Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202001538)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001538

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

21 January 2022

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 handling of the resident’s repairs between 2012 – 2015.
2. The landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute concerning ownership of the fence and the location of the boundary.
3. The landlord’s handling of alleged Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) from both parties.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and bullying during a telephone call with the Housing Officer (HO).
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repair to the communal area.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a downstairs toilet.
7. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or parts of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(e) and 39(h) of the Scheme, complaint points (a), (b), and (c) are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Under paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the residents complaint about matters which occurred between 2012 – 2015. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have expressed his dissatisfaction with the repairs / workmanship at this time (or soon after), and if the matter was not reasonably resolved by the landlord, to have escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation. It does not appear, however, that the resident did this.
This is problematic because as matters become historic, the Ombudsman is unable to rely on the availability and accuracy of records to establish what did or did not take place. It is unlikely that the landlord would maintain / retain records for such a period of time, and this makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to fairly undertake an independent and objective investigation.
In respect of complaint points (b) and (c), while these matters appear to be at the core of the resident’s dissatisfaction, the Ombudsman notes that the issues were subject to legal proceedings and were properly heard / determined by a County Court on 23 November 2020. Paragraph 39(h) explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to comment on matters which have already been decided on.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident was dissatisfied with the injunction issued and with the information used to determine responsibility for the fence. If he intends to pursue / contend this, however, this will need to be via the courts.
In light of the above, this investigation will only consider:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and bullying during a telephone call with the Housing Officer (HO);
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repair to the communal area;
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a downstairs toilet; and
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant under the current landlord since 3 December 2017.
The property is a two-bedroom, mid-terraced house.
The landlord has noted that the resident is vulnerable.

Scope

The resident has suggested that as a result of the landlord’s handling of matters, he suffered from breathing issues which caused his anxiety to flare up, triggered his depression, and put him at risk of a stroke / heart attack. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably assess and to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.
Moreover, the Ombudsman has identified through the consideration of the evidence on file, that the resident also expressed dissatisfaction with:
1. The length of time taken to respond to his Subject Access Request (SAR); and
2. The management of his rent account / arrears.
As well as the fact that point (a) did not form part of the resident’s official complaint, any non-compliance with the expected timeframes for SARs would properly fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, and as per paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated this matter as it falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
In respect of point (b), while it appears that the issue was informally brought to the landlord’s attention, it does not appear that the matter was being pursued via the landlord’s complaints process. The resident will therefore need to do so and to exhaust this process, if he would like the Ombudsman to investigate this matter. As per paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman can see that the resident’s neighbour registered a complaint about the resident on 19 September 2019. The Housing Officer (HO) subsequently called the resident on 25 September 2019 to discuss this matter and on the same day, wrote to the resident. The resident was invited to discuss the allegations on 27 September 2019, however did not accept this appointment.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord wrote to the resident on 14 October 2019 and a face-to-face meeting was undertaken on 17 October 2019. Within this meeting, the landlord noted allegations from the resident that the HO had harassed and bullied him during the telephone call (on 25 September 2019).
On 21 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. He asserted:
1. He and his representative had been recording the meeting and had made this known. He had also identified CCTV in the room, although no signage to advise that they were being recorded. He requested a copy of this footage / sound and that the landlord preserve this information in case it became relevant to court proceedings.
2. If the matter went to court, he would be happy to provide a copy of the recording he had made. He requested that the footage and sound be shared with him by 30 October 2019.
3. He would be demonstrating how the landlord had been bullying, manipulative, and potentially tampering with data over the previous seven years. He would also consider contacting other residents to establish whether they had had a similar experience to show a pattern of behaviour.
4. Discriminatory comments had been made to his friend, who had been present in the meeting as an observer.
5. As the landlord had agreed to write a letter of apology if it had listened to the recordings and learned that the member of staff had been abusive, he awaited this.
On 30 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that he would be contacting the Ombudsman Service as the landlord had not responded in good time. It had been agreed on 17 October 2019 that the telephone recording would be listened to, and someone would get back to him immediately, however this had not happened. He stated that the landlord had deliberately ignored the harassment and threats by its staff member and that this had been witness by his friend. He advised that he would be reporting this to the police and his solicitor.
On 18 November 2019 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response, having investigated his allegations of bullying and harassment by the HO. It noted:
1. Upon meeting with the Head of Housing, it was agreed that the telephone recording would be listened to. Upon further investigation, however, this was not possible. While it held two recordings of calls with the resident on the same day, there was no recording of his call with the HO as only calls made to the Customer Contact Centre were recorded, and not calls made directly from Officers to residents.
2. The statement provided by the resident’s friend did not refer to bullying or harassment, but instead described the HO as being abrupt.
3. In the absence of the recording, the HO was interviewed and while confirming that it was a difficult conversation, denied the allegations of bullying and harassment. The landlord apologised in any case that the resident felt that the HO had been unprofessional in her conduct. It advised that no further complaints had been made about the HO.
4. In respect of the use of CCTV, this was only shared for the prevention or detection of crime. This was visual only and therefore provided no sound. What’s more, the interview with the resident was not recorded on any other device. It was therefore unable to provide audio recordings to the resident. It explained, nonetheless, that it could do a search for calls made to its Customer Contact Centre if the resident wished. It also provided the resident with a copy of its privacy policy, to address his concerns of data protection.
On 27 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. Along with allegations of gross negligence, disrepair and damages which he asserted had taken place over the previous 10 years, he reiterated that he had received verbal abuse and harassment from the HO. The resident advised that he would not be responding to any of the landlord’s correspondence unless this was to arrange a meeting with his solicitors.
On 8 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. Along with explaining his position in relation to his rent arrears, the resident also asserted that the landlord had never taken his reports seriously. He stated that the landlord had sought to bully him out of his home for several years and that he was willing to take matters to court. Given the situation, however he was willing to accept an offer of £75,000. The landlord could then transfer him to another local authority of his choosing.
On 29 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained he wished to offer the landlord legal notice following its bullying, manipulation of data, and failure to deal with his complaints. Amongst other points (which fall outside of this Service’s jurisdiction), the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not attempted to contact his witness to the HO’s abuse. The resident expressed that he was giving the landlord the final opportunity to pursue his complaint properly. He asserted that in recognition of his complaint, he would be willing to accept a downstairs toilet and mini conservatory, a new fence surround the premises, and £75,000 to settle the matter. He noted that he had not opened the landlord’s most recent correspondence.
After speaking with the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2020 setting out the resident’s complaint points. The landlord was advised to provide the resident with a complaint response by 6 July 2020.
On 3 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one response. It noted that the resident was displeased with:
1. Its handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. The conduct of its staff.
3. The lack of response to his request for a toilet on the ground floor, after advising that he had trouble managing the stairs as a result of his disability / bad health.
4. Its lack of response to his request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.
5. Its lack of response to his request for compensation.

