although the landlord acknowledged its failings, it provides no detail around the issues it failed to address, or what it could have done differently around access. In line with the Dispute Resolution principle ‘Learn from Outcomes’, it should show specific learnings based on the findings of its complaints.
The proposed compensation from the landlord places the service failings and time and trouble elements of the complaint into its ‘high failure’ category. When taking into account the delay periods involved, the trip hazards within the property, the frustration caused given the lack of action and the distress it caused when the resident was unable to move back into their home, at a time they would likely have felt their most vulnerable, the proposed compensation payment falls considerably short of fairness or adequate remedy.
The landlord proposed a payment of £550 to cover service failings (£200) and time and trouble (£350) and a rent rebate payment of £361, However, it acknowledged that the resident was not able to use the property between 8 February 2021 and 16 April 2021, which should have led to a rebate of £801.34. In doing so, the landlord has failed to provide a remedy in line with the guidelines for ‘Putting Things Right’ under the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code of Practice. The Code says that any award should consider “length of time that a situation has been ongoing.” In this case, the landlord has not made the award in line with the length of time that the resident was not able to use the property. When considering this and the other failings in the landlords management of the residents complaint, this cumulatively amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52d of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the flooring repairs.
In accordance with the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an accessible kitchen.
In accordance with section 52c of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord forcing entry to the property and changing the locks.
In accordance with section 52e of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with section 52b of the Scheme, there was maladministration in its complaint handling and the compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the flooring repairs

The landlord was made aware of a tripping hazard and a woodworm issue in the resident’s property. It failed to address these issues, despite knowing they were a hazard to a highly vulnerable resident and that the woodworm issue would likely get worse, causing further damage and potentially elevate the risks to the resident. Repairs that should have been addressed as a priority, took over two and a half years to be completed. The landlord has indicated this was due to access issues, despite not being able to provide any evidence to substantiate its position. When it did attend in October 2020, it failed to start any of the required work until over four months later. The landlord would have been made aware of the resident’s position during this time and be aware that these repairs would need to be completed before they could return home. The landlord failed to meet its own repair timeframes initially and then failed to take any ownership of these essential repairs despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the installation of an accessible kitchen

The landlord’s refusal to install the adapted kitchen at the time of the initial request was due to the lack of funding in place. The landlord has directed the resident’s representative and OT to make the request for funding through the correct channels but given the process involved, it would be unreasonable for it to delay works on installing the kitchen until this had been followed and the funding granted.

The landlord forcing entry to the property and changing the locks

The landlord forced entry to the resident’s property without providing either reasonable notice or any sort of warning around its potential action to force entry. It said its decision to do so was based on it being refused entry by the resident’s representative but it could not provide any evidence of such refusals. The initial plan by the landlord was to force entry and leave the same locks in place but it failed to do so. The landlord has failed to act in line with the tenancy infringed on the resident’s rights under that tenancy.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord has shown a pattern of failings around its record keeping in different aspects of its interactions with the resident and their representative. A lack of detail around the resident’s vulnerabilities meant that reasonable adjustments were not considered in managing the repair visits, potentially delaying the completion of them. Further to this, it has no evidence of its engagement around the requests for adaptations to the property or to show that it followed the correct steps before forcing entry to the property. The landlord made claims around no access visits and the resident’s representative refusing access but was unable to provide any evidence of such issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered

The stage one complaint response failed to acknowledge the landlord’s failings in its approach to completing urgent works at the property. It failed to acknowledge the significant delay and the potential hazards that the outstanding works caused. It proposes a payment for poor complaint handling, without acknowledging that failure within its response. The stage two response does acknowledge its failings, that could have been identified at stage one, around the delay in completing the work. However, it fails to acknowledge the severity of its failures around the forced entry, again taking a position that it cannot rely upon with evidence of access issues. The compensation offer does acknowledge some of the issues but it is not sufficient in addressing the delays, failings and distress involved in the complaint and its rent rebate offer does not cover the entire period that the resident was unable to occupy the property.

Orders

The landlords handling of the flooring repairs

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £1,500 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to carry out the essential repairs. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The chief executive of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.

The landlord forcing entry to the property and changing the locks

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £500 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by it forcing entry to the property to change the locks. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.

The landlords record keeping

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £400 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by its record keeping failings. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the level of compensation offered

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £350 to the resident towards the time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and bring into its operations within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Enhancements to the landlord’s record keeping practices.
2. Enhancements to its communications prior to the forced entry to a resident’s property.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a self-assessment of its record keeping in line with this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).