Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202203569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203569

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

28 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 report he could not reach the out of hours service.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about staff conduct.
5. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, the tenancy started on 19 September 2016. The property is a two bedroom bungalow. The complaint was raised by the resident, and at times his partner communicated on his behalf. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and his partner as “the resident”.
The landlord has the following vulnerabilities recorded for the resident: “dyslexia, green paper only, poor mobility, learning difficulty and wheelchair user”. The resident also has a reasonable adjustment request for communications to be on a green background with black ink or in green ink on a white background.
The tenancy agreement says the resident must not “do anything in the property or in the locality which is, is likely to be, or might become a nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to other persons”.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Section 20 of the Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments as follows:
1. Where a provision, criterion or practice of the landlord puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage.
2. Where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take, to provide the auxiliary aid.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code 2020 states that landlords should comply with the Equality Act 2010, and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs. Landlords shall have a reasonable adjustments policy in place to address this.
The landlord has a reasonable adjustments policy which details how it will carry out its legal obligation under the Equality Act 2010. Section 4.4 of this policy states if the landlord is unable to meet a request, it will be honest with the resident and explain why.
The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour Procedure details a housing officer will deal with cases of verbal abuse, harassment & intimidation. Its policy states an action plan for the investigation will be communicated to a complainant once it receives a report of ASB.
The landlord has a complaints resolution policy that sets out a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it says it will investigate and respond within 10 working days; at stage two, it says customers must complete a review request form within 10 working days of the stage one response. The review request will be acknowledged within 3 working days and will confirm the date and time of the review hearing. The landlord holds review meetings at set times and dates throughout the month, depending on volume. A decision letter will be sent to the customer within 10 working days of the panel hearing.
The landlord’s complaints resolution procedure says it will initially manage a complaint “informally”, it aims to resolve these complaints within 20 working days. If resolved it will be recorded as a potential complaint, if unresolved it will be recorded and forwarded to the “complaints queue”.
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows it can make discretionary compensation awards to resolve failures in service, including where distress or inconvenience has been caused.

Scope of investigation

The resident made a previous complaint to the landlord on 12 April 2021 relating to works it undertook to resolve the issue of external drainage to the front door. This complaint has already been determined by this service, therefore although it is mentioned it has not been re-assessed.
The resident’s concerns over management move refusals have been referenced in this report. The resident’s concerns about the refusal of a management move has been the subject of a further formal complaint brought to this service and therefore although mentioned, it has not been assessed within this report.
Notes from a Hate and ASB action Group (HASBAG) have been seen by this service which detailed the circumstances between the resident and the neighbouring property. These have been considered but due to the sensitive nature have not been noted.
The resident has said this complaint has impacted his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comment’s. However, it is beyond the authority of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint made and the resident’s wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s service failures.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 27 July 2021 advising of an incident which had took place with his neighbour. The incident was regarding an allegedly uncontrolled dog and the resident’s cat. Notes made by the landlord at a later date show incidents recorded on CCTV show this happened on three separate occasions.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 August 2021 saying “hours upon hours” of CCTV footage had been submitted and it could not view it all. It asked for any diary entries to be sent in so it could cross reference, or if not available to give times and dates of 10 incidents for it to focus on.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlords approach to reviewing the CCTV in an email on 10 August 2021. Within this email he said he felt the ASB over the last five years had not been taken seriously which had left him in a vulnerable situation, at high risk of abuse and had an impact on his mental and physical health. He referred to previous CCTV footage not being taken into account due to not having enough footage around the incidents and this was therefore why the amount of CCTV footage had been submitted. According to the resident this footage showed “what he had to live through”. The resident concluded this email stating he was on the verge of complaining due to the lack of support he had gotten with the abuse he was facing. He also noted that emails continued to not be in the requested format.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 September 2021 and advised it was not dismissing the incidents but asked for specific times and dates in order for it to be “more productive with the time that we have”. Once the footage had been reviewed by the ASB officer it would be passed to the housing team as per its procedure. It confirmed “all relevant teams and agencies are aware of your current situation and are already involved in your support and care”. This email clarified the resident had a weekly contact with an officer at the landlord. The landlord concluded by apologising for the oversight in communication preferences being overlooked.
