Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202111410)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111410

Southern Housing

31 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the front door, wall, and window damaged following forced entry by the police.
2. The associated complaint.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident including physical disabilities and hearing and sight impairments.
The landlord’s records show that its rent team requested a welfare check on her on 21 December 2020 due to concerns about suicidal thoughts expressed by the resident. Its case notes noted that welfare visits would be difficult due to covid restrictions and due to the resident not engaging.
Since referring her complaint to this Service, the resident has expressed thoughts about ending her life on a number of occasions. This prompted this Service to contact the police on 9 February 2022 and the landlord on 20 March 2022. The resident was also given the contact number for the mental health advocacy for support. The landlord has confirmed that the resident receives support from the mental health services.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident has reported concerns around the landlord’s handling of her request for alternative accommodation. The evidence shows that the resident was offered a property around 8 July 2020. It is noted that the landlord made attempts to assist the resident in signing up for the property, which it described as an ideal property in an area she had specifically requested. The evidence further shows that the landlord withdrew the property offer because the resident refused to engage about it.
This matter was addressed in its stage one response on 7 September 2021, but it is yet to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. Paragraph 41 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This investigation would therefore not include the resident’s complaint about her request for alternative housing and she is advised to escalate this aspect of her complaint to the landlord for further investigation.
This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Policies and procedural information

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs (including breaches to security doors and windows) within 6 hours of receiving the report and arrange more appointments to complete the job as soon as possible. Non- emergency repairs will be arranged for as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident.
The policy states that if the resident is not at home when it attends an appointment it will try to reach them by phone or text. This includes contractors or sub-contractors. It will try to use alternative numbers if it has permission to speak to someone other than the resident. If it is unable to reach the resident it will leave a card asking them to contact, it or the contractor. It will cancel the repair if it does not hear from the resident.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s tenure policy states that it will work with partners to safeguard vulnerable people. It will evict tenants as a last resort, only when it has exhausted all options to tackle breaches of the tenancy unless so significant that other options are not viable.
Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s home in good condition. This includes outside doors, windows and internal walls. The resident agrees to allow access to enter their home to inspect or carry out repairs at any given time. It will give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint handling process according to its policy. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within 1 working day and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage two complaints within 20 working days.
It will not exceed a further 10 working days where an extension is required.
The landlord’s compensation policy dated 2018 states that residents must make a claim for compensation within three months of the failure, fault, or event. If it fails to carry out its duty it will compensate by apologising, rectifying its mistakes and making a goodwill gesture. It may offer discretionary payments for distress of inconvenience where it has taken reasonable steps to resolve any failure in service.

Summary of events

On 18 June 2021, the landlord’s property services team noted that the police were called following concerns that the resident was contemplating suicide. It said the police had to smash in the front door to gain access and this resulted in knocking out the inner skin of the brick work They also broke the kitchen window in their attempt to access the property. It visited the resident and noted the following:
1. Its contractors attended out of hours and boarded up the kitchen and front door.
2. The resident raised concerns that she was unable to go out through the front door of the property and that her carers would not be able to get in. She also said that she could not receive mail as she had no letter box.
3. It provided temporary access through the back garden of a void property next to the resident’s.
4. It arranged for a replacement door and frame to be fitted to the outer skin of the brick work and for the broken kitchen window to be repaired.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord’s contractor said it was able to get a door fitted to the property, so access was available through the front door. It noted that this was a temporary remedy and that a new composite door would be ordered, and some repairs would be required to the inside wall.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 July 2021 and confirmed an appointment to visit her on 8 July 2021.
The landlord’s contractors expressed concerns around access problems on 4 August 2021. It said the resident had declined access 4 times, followed by phone calls from her chasing an update. It said it had been informed that they could only work after 12pm due to medication. They advised that one of their sub-contract bricklayers was not comfortable returning to the property due to suggestive comments made by the resident, so it could source an alternative, but they would want payment even if the resident refused access. They asked the landlord for assistance so they could get the brickwork completed so that the door could be fitted.
The landlord noted in an internal email on the same day that it continued to have access issues at the property and incur costs due to contractor’s time. It discussed finding a way to manage access to carry out the repairs and a guarantee that the contractors can work without feeling compromised.