In the landlord’s response. It subsequently explained:

It was unable to find any outstanding jobs. It therefore requested that the resident list any repairs which it would report to its repair team.

It had fully investigated the allegations against its staff and found no evidence. This had been explained in its correspondence on 18 November 2019.
It had been unable to locate any request for a ground floor toilet. It noted, however, that the resident had raised his concerns that his medical needs were not being met and that adaptations could be required. It advised that ordinarily, tenants could make a request for an assessment, and provided the resident with the contact details if he wished to do so. It advised that it could make the referral to Adult Services for an assessment if he wanted it to initiate this.
It was unable to find his request to be rehoused. It provided the resident with the website for the local authorities Choice Based Letting (CBL) scheme and explained that there could also be provision for the resident to be rehoused on medical grounds if he completed a medical form.
It found no basis to offer compensation.

The landlord therefore confirmed that it would not uphold the resident’s complaint.
On 17 July 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. He stated:
1. He rejected the landlord’s complaint response and did not consider the response of 18 November 2020 to an appropriate or final response either.
2. The witnesses to the HO rudeness and threats had yet to be contacted. He questioned how the landlord had undertaken its investigation without making contact. He also stated several other neighbours wished to make a complaint in relation to the HO’s behaviour.
3. He acknowledged he had not requested a toilet but explained that he had discussed this with the Ombudsman Service as a potential solution.
4. It was suggested that all calls were recorded however no such recordings existed of his call with the Housing Officer in which she was abusive.
5. He would be happy to transfer to another property.
In further correspondence on 24 July 2020 the resident added:
1. His witnesses to the abusiveness of the HO were still waiting to be contacted.
2. He wished to complain about the unsafe communal walkway.
3. In resolution of the matter, he would be happy to move to a two-bedroom house.
On 5 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it would provide the resident with a stage two response by 19 August 2020. It highlighted that due to the unprecedented time, it was experiencing delays of up to 10 working days. It noted, however, that if it was unable to meet this deadline, it would write to the resident to explain why and provide a new date.
On 19 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that its stage two response would be delayed as it required further time to investigate matters. It advised that it would now seek to provide a response by 3 September 2020.
The landlord noted that the resident had raised an issue with the porch on 27 August 2020.
The landlord has explained to this Service that works were undertaken to make safe the communal pathway on 1 September 2020. Its records show that while further works were required to follow this up, this was not done.
On 2 September 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its final response (although this was incorrectly titled “stage 1 complaint”). It stated:
1. There were no historic outstanding repairs to the resident’s home, except for those raised recently. The communal walkway had been made safe on 1 September 2020 as agreed, and the repair would be completed within three months as part of a backlog of repairs. A repair had also been booked for the repair of the ceiling of the shared porch. This would take place on 23 September 2020. It would advise if it experienced delays with this.
2. Following its review, it confirmed that the findings shared on 18 November 2020 were appropriate. While the call was not recorded, the investigation took into account the information provided by the resident’s friend which described the HO as abrupt but not that there was any bullying or harassment.
3. In relation to the resident’s request for a toilet on the ground floor, for major adaptation works such as those requested, this would only be considered on the recommendation of an occupational therapist. The resident was therefore provided with the details for the local authority’s occupational therapy service and advised that if he already had a report, he could provide this. It was unable to see that the resident had made a request for an adaptation prior to 29 May 2020. It acknowledged that it did not have details of the resident’s medical conditions on file, despite his emails to advise of them. It also apologised that it did not advise the resident of the relevant policies at this time. It explained, nonetheless, that the records would be updated, and a member of the Housing Team would be in contact to discuss the resident’s needs.
4. It highlighted that it had provided details of how he could apply for alternative accommodation in its stage one response. It reminded the resident that he would need to complete a medical form to be considered for rehousing under this circumstance. The landlord explained that it was only able to move residents, outside of the local authorities CBL, on rare occasions.

The landlord subsequently concluded that it would not be offering compensation. It advised the resident to pursue the appropriate adaptations for his property to meet his needs and shared a copy of its adaptations policy. The landlord encouraged the resident to make contact (by 1 October 2020) if he wished to further discuss his complaint / to keep it open. In a separate paragraph, he was informed that stage two was the final stage of the process and therefore he could seek an independent review should he remain dissatisfied.

In separate correspondence on 4 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its response was its final decision and directed the resident to the Ombudsman Service.
According to the landlord’s records, an operative attended the resident’s property on 23 September 2020 to address the porch. The Ombudsman can see from the operative’s notes that this work was refused, however, as the resident had allegedly been abusive.
The landlord confirmed for this Service that this work, along with the works to the communal pathway, were not subsequently rescheduled until October 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and bullying during a telephone call with the Housing Officer (HO).

While the resident has alleged that on 25 September 2019, the HO had demonstrated threatening behaviour which he considered to be harassment and bullying, the Ombudsman can see that this was disputed by the HO.
As the Ombudsman was not present at the time of the call and has been unable to obtain a recording of the conversation, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty whether this did or did not take place. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord’s complaints team also would have experienced similar difficulty upon receiving the resident’s complaint.
In such scenarios, however, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s allegations and to demonstrate to the resident that it had taken the allegations seriously. On reviewing the landlord’s approach, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it did this.
It was unfortunate that the call had not been recorded. The Ombudsman accepts that the reason for this was explained to the resident, however and that in the absence of this, an interview was undertaken with the HO. This was reasonable.
It was also reasonable, as it would have been inappropriate to solely rely on the word of the accused party, that the landlord considered the statement provided by the resident’s witness. Although it might have been more proportionate for the landlord to have approached her for interview, it was fair to consider the statement provided as the witness’s full account. As the landlord explained to the resident, while the statement did identify the HO as being abrupt, the witness had not confirmed behaviour considered to be harassing or bullying.
Subsequently, in the landlord’s complaint response in November 2019, it explained that through its investigation it was unable to find sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its member of staff had bullied or harassed the resident. It also explained that no other (similar) reports had been made by tenants as the resident had alleged. Despite this though, the landlord still offered the resident an apology in recognition of his experience. This was satisfactory. While it did not confirm the resident’s allegations for him and while the resident continued to complain about this matter, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was sufficient in resolving the complaint.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not approached other recommended parties, who he believed could vouch for the HO’s poor behaviour. As this would not have provided any clarity on the incident which allegedly took place on the phone, however, the Ombudsman cannot see that this was necessary.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repair to the communal area.