A further incident involving the neighbour took place on 1 October 2021. In this incident the resident was recorded as the alleged perpetrator of verbal abuse, when taking the neighbours account of the incident the landlord confirmed the neighbours daughter had a dog which visited the property. The landlord sent the resident a letter about this incident on 4 October 2021, in this letter the landlord said it was important to discuss the allegations of verbal abuse with the resident and advised it would phone the resident on 7 October 2021 in the afternoon. This communication was not in the resident’s requested format.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord contacted the police to see if the police had an open case since the incident in July as they had been contacted at the time. The police responded to advise it was aware of the incident but no issues surrounding ASB were currently open.
The resident experienced a flood at the property on 31 October 2021 due to a blocked external drain. The resident reported to the landlord that he had tried to contact the out of hours service but he could not get through on multiple occasions. He informed the landlord due to this he had to move sandbags himself. He again attempted to contact the out of hours service on 1 November 2021 but reported the line was dead before he tried again and could report the repair.
Internal emails provided by the landlord show a contractor attended on 2 November 2021 as the drain was “full” at the front of the property. They recommended a full CCTV survey to be undertaken, which the landlord later authorised and raised a works order.
On 3 November 2021, the resident submitted four separate complaint forms to the landlord. To summarise, these four forms included:
1. A complaint about the neighbour looking after a dog on a regular basis. The resident advised the outcome he was seeking was for the dog not to be allowed there or be loose on the communal green to chase animals.
2. A complaint about not being able to get through on the phone to the out of hours service when the property was flooded on 31 October 2021 due to a “poorly designed drain which is already with a complaint”. The resident stated he was a disabled household and “had to get ourselves onto the floor to clean up the flowing water and manage the situation”. According to the resident he tried to call the out of hours number at the following times:
  1. 10:09 where he was on hold for 21m45s before the line went dead.
  2. 10:32 where he was on hold for 27m31s before the line went dead.
  3. 13:12 where he was on hold for 4h36m12s before he gave up and “was just beyond belief and also have a life to get on with”.
  4. He called again on 1 November 2021 at 07:18 but advised the line was dead.
  5. He finally called at 07:19 and got through to report the flood.
3. A complaint about a member of staff sharing information he would be away from the property with a neighbour. The resident advised he could prove this as he advised an officer of incorrect information and heard the neighbour comment to another neighbour he was not meant to be at home as they were told he would be away. The resident advised he felt this to be a risk to the security of his home and possessions. The resident advised he was seeking the member of staff to be spoken to, an apology and compensation.
4. A complaint about an ASB case which was logged in July due to numerous incidents, CCTV footage had been supplied, yet no outcome reached. The resident stated he had been “abused” for five years and he felt it had not been managed correctly. The resident stated he wanted ASB to be dealt with “correctly” and the ASB over the last 5 years to be looked at as a whole not just separate incidents when reported. The resident concluded the complaint stating he also wanted to be moved away from the abuse as he felt he could no longer be happy in the property “due to the damage already done” and it would improve his health mentally and physically”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 4 November 2021, this email was in the requested format. The landlord also called the resident this day to advise a formal complaint had been logged. It advised it normally aimed to respond to formal complaints in 10 working days. Internal emails provided show the landlord started to arrange a case conference for the complaint on this day also.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord emailed its out of hours contractor with the details of the resident’s complaint. The contractor responded the next day with the following information recovered from their system:
1. “The customer called firstly about 10.10am and waited about 20 minutes before hanging up.
2. They called again at 10.35 this time waiting again around 20 minutes.
3. They called a third time around 1pm and I can see that did wait just under an hour before again hanging up.
4. Finally, the customer tried 2 more times around 14.15 waiting around 3 seconds and 8 minutes before hanging up.”
5. It advised it could not see that the resident was on hold for over 4 hours at any time and the lines would not go dead.
The landlord updated the resident on 11 November 2021 via email, to advise the resident that he would be contacted before the 19 November 2021 to discuss the complaint and a written response could be expected by 23 November 2021.
Internal emails provided by the landlord show a case conference was held on 11 November 2023 to discuss the resident’s complaint and finalise a response.
The landlord provided its formal response on 22 November 2021. This response refers to a discussion with the complainant about the complaint, which was noted as taking place on 15 November 2021. Within its response the landlord advised of the following:
1. It apologised for the difficulty experienced in reaching the out of hours service, a contractor took the calls for the out of hours service. The contractor had been approached and advised they were “extremely busy due to the time of year” and the “amount of contact” they had experienced. The landlord said it was committed to working with them to ensure “reasonable wait times”. It continued to advise the contractor’s system showed the longest the resident had to wait was just under an hour and the call being ended by the resident. It advised it would monitor and test the line over the upcoming weeks in relation to the resident’s reports of the line going dead.