The landlord received a telephone call from Age UK on behalf of the resident on 17 August 2021. It noted that the resident reported a longstanding repair (to Age UK) to her window but that they had to terminate the call as the resident was getting aggressive on the phone. It noted that the repair was still awaiting an inspection and that contact should be arranged with the resident.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2021, that the resident had made contact regarding a complaint. The landlord was asked to respond to the complaint within 10 working days. The letter provided a summary of the concerns raised by the resident which include its handling of the repairs to her front door, window, and wall. The resident complained that:
1. She had reported works to repair the damage to her front door, wall, and window but the works had not been undertaken.
2. She had been contacted about the door repair, but this could not be carried out due to the repairs required to the wall/porch area.
On the same day, the landlord’s sub-contractors informed the landlord that they tried to book the front door installation, but that the resident refused until the brickwork was resolved. They further noted that the resident asked for an update on the replacement of the kitchen window.
The landlord asked its contractors for an update on the works (brickwork) on 24 August 2021. The contractors responded the same day that they had attended on various occasions but refused entry by the resident. It said one of its operatives had refused to return due to threats made by the resident to end her life. The landlord responded 24 to the sub-contractor that its contractors had tried to attend to rebuild the damaged wall but that the resident had refused access. It said that it had experienced this problem with the resident for years and that it had been flagged with its housing management team for assistance.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the complaint it had received from this Service. It advised her that she would receive a written response to her complaint by 10 September 2021. It said this delay was due to staff availability.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 7 September 2021. The below summarises its findings:
1. An order to repair the brickwork by the front door was raised on 22 June 2021. Its contractor had attended on at least 6 pre-arranged appointments, but they were turned away and refused access. The contractor reported that on one occasion she threatened to end her life if they started work.
2. An order was raised to replace the broken double-glazed unit in the kitchen on 18 June 2021. In order to save further aborted calls, it would be willing to try and arrange these works to be completed at the same time where feasible, accompanied by a member of staff in the housing team. It would however require adequate notice and her assurances that she would allow access.
The landlord noted in an internal email on 16 September 2021 that its housing team had written to the resident about it access issues to the property. It also said it had asked the resident to confirm suitable dates it could schedule in the repairs when it responded to her Ombudsman enquiry but that she had not responded. It also noted that its contractors reported that she had been contacting their sub-contractors for dates for the repairs.
On 17 September 2021 the contractors informed the landlord that they were in a delicate situation with labour due to comments towards its operatives whilst on site which had caused concern or alarm. They said:
1. That they could not expect them to work under such conditions.
2. They arrived on site at the designated time only to be told they could not start works until lunchtime.
3. The resident was offered hotel accommodation for 3 days so the works could be completed but she declined the offer.
4. They arranged for other operatives (bricklayers) to attend due to their own refusing to attend as they were uncomfortable visiting the property, but they would require 3 days payment even if they got cancelled.
On 28 September 2021, the landlord’s case notes noted that the citizens advice bureau called on behalf of the resident to chase up the repairs to the window and door. It noted that the repairs team advised that they were only able to carry out emergency repairs at the time due to petrol shortages.
This Service received a complaint from the resident on 14 October 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint within 5 working days.
The landlord responded to this Service on 18 October 2021 that it had responded to the resident’s stage one complaint in September 2021. It advised that the resident had been sent a review form so she could escalate her complaint to the next stage of its complaints process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 October 2021 and said it had been contacted by this Service about her complaint. It re-sent a copy of its stage one response letter previously sent to her in September 2021. It provided a review form in case she wanted to request a review of its decision.
On 3 November 2021, its contractors asked the landlord for an update on when they could attend to install the door. They discussed gaining access or if possible, moving the resident temporarily to enable the works due to inappropriate comments previously made. They said they had attended a previously confirmed appointment weeks before, but there was no answer and that this had happened on several occasions.
The landlord discussed internally (on 9 November 2021) that it was still awaiting instructions from its other contractors about the repairs to the wall as it could not proceed with the door installation until this was done. It said it was going to write to the resident and hand deliver the letter once it had confirmation of the dates.
On 18 November 2021, in an internal email, the landlord’s property maintenance team advised that the contractor had written to the resident with new dates to carry out works to re-build the brick work by the front door and replace her kitchen window. It said these were two appointments attended with a housing officer but that the door was not answered.