On learning that the resident was dissatisfied with its management of repairs (following contact from this Service), the landlord confirmed for the resident within its stage one response that there were no outstanding matters. It subsequently provided the resident with the opportunity to raise any issues he sought repair for.
This was reasonable. The Ombudsman can see that on 24 July 2020 the resident explained in response that the communal walkway was unsafe. The landlord’s records show that the resident also reported an issue with the front porch on 27 August 2020.
Under the landlord’s responsive repair policy, it explains that it will endeavour to undertake everyday repairs within 28 calendar days. The Ombudsman has noted, however, that the landlord did not undertake the requested repairs in line with this.
In response to the resident’s reports of an unsafe pathway, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord took steps to make safe the pathway (on 1 September 2020) with the intention of completing further, more permanent, works at a later time. This in itself exceeded the prescribed timescale. The landlord subsequently advised the resident within its final response that due to a backlog of repairs, it would seek to undertake the remaining works within the following three months. Despite this added delay and assurance from the landlord, however, the Ombudsman notes that this work was not done. This was inappropriate.
What’s more, in respect of the resident’s reported concerns with the porch ceiling, the landlord also confirmed on 2 September 2020 that works to address this would be undertaken on 23 September 2020. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did honour this appointment and acknowledges that due to the alleged behaviour of the resident, the operative refused to carry out the works at this time.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this matter with the resident, and to have made arrangements for this work to be rescheduled. It was inappropriate that the landlord left this work outstanding and that no attempts were made to put the issue right after this time.
The landlord has since explained to this Service that the works for both the pathway and the porch were rescheduled for completion in October 2021. Given the length of time that passed between when these matters were raised and their completion, however, there was a clear service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a downstairs toilet.

While the resident had referred to a downstairs toilet within his correspondence to the landlord, no specific request was made. The resident acknowledged this within his response to the landlord’s stage one complaint on 17 July 2020. He explained at this time, however, that he sought this in resolution of his complaint and the landlord noted that an adaptation could support the resident with his medical needs.
As such, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken more proactive steps to consider the suitability of the resident’s property and to assess whether any further steps needed to be taken.
It was reasonable that within the landlord’s final responses, it explained the process to enable the resident to qualify for a major adaptation to his property. It was also reasonable that the landlord recognised that it needed to update its records to reflect the resident’s medical conditions and shared its policy for adaptations with the resident. In an attempt to ensure that the resident’s needs were being met, the landlord advised that its Housing Team would be in touch. This was fair.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that despite the landlord’s promise to reach out to the resident, it failed to do so. No subsequent steps were taken to arrange an occupational assessment for the resident and no proactive action to establish what more could be done to support the resident. This was inappropriate.
Where promises are made in resolution of a complaint, the Ombudsman expects landlords to honour and fulfil the promises, and in good time. It is clear, however, that the landlord failed to act in accordance with this expectation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.