2. It advised a drainage contractor attended on 2 November 2021 to “unblock the drain at the front of the property” and a further CCTV survey had been contracted to assess the condition of the drains. It apologised for the resident not being able to get through when needed and advised it could not compensate for “stress, anxiety and strain on physical health” via its complaint’s procedure. It advised this would be an insurable claim and included a liability form for the resident to complete.
3. The landlord advised it had spoken to the member of staff the resident believed to have disclosed information about him to a neighbour. The member of staff had denied the allegations and the neighbour’s account had also been checked with no records found. The landlord apologised that the resident felt a “lack of confidence in the team” but was satisfied the information was not shared.
4. The landlord referenced the ASB case and confirmed which housing officer was dealing with it, it clarified the case was still open and that it had requested a police disclosure to make sure it did not “compromise any concerns the police were investigating”. The landlord stated that as the case was still open it would need to allow the team to investigate, however once it was closed it would “be happy to revisit”.
5. The landlord advised the concerns around the dog had been investigated and the neighbour had confirmed on occasions the dog is there but would make sure it was on a leash when taken for walks. The landlord advised it could not take action without evidence the dog was causing a nuisance.
6. The landlord went on to confirm the system showed a closed task which was down to human error and the reason why the resident did not receive a call back. It confirmed this happened several times, the relevant manager had been spoken to and it apologised for the distress caused.
7. The landlord confirmed section 7 of its ASB procedure which details how historic ASB cases are taken into consideration and the system checked for any previous cases between both parties when a new ASB case is opened.
8. The landlord confirmed the case for a management transfer had been taken to the direct offer panel twice but it does not meet the criteria for a move. The case had also had an appeal but this was also declined. The landlord reiterated the resident could reapply to the local authority or look for a mutual exchange.
9. The landlord apologised for communications not being in the requested format. It confirmed alerts were on the system and the housing officer had been advised of this so will send in the correct format in future. The landlord apologised for this oversight. However, it advised, the system did not have capacity to programme a request for green paper or ink so automatically generated letters would continue to be on white paper. It concluded if this happens again the service area will resend a letter in the required format.
An internal email provided, showed the landlord spoke to the resident on 20 November 2021 and noted him as indicating he was “struggling with various issues” including his mental health. It was confirmed that there was insufficient evidence to prove the ASB is taking place therefore the management move request did not meet the criteria and was refused.
The resident completed a review request form on 29 November 2021 to escalate his complaint. Within this his comments were as follows:
1. He reiterated his call times, disputed what the contractor had said and advised he had struggled previously to get through.
2. The drain issue has been ongoing and subject to an additional complaint but he was still awaiting work to be agreed for it to be fixed. In heavy rain he has to move sandbags to stop flooding, the resident asked who would be liable if injury occurred in this instance.
3. It was not the first-time information had been disclosed by staff.
4. Clarified his complaint about the handling of the ASB was over the last five years, leaving him at risk in a vulnerable situation. He was still awaiting an outcome of the recent ASB incidents.
5. He advised it felt that he was overlooked when reporting ASB as the alleged perpetrator was female and they should “man up”. He stated to be vulnerable due to his disabilities and felt as though he and his partner are treated as “just friends and not a romantic couple”.
6. He stated it takes months when he reports anything but the landlord is quick to act when the neighbour reports anything.
7. He had provided evidence of the dog being off lead and when it arrived and left which he believed to be extended stays. The dog was not controlled as it was too strong for its owner. He had been told by officers she does not have a permit for the dog and as there was so much footage of the dog causing a nuisance a USB stick would be required to download the data.
8. He did not understand why a panel refused a move when a risk assessment carried out by the housing team scored highly and said a move to safety was required. He stated the policy covered domestic abuse and he did not see much difference in his situation, with “abuse being regularly either hate or verbal and intimidation or through 3rd parties with false allegations” which caused “psychological distress let alone the impact physically or disability and harassment”.
9. He pointed out he was not receiving two weekly phone calls.
10. An alert had been on the system for a very long time, even though letters are autogenerated, someone physically had to put them in an envelope, the system just needed to be looked at.