It further noted that the contractors subsequently received a telephone call from her and that she became abusive, threatened to harm herself when they were unable to offer her a new appointment until January 2022. It noted that a member of staff would hand deliver letters to ensure that she received further communication. It said the contractors advised that they would not be attending the property again due the problems with access. It raised the matter with its anti-social behaviour team and housing services to arrange support for the resident.
It also noted that the resident’s support worker contacted it regarding the window repair. It said the resident received a text and that it was booked for 18 November 2021 am but that the resident said she was unable to have morning appointments due to her medication.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2021 regarding a complaint of anti-social behaviour received against her. It advised her that it would contact her by phone on 25 November 2021.
The landlord updated staff in an email dated 25 November 2021, that it had contacted social services and the resident’s care agency regarding access to the property. It said it would rearrange the appointments once it had the right support in place and reinforce to social services that it would cancel the works if it was unable to get access to the property.
The landlord sent the resident a warning letter on 26 November 2021 regarding a report it had received about her behaviour towards its contractors. It said the resident had been verbally abusive, used inappropriate language and threatened to harm herself if the contractor did not complete works on the day. It noted that the resident refused to engage during its phone call on 25 November 2021, and that there had been a previous incident where she had assaulted a member of staff and made threats to harm herself outside its offices. It informed the resident that it had indicated to its maintenance team that it may not be safe to attend the property and that special arrangements would be needed for future visits which may cause a delay to completing works in the property. It concluded that it may be forced to take enforcement action if it continued to receive reports of anti-social behaviour against her.
The landlord noted in an internal email to staff on 30 November 2021 that it would contact its contractors to let them know it was still negotiating with the resident and her support works regarding safe access. It also noted that its anti-social behaviour team had spoken to the resident and that her support worker was present towards the end of the call.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord discussed the possibility of negotiating access arrangements through an advocacy service (as suggested by its housing team) and whether its contractors would be able to complete both repairs in one afternoon. It further said that rebuilding the internal wall and plastering works were more time consuming and considered whether the resident would allow access from 11am.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint by 6 January 2022. The landlord communicated internally on 9 December 2021 about sending the resident review forms. It also confirmed that a joint visit with the resident’s social worker had been arranged for 10 December 2021 and asked if works had been confirmed so that it could be communicated to the resident during the visit. The landlord’s contractor made enquiries with the landlord regarding the outstanding works and that it would require an all-day appointment from 8am to 5pm.
The landlord informed this Service on 13 December 2021 that it had previously sent the resident a review form in October 2021. It advised that another form had been sent. It also wrote to the resident the same day that it had been contacted by this Service and enclosed a copy of its review form.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two complaint. The landlord noted that it received it on 17 January 2021 (no date stamp on letter). She said that:
1. The repairs to her property had still not been carried out despite phone calls made by herself and her support worker.
2. Reports of her refusing entry and turning workmen were not true and that this was having a negative effect on her mental health causing distress.
3. She would like the landlord to complete the works without further delay and that she had previously asked the landlord to book appointments for the afternoon and send confirmation letters by post.
4. The landlord should take responsibility and apologise for the emotional distress this has caused her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 February 2022 regarding her stage two review meeting. It also sent her a copy of her formal complaint, review forms, complaints policy and confirmation of the review date.
In an email dated 28 January 2022, the landlord’s contractors discussed arrangements to attend the property for repairs, at the end of February 2022 or second week of March 2022, with housing services in attendance.
On 14 February 2022, the landlord discussed in an internal email that it had asked its contractors for a two-week window for appointment, so that it could hand deliver the appointment letter to the resident to ensure that she was aware of the appointment. It said this would allow time for the letter to be hand delivered and give the resident adequate notice. It said it was still waiting for confirmation from them.
The landlord’s contractor wrote to the landlord on 16 February 2022 regarding appointments for early March 2022 (8am to 5pm) to carry out repairs. It stated that based on operatives being turned away on multiple attendances previously, it would charge the landlord for the days that works were scheduled if they were to be turned away again.
The landlord noted in an email dated 16 February 2022 that it would book 3 March 2022 or 4 March 2022 with the resident and hand deliver the appointment letter so that she had two weeks’ notice of the works.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 23 February 2022 regarding the resident’s stage two complaint and asked it to respond by 3 March 2022 at the latest.