Similarly, upon speaking with this Service, the landlord was advised of the resident’s desire to move to more suitable accommodation. It was subsequently appropriate that within the landlord’s stage one response in July 2020, it addressed this, explaining that while it was unable to immediately rehouse the resident, he could explore moving to alternative accommodation via the local authority’s website. This was reasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord should have assisted the resident in exploring all of his housing options, rather than signposting the local authority only. Where a resident expresses an interest in moving, particularly where their current property is believed to be unsuitable to support their medical needs, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to be forthcoming with the available options to facilitate this move. In this case, however, the resident was given no information about alternative routes for housing (e.g., mutual exchanges) and the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any offer to further support him in pursuing something more suitable. The Ombudsman has subsequently found that the landlord should have done more at this time. While the landlord did offer to help the resident if he wished to complete an application for the local authority’s CBL, this was not enough.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Finally, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and while its responses were fair, a number of areas have been identified for improvement.
On review of the landlord’s complaints policy, it is noted that complaints at stage one of the complaints process should be responded to within 10 working days. Subsequently, upon receiving the resident’s allegations of harassment from the HO on 17 October 2019, a complaint response should have been provided on or around 31 October 2019. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord’s initial stage one response was not issued until more than two weeks after this date. This was inappropriate. While the extent of this delay would not have had a major impact, the Ombudsman does expect landlords to manage the expectations of residents by setting out, where it is unable to meet its deadline, the reasons why, and to confirm a new deadline. The landlord did not do this, however. The landlord also failed to recognise this within its complaint response. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation below, to improve the landlord’s future service.
The Ombudsman accepts that while the resident was given the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s stage one response in November 2019, this matter was not escalated to stage two of its process. It was therefore appropriate, upon receiving contact from this Service in June 2020, that a new stage one response was issued. This was responded to in good time and within the timeframe advised by this Service.
What’s more, while the landlord was delayed in offering its stage two response, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it adequately managed this by contacting the resident, explaining the reasons for its delay, and requesting further time. In this way the landlord was able to manage the resident’s expectation and did, thereafter, provide the response prior to the new suggested deadline. This was reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that while the landlord offered its stage two response in September 2020, it incorrectly labelled this as a stage one response. This would have caused some confusion for the resident. What’s more, in the landlord’s final paragraphs, it advised the resident that he could make contact should he wish to keep the complaint open, despite also advising that stage two was the final step in its complaints process.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was somewhat contradictory and unclear. As the landlord followed this up with further correspondence on 4 September 2020 – in which it confirmed that the complaints process had been exhausted – the Ombudsman has accepted that the landlord mitigated any confusion. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has made a further recommendation in relation to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39 of the Scheme, the following complaint points are outside of this Service’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs between 2012 – 2015.
2. The landlord’s handling of the neighbour dispute concerning ownership of the fence and the location of the boundary.
3. The landlord’s handling of alleged Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) from both parties.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and bullying during a telephone call with the Housing Officer (HO).
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repair to the communal area.
3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a downstairs toilet.
4. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred to alternative accommodation.
5. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. It appears that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s allegations of harassment and bullying following his telephone call with the HO. While the landlord was unable to listen to the recording, it set out the steps it did take to follow up the matter and these were both appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, the landlord acknowledged that irrespective of whether the event had or had not occurred, the resident had felt that the call was unprofessional. It therefore offered the resident an apology which was satisfactory.
2. Despite advising within its final response that the works to the porch ceiling and pathway would be undertaken in a matter of months, having already delayed in undertaking this work, the landlord failed to do so. Instead, this work remained outstanding for several months, until being arranged for completion on 8 October 2020. The landlord subsequently failed to honour its proposed resolution and to put things right when it should have.
3. Similarly, while the landlord proposed to make contact with the resident to discuss his support needs, following his request for a downstairs toilet, it failed to honour this. No subsequent attempts were made to consider whether a reasonable adjustment or adaptation was needed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for the resident to be assessed by an occupational therapist.
4. Although the resident showed an interest in transferring to another property (and had been having a series of issues in his current residence), the landlord did little to support him with this. At minimum, the landlord could have provided the resident with the options which were available to him, however the Ombudsman notes that he was only directed to the local authority’s website. The Ombudsman has therefore found that the landlord’s service could have been better.
5. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable. While the landlord’s response in November 2019 was slightly delayed, its later complaint responses were well managed, and the Ombudsman cannot see that any detriment arose from its initial delay. It would therefore be disproportionate to consider this to be a service failure, but the Ombudsman has made recommendations to improve the landlord’s complaint handling service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the omissions identified, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £300. This has been calculated as:
1. £150 to recognise the landlord’s failure to act in accordance with the timescales set out in its response repair policy, and the length of time that passed before this work was rescheduled for completion.
2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to take proactive steps to assess the resident’s support needs, as it said it would.
3. £50 to account for the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with all of the available options to secure a move, and to support him with his.
The above payment should be made within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it honours the timescales set out within its complaints policy and where it is unable to do so, that it makes contact with residents to explain the reasons for its delay and to set a new date in which they can expect a response.
The landlord should ensure that within its final response, it clearly sets out that the resident has exhausted its process and signposts the complainant’s available options should they wish to pursue matters further. The landlord should remove any ambiguity which could suggest that the complaint could remain open with its service.