11. His agreed point of contact was frequently left out of communications. This is an arrangement in which the landlord had already agreed on and was not adhering to. The resident went on to detail that he felt in meetings, he had to really guard himself and be careful of what he said because he could “come off as very blunt sometimes and apparently this causes offence but we are struggling to express how people’s interaction with us makes us feel and how they impact on our situation”.
12. He did not feel his disabilities were catered for in meetings.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 December 2021 about the open ASB case where he was the alleged perpetrator, the letter was in response to a discussion on 5 October 2021. The letter stated it was confirmed “during this discussion that the resident advised he did not swear or shout at the complainant when washing his car, they swore at him”. The landlord advised as no evidence was shown of swearing from either party the case would be closed. Mediation had been discussed and was being looked into.
An Internal email dated 17 February 2022 confirmed the drainage contractor attended this day and detailed further drainage works to repair the front drain. It also detailed the following events:
1. On 20 January 2022, the landlord called the resident who had mentioned that the sandbags he had been provided with needed to be “renewed”. He requested “the silicone spillage absorbers that they use in supermarkets instead”. The landlord ordered these at the resident’s request.
2. On 2 February 2022 the resident had contacted the landlord to say that the drainage contractor was on site but were not able to access the drains due to the amount of gravel next door. They had found that the pipe had either collapsed or was not attached to the main drain. The resident raised concerns the contractor used his water which would have cost him money.
3. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 February to check if resident would accept a goodwill payment for the contractor using the water. The resident accepted this.
On 21 February 2022, a review meeting via Microsoft teams was held for the final stage of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided its final response in writing to the resident on 7 March 2022 following the complaint panel hearing. Within its response, the landlord advised of the following:
1. It met with the out of hours contractor on a weekly basis to discuss call waiting times, its records did not tally with the information provided by the resident but it acknowledged it was clear the resident had to wait much longer than it would want. It advised the contractor had trained more staff to take calls and the contract was going out to tender later in the year so it would pay close attention to call waiting time commitments.
2. The resident had told the landlord the sandbags restricted access to the property, it apologised for the sandbags being at the property for longer than originally advised and for the resident having to move them in the event of the flood. It confirmed the sandbags had now been replaced with “silicone water absorbers which are less intrusive”.
3. The drainage repairs were booked to be completed on 9 March 2022. It acknowledged it had taken longer than it would have wanted to fix this issue and it hoped this would now fix the issue of flooding at the front of the property.
4. It found no evidence to substantiate the claims an officer had breached confidentiality and accepted the officer had been interviewed about the issue.
5. It was satisfied that the housing team had followed policy in requesting a move for the resident.
6. It was satisfied that the housing team followed policy in investigating the ASB case and the resident was kept informed about any actions. The resident had queried his ASB case being managed by a housing officer when it was risk assessed as high risk, the landlord confirmed it was appropriate for a housing officer to manage the case.
7. The resident was unhappy with the amount of time it took to review the CCTV footage, he had submitted footage to evidence he had not done anything to provoke and incident. The panel agreed this was not needed and only footage of incidents should be submitted in the future.
8. It confirmed there was an open ASB case being investigated and it was satisfied that the ASB process was being followed.
9. It acknowledged and apologised for not always sending communication in the required format, it advised it tried to meet the residents needs where possible. An alert was on the system but the system will not pick this up for any auto generated letters and is open to human error. It asked if the resident received any communication in the incorrect format in the future to contact them and it would arrange for them to be emailed or resent.
10. It concluded by advising.
  1. it upheld the complaint the resident had to wait longer than it would have liked for the call to be answered by the out of hours service and its failure to communicate with the resident as he had asked.
  2. It recognised the original ASB complaint was mishandled.
  3. It did not uphold the complaints about the breach of confidentiality by an officer and how the current ASB case is being managed.
11. It offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £75 comprising of:
  1. £25 for the impact on the resident and the long waiting times experienced. It stated it could not compensate for the stress, anxiety, and extra strain on physical health. This would be an insurable claim.
  2. It would compensate for the water usage once drainage works were completed.
  3. £25 for the length of time for the rainwater flooding issue to be fixed. It recognised the inconvenience and impact this had on the resident and the time and trouble taken to raise the complaint.
  4. £25 recognising its error in mishandling the initial ASB case when first raised and the distress this caused.