The landlord informed this Service on 24 February 2022 that it had booked in a review hearing for 24 March 2022.
The police contacted the landlord on 28 February 2022 regarding a report they had received from the resident that the repairs to her wall and door were still outstanding. It said it responded to threats made by the resident on 27 February 2022 to end her life.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord’s internal records noted that the resident called to chase up the kitchen window and wall repairs. It noted that the window would be done the next day but that the resident wanted an update on repairs to the wall.
The resident contacted this Service on 3 March 2022 regarding the repairs. She said the wall in the hallway was coming away from the wall, that the property was in a poor state of repair and dangerous. She said that workmen had attended several times but did not know where to start and that her landlord was not being truthful when they said she had turned them away. She also said that her social worker and advocate claimed that they had tried to contact her, but this was not the case. She said she had also not received a response to her stage two complaint. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to contact the resident.
On 4 March 2022, the resident’s newly allocated social worker contacted the landlord. She said she had made repeated efforts to contact the resident’s housing officer but that she had not been successful. They said in the email that:
1. They were aware that the landlord had been trying to gain entry to the property to complete repairs and maintenance works, but that the resident had been refusing access.
2. They were aware that works had been scheduled for 3 March 2022 and 4 March 2022 and that they made the resident aware by letter, but she was refusing to allow the works to be carried out until she was visited at the property.
3. The resident felt that professionals were lying to her and that housing related needs and the lack of support she was receiving was contributing to suicidal ideation.
4. The landlord should advise if the resident contacted it regarding the repair works scheduled for 3 March 2022 and 4 March 2022.
5. Any future correspondence to the resident is also shared with them, to promote collaborative working and prevent misinformation.
6. They asked that a joint visit should be arranged between with the resident’s housing officer as soon as possible to visit the property.
The landlord wrote responded to the social worker on 9 March 2022. It advised that the housing officer was off, so the case was being managed by other members of the team. It assured them that it would contact them back by 23 March 2022.
The social worker chased the landlord for an update on 23 March 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident (undated letter) and advised that her review panel meeting would be held on 24 March 2022. It informed her in a separate letter that the review had been postponed to 1 April 2022 due to staff sickness.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord responded to the social worker that an appointment had been agreed to visit the resident on 7 April 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 12 April 2022. The key findings from the response are:
1. Its records show that its contractors made several attempts to carry out the work to her home in June 2021. After making pre-arranged appointments, she turned them away on at least six occasions refusing access. On one occasion she threatened to end her life suicide if they carried out the work.
2. During August and September 2021, further attempts were made to gain access, however despite her calling on almost a daily basis to arrange or reschedule appointments, she continued to refuse access. On 18 September 2021 she called contractors claiming they had not been in touch, despite their contractor having attended her property and carded the same morning due to no access.
3. The contactors reported that she was abusive her during her call to them and that she threatened to end her life if they did not send out a contractor immediately.
4. Its tenancy sustainment team had also tried to support her so the repairs could be carried out. While it accepted that the repairs remained outstanding, it was satisfied it had done everything it could to get the works completed.
5. The repairs remained outstanding as she had repeatedly failed to allow access. It was keen to complete the repairs and had made an appointment with her mental health support team for 29 April 2022, together with its housing team who would do all they could to work with her and support her to find a suitable date for the repairs to be completed.

Post complaint actions

The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 May 2022 regarding its visit to her on 29 April 2022. It provided a summary of actions agreed which include:
1. Appointment for repairs to be sent to the social worker who would notify her.
2. Appointments for repairs to be from 10am and contractors to knock loudly and allow time to get to the door.
3. Housing officer to try and arrange a schedule of works in agreement with the relevant teams and where required.
4. Housing officer to follow up replacement glass for the kitchen window and arrange the repair.
The landlord’s internal emails between 5 July 2022 and 28 July 2022 noted that:
1. It would write to the MH team so that support was available during the works.
2. The resident had agreed for the repairs to be done as long as her support worker was present.
3. There should be no attendance at the resident’s property without prior notice, and that there should be only one point of contact with the resident.
4. Contact should be between 2 and 5pm on Thursdays with her support worker present. All appointments would be confirmed to the main point of contact and communicated by them to the resident directly.
5. Repairs to be completed by the end of August 2022.
6. It wrote to the resident and advised her that appointments had been arranged for contractors to attend on 15 August 2022 and 25 August 2022 to repair the damaged wall and broken window glass. It confirmed that the appointments would take place after 11am as agreed with her support worker.
The landlord’s contactors informed it in an email on 15 August 2022 that the resident did not allow them to replace her window glass or do the wall repairs. They said that she insisted that the whole window had to be replaced and that the house needed a structural survey as the house was unstable. It further noted that there was no representative from the landlord or the support worker there and that the resident indicated that she had cancelled the arrangement. The landlord further noted that the resident called later that day and reported that the contractors attended but that they left to pick the glass and failed to return.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
Following reports from the police that they had forced entry into the resident’s property causing damage, the landlord attended promptly to secure the front door and board up her window. It is noted that the landlord’s contractors reported that various attempts made to complete follow-on repairs in June 2021 were unsuccessful as the resident did not provide access. They said that 6 pre-booked appointments were all refused on arrival, but this Service has not seen evidence of these appointments and any confirmation letters sent to the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs will be confirmed using the resident’s preferred communication style (phone call, email, or text) but due to the limited evidence it has not been possible to ascertain if and how these appointments were communicated to the resident and that it complied with its repairs policy. Whilst the landlord responded appropriately and made the property safe and secure, the poor record keeping has meant that this Service is unable determine if it complied with its policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that when a resident misses an appointment, it will try to reach them by phone and text. It also states that it will contact a third party if it has permission to do so, but the landlord has not provided evidence showing that it acted in compliance with the policy. According to its records, there is a contact warning on the resident’s housing records that an advocate is required for contact regarding tenancy issues. It had permission to liaise with social services and her community link worker, so it was unreasonable that the landlord did not follow this agreed action. The evidence shows that an appointment was arranged by its housing management service to visit the resident on 8 July 2021, but there is nothing in the information that confirms if the appointment went ahead and if any actions were agreed.
Based on the information seen by this Service, the resident continued to chase the contractors for an update on the repairs in August 2021. We have also seen that the contractors asked the landlord for assistance in progressing the repairs, but the landlord has not provided evidence showing that it contacted the resident about these concerns. This Service and Age UK contacted the landlord the same month, about the resident’s outstanding repairs but there is no evidence that the landlord made contact with her about these referrals other than its stage one response. This is unreasonable and the lack of contact would have left the resident feeling unsupported.
The contractors informed the landlord on 18 August 2021 that they had tried to schedule in repairs to the resident’s front door for 26 August 2021, but that she insisted that the brickwork to the wall had to be done first before the door repairs. Whilst it is noted that the landlord engaged the services of a contractor to manage its repairs, we have not seen evidence of any proactive engagement with the resident, given the concerns raised by the contractors regarding access. It is its responsibility to manage the resident’s expectations as the landlord and take the lead in coordinating the appointments, the schedule of works and keeping clear communication between all parties given the resident’s vulnerability but it has not evidenced that it did so. Its repairs policy states that it aims to meet its resident’s expectations, involve them, and learn from feedback but it has not met this obligation from the evidence seen. Failure to take the lead in coordinating the works and agreeing them with the resident caused confusion and delayed any progress on the works for 2 months. This would have caused the resident distress and frustration.
The landlord said in its stage one response on 7 September 2021 that it would be willing to arrange the works, accompanied by a member of staff from housing management but we have not seen evidence of actions taken following this response. It’s internal records also noted that the housing management team wrote to the resident on 16 September 2021 about its access issues, but we have not been provided a copy of the letter. It said it asked her to confirm suitable dates that it could schedule in appointments but that she did not respond. Whilst these steps are appropriate at this later stage, this Service has not seen copies of the letters referred to by the landlord.
The contractors informed the landlord on 17 September 2021 that it arrived at the resident’s property to commence works but that the resident said works could not start until lunchtime. It said the appointment was confirmed with the resident, but we have not seen evidence of this or that a convenient time was agreed, given her preference for afternoon appointments as noted by the contractors in August 2021. The landlord’s repairs policy allows for appointments between 8am and 1pm or afternoon appointments from 1pm to 5pm. It would have been appropriate to have discussed these options with the resident before proceeding to book any appointments or attending her property. The lack of evidence has however made it difficult to ascertain what happened and determine whether the landlord made any reasonable adjustments and has due regard of its responsibilities under the Equality Act.