The landlord advised of three learning points from the complaint,
1. Improving its out of hours phone service.
2. Improving its management of ASB cases.
3. Checking alerts on its systems.
The resident approached this service on 22 May 2022 detailing the following:
1. This had put extra pressure on his physical and mental health.
2. He had a lack of trust in the housing service and its contractors.
3. There had been damage to property due to the lack of response and service.
4. Personal information being shared caused stress and worry.
5. left him open to abuse due to the lack of response to the reported ASB.
6. He had experienced difficulty in understanding or reading communication as it was not sent correctly.
The resident would like the landlord to:
1. deal with the situation better,
2. offer better compensation and
3. admit when it is wrong.
4. Follow the equality and care act.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the residents report he could not reach the out of hours service.

The resident said he tried to contact the out of hours service on four occasions with his longest wait being 4h36m12s, before being able to reach the service on the fifth attempt. The landlords contractor records show that the resident called on five occasions and his longest wait was just under an hour. This service is not able to determine the reason this discrepancy exists but this report considers how the landlord responded.
The landlord contacted its contractor with the details of the complaint, which was reasonable as the resident’s complaint was directly about the actions of its contractor. Although in its stage one response, it committed to working with them to achieve “reasonable wait times” in its stage one response, it did not detail what these would be or how it would achieve this. It also said it would test the lines over a number of weeks due to the resident’s reports of the line going dead. This service has seen no evidence that it carried this testing out. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised it met with its contractor weekly to discuss call waiting times, therefore investigating the issue and seeking a resolution. This showed the landlord was acting on the issues raised by the resident, was trying to put things right at the source and ensure this issue did not happen again.
The landlord did not dispute the resident had to wait on the phone to the out of hours service for longer than it would have liked, it apologised for this and offered the resident £25, which was in line with the discretion allowed by its compensation policy. The landlord apologised for the impact of this on the resident and him having to move sandbags himself, it further agreed to purchase water absorbers instead of sandbags thereby taking steps to reduce any future inconvenience to the resident, which was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of anti social behaviour.

Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not this Service’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
Where a landlord investigates ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a residents expectations as to what action it can take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy echoes this approach and notes it will create an action plan for its investigation.
No evidence has been seen that an ASB case was opened when the resident reported an uncontrolled dog chasing his cat in July 2021. The landlord was in communication with the resident about the CCTV footage he supplied over a period of time without any other action being taken. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord registered an ASB case following the CCTV footage being viewed albeit the landlord’s ASB procedure states pets and animal nuisance as ASB and the footage showed multiple incidents where this happened. The landlord stated an ASB case was still open in its stage one response in November but it is not clear which ASB case this related to. A formal ASB case should have been opened following the reports of the uncontrolled dog as per its policy.
A further incident was reported by a neighbour and an ASB case was recorded and evidence provided of this. Although the resident was recorded as the alleged perpetrator in this case, the landlord’s internal system notes show that the issue with the dog was raised with the neighbour. From the evidence provided it is reasonable to conclude that there is a long-standing neighbour dispute with other agency involvement. The landlord provided its system case notes of the ASB case recorded against the resident in October 2021 which showed it followed its policy in investigating this incident of ASB. It provided evidence that it discussed the incident with both parties, contacted the police about their involvement and spoke to other neighbours before coming to an informed decision to close the case based on the evidence it had gathered. However, the landlord failed to provide this service with evidence that it dealt with the residents’ ASB report about his neighbour in the same manner. Notes provided to this service, which were undated, mention further CCTV footage being taken in February 2022, in addition to the CCTV footage already provided. This service has seen no evidence of records to show if this CCTV is relating to the same ASB first reported in July 2021 or how this was considered or taken into account by the landlord.
In its final response letter, the landlord recognised that the initial ASB report was mishandled but it went into no detail about this matter, consequently being unable to demonstrate what it did wrong and how it would learn from this in order to improve its service to the resident in the future. This is a failure on the landlord’s behalf and a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of this.

The landlord’s response to the residents request for reasonable adjustments.

In line with both the Equality Act and its own reasonable adjustments policy, when made aware of the resident’s need for a reasonable adjustment, the landlord was obliged to consider this. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s requirements a number of years ago. The landlords communications indicate that it accepted the request for correspondence to be on a green background with black ink or on a white background with green ink as reasonable and took action to ensure that it recorded this reasonable adjustment. However, the resident’s complaint was specifically about the landlord’s failure to consistently adhere to this agreed adjustment request.
The landlord explained that with its current system, it was limited in the options available and unable to fully resolve the matter of correspondence being sent in the incorrect format. There was no indication that, having now identified that it was not possible to provide the reasonable adjustment via the ‘alert’, steps were taken to work with the resident to find an appropriate solution. The landlord could reasonably have been expected to have come up with a work around for the automatic letters it referenced. An exclusions report, highlighting reasonable adjustments and where manual letters with suitable adjustments were required for example, might have avoided the adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord provided evidence to this service where on multiple occasions the resident was sent correspondence not in his requested format. Its complaint responses focussed on the system and its inability to adhere to this request. It acknowledged the human error but failed to demonstrate any commitment to ensuring this would not happen again. No comment was made about any action it would take in relation to trying to ensure this would not happen again. Furthermore, following its final response, further correspondence was sent to the resident about his ASB case which was not in the requested format. This failure to check residents communication preferences is unreasonable in the circumstances of this case and a relevant order has been made with this respect.
Overall, there was a significant failing on the part of the landlord here. The landlord did not do enough to put things right for the resident, or to learn from outcomes in this case. It failed to treat the residents request with the importance it warranted and repeatedly not sending correspondence to the resident in the requested format contributed to the residents perception that the landlord was dismissive of his concerns. Although it is noted the request is rare in nature the landlord should be able to fulfil this request, regardless of the system it has in place. The resident has informed this Service that he continues to receive correspondence from the landlord that is not in the correct format. As such, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of this.

The landlord’s response to the residents report about staff conduct.

The resident had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct as he believed personal information to have been shared with a neighbour. This service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
This service has seen evidence to show the staff member was questioned about the resident’s concerns and the system was checked for notes, which substantiated the staff members timeline of events. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the staff member and get their version of events and it was also appropriate to advise the resident of its findings which it detailed in its stage one response.
In summary the landlord acted in a reasonable manner in this situation, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been found in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the residents concerns and clearly communicated this back to the resident.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, to recognise that they had to wait for longer than what was acceptable, to offer compensation and explain what steps it would take to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £75, it offered compensation for the struggles to reach the out of hours service experienced, the length of time the drainage took to get fixed and the mishandling of the ASB case. This service sees this as a reasonable offer as it offered other forms of redress alongside this, it purchased shock absorbers for the resident and provided a USB stick for the resident to transfer the CCTV onto. The landlord failed however, to offer compensation for its communication errors with the resident which was an essential part of the residents complaint. A finding of service failure has been made for this reason and a relevant order made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation its response to the residents report he could not reach the out of hours service which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of anti social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents request for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the residents report about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord did not dispute the resident had to wait on the phone to the out of hours service for longer than it would have liked, it apologised for this and offered financial redress. The landlord apologised for the impact on the resident and him having to move sandbags himself, it further agreed to purchase water absorbers instead of sandbags, which was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to investigate the residents reports about his neighbour in line with its procedure at the time, its communications failed to clearly set out how it would conduct the investigation, and the potential outcomes of that investigation. It also failed to appropriately communicate with the resident on numerous occasions. This led to the resident having a continued dissatisfaction with the landlord.
The landlord did not do enough to put things right for the resident, or to learn from outcomes in this case. It failed to treat the residents request with the importance it warranted. Although it is noted the request is rare in nature the landlord should be able to fulfil this request, regardless of the system it has in place. The resident has informed this Service that he continues to receive correspondence from the landlord that is not in the correct format.
The landlord acted in a reasonable manner in this situation, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been found in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the residents concerns and clearly communicated this back to the resident.
The landlord failed to offer compensation for its communication errors within the residents complaint which was an essential part of the residents complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £200 for the distress caused by failure to consistently communicate with him in his requested format.
3. Pay the resident £200 for the distress caused by its failings in dealing with the residents reports of ASB.
4. This amount is in addition to the landlords previous offer of £75 for compensation related to this complaint.
Contact any relevant service areas to discuss the resident’s requested format for communications, to determine whether it is possible to provide this. A record should be made of this contact. The outcome should be shared with this service and the resident. If it is found it is ‘not possible, practical or too expensive’ to provide this correspondence, the landlord must work with the resident to find the most appropriate agreeable and pragmatic alternative solution for both parties.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. How it will ensure its compliance with its agreed single point of contact arrangements.
2. Keeping clear records of reports of ASB and the actions taken in response to each report.