The resident is noted to have restricted mobility, a hearing impairment and visual impairment, but we have not seen throughout its internal communications that it highlighted these and any reasonable adjustments that may be required in delivering services to her. The evidence also indicates that the contractor offered to place the resident in hotel accommodation, but it is unclear if this was pre-agreed with the resident and any professionals involved in her care. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed such arrangements with the resident beforehand and communicated it to her in writing especially given her vulnerabilities.
It is clear that the contractors, though keen to complete the works, faced a hindrance with access. They asked the landlord on 3 November 2021 if the resident could be temporarily moved, so they could carry out the works, but it is unclear if the landlord considered this option or whether it discussed it with the resident. The evidence indicates that further attempts were made by the contractors (accompanied by a housing officer) to carry out the repairs on 18 November 2021 in the morning, but that this was also unsuccessful as access was not granted. Whilst an accompanied visit with its housing management was appropriate, it remains unclear from the evidence if the appointment was confirmed with the resident and a suitable time agreed. Its records should have been updated at this stage with the resident’s preferred method of communication and suitable times for appointments, but it remains unclear due to the limited information provided to this Service if this was done.
Due to further concerns raised about the resident’s behaviour by the contractors, it sent a warning letter to the resident and advised her that any future visits would require special arrangements which may cause a delay. The evidence indicates that the landlord contacted social services and the resident’s care agency in November 2021 regarding the difficulties it had been experiencing with access. The landlord appeared to have learned from its mistakes in recognising that it needed to make reasonable adjustments in its service delivery towards the resident due to her vulnerabilities. Engaging other professionals involved with the resident’s care, for assistance in resolving her repairs, shows that it adopted a collaborative approach in progressing the matter. It noted that it would contact its contractors once it had been able to negotiate safe access with the resident and her support. Its actions at this stage though 4 months late, are in compliance with its tenure policy to work with partners to support vulnerable residents in keeping to the conditions of their tenancy. This Service would have expected to see this approach much earlier in the process.
The evidence further shows that the landlord considered using an advocacy service and that it communicated internally about the possible avenues of gaining access to complete the works. The evidence also indicates that a joint visit was arranged with the resident’s social worker for 10 December 2021, but the outcome of the meeting or confirmation that it went ahead as planned was not provided in the evidence. There was also a long period between December 2021 and February 2022 where it seems the resident was not contacted or provided any update on her case. During this period, the resident escalated her complaint to stage two and said that the landlord had been untruthful in stating that she had denied access. She said she had previously requested that appointments should be sent by post and scheduled for the afternoons, but she had not been receiving letters. She said the delays and its handling of the matter had caused her distress. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not update the resident of the steps it was taking to resolve her concern. It is noted that there was a period where the landlord was waiting for confirmation of appointments or available dates with its contractors, but it should have explained this to the resident in writing. This would have left the resident feeling unheard causing her further distress.
The evidence indicates that the landlord notified the resident of appointments scheduled for 3 March 2022 and 4 March 2022 in writing. The resident however contacted the landlord by phone for an update on 28 February 2022 where she was advised that the repairs would be completed on 1 March 2022. This would have caused some confusion for the resident. We have however seen from the evidence that the resident’s social worker noted that she had made the resident aware of the appointment booked for 3 March 2022 and 4 March 2022 but she was refusing the works until she was visited at her property. This indicates that the joint visit booked for 10 December 2021 did not take place.
Following its stage two response on 12 April 2022, the landlord re-iterated that it had tried its best to support the resident in resolving her repairs and that it was willing to assist her in getting the works done. It concluded that it had arranged a joint meeting with her mental health support and housing management services for 29 April 2022 to work together to support her. The evidence shows that an action plan was agreed at the meeting detailing a process for dealing with her repairs. In spite of this, there is no evidence of further communication with the resident until 28 July 2022 when it confirmed appointment dates for 15 August 2022 and 25 August 2022 after 11am. It is noted that the resident’s case had to be handled sensitively, due to the difficulties experienced with access and welfare concerns, but the designated point of contact should have kept her regularly updated, clearly explaining what was being done and provide reasons for the delay. This would have caused the resident distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
We have seen from the evidence, after the complaints process had been exhausted, that the resident refused access for the works scheduled for these dates. In response to our request for additional information, the landlord advised this Service on 27 July 2023 that it had now completed the repairs. It said that it had replaced the front door, window and completed repairs to the internal brickwork.
Overall, it is evident that several attempts were made by the landlord to resolve the resident’s repairs. It however failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities early in the process and work with partners and other professionals to agree on a practicable plan for carrying out the works. This was a significantly failing which caused confusion and distress to the resident. It learned from this error and worked with the resident’s social worker to agree on a suitable date and time for the repairs. Whilst it had discussions with its contractors about the works and other services and partners, about the issues they were experiencing with access, it did not keep up communication with the resident. This left the resident uncertain about the progress of her repairs which would have caused distress and frustration to her. Based on the above, there is evidence of maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for repairs to her front door, window, and wall.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at both stage one and stage two were delayed. The stage one response was 3 working days outside of the landlord’s timescales and the stage two response was over 3 months late. According to its complaints policy, it has 3 options for dealing with stage two complaints and residents have the option of choosing a compensation review, a review consisting of only its staff or one that includes involved residents and its staff. The resident chose to have a review consisting of involved residents and staff. It is noted that it informed the resident of the review panel meeting, but this was almost 3 months after the complaint was received. Though its policy states that it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days, it failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delays.
Despite the significant delay in responding to the complaint, and a reminder from this Service informing it of its obligation to respond to the complaint within 20 working days, it offered no apologies in its response to the resident. This is not appropriate as it should have acknowledged that it got things wrong and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its complaints policy or this Service’s complaint handling code. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

The record keeping.

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) emphasises the importance of record keeping and more importantly its maintenance. The report highlights how a minor administrative error by a landlord can have profound human and organisational impact causing detriments to residents. The report reveals how landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, that can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
It is evident from our assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs that the information provided to this Service to assist with our investigation was insufficient. Whilst the landlord advised that it attended several pre-booked appointments and referenced various communications sent to the resident, the following were not provided to this Service:
1. Evidence that it noted and kept a record of the resident’s preferred method of contact (either by phone, email, or post).
2. Copies of appointment letters or text messages, or calls confirming the dates when these were communicated to her.
3. Outcome of the appointment booked with the resident for 8 July 2021 for a home visit.
4. A copy of its letter to the resident dated 16 September 2021 referenced in the information sent to this Service.
5. Outcome of its joint visit agreed with the resident for 10 December 2021.
The limited evidence impacted our ability to conduct a full and fair investigation of the resident’s complaint about the repairs, particularly in determining if appointments were agreed with the resident with adequate notice given before attendance. This Service therefore finds evidence of maladministration in its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was evidence of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for repairs to her front door, wall and window following forced entry by the police.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments to its processes or take the resident’s vulnerability into consideration when it tried to resolve her repairs. It realised its error and worked collaboratively with its internal departments and external agencies to progress the resident’s outstanding repairs. Whilst it demonstrated some learning, it failed to provide regular updates to the resident throughout the life of the case.
The landlord failed to respond to the stage one and two complaints within the timescales stipulated in the complaints policy. Despite these delays, it did not apologise or offer any redress for the inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord failed to provide sufficient evidence of its appointments and other communication to the resident. This impacted this Service’s investigation, making it difficult to determine if it notified the resident of the appointments using her preferred method of contact and that it gave her reasonable notice before attending the property.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £700 broken down as:
  1. £100 for the distress and frustration and inconvenience to the resident for the failures identified in its response to the resident’s request for repairs.
  2. £300 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. £300 for the failures identified in its record keeping.
Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. It should also update its complaints handling policy to ensure that it includes the timescales for acknowledging stage two complaints.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Review its repairs policy with a view to including a clear process on how it deals with cases where it is unable to gain access for repairs, particularly for its vulnerable residents.
2. Review this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and self-assess against it.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

If not already done so to update its CRM system to record the resident’s vulnerabilities and any agreed reasonable adjustments that are in place.