Platform Housing Group Limited (202128262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128262

Platform Housing Group Limited

20 December 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 reports of:
  1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB);
  2. Outstanding repairs;
  3. Boiler repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Management move;
  2. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenancy of the landlord. At the time of her complaints, the resident occupied a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy for this property ended in February 2022 and the resident moved to a new property, also owned by the landlord.
The local authority’s Housing Standards team carried out an inspection of the property around September 2020 and sent the landlord a schedule of recommended works. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2020 with a list of the works it had raised and details of appointment dates for some of those works.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that, following its conversation with her that day, regarding her ASB reports about her neighbour, it would not be taking any further action.
In January 2021, the resident reported that there were several leaks in the property. During an initial visit, the landlord was unable to trace the leak. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February, following a subsequent visit. Within its letter, it set out details of repairs it planned to carry out, along with appointment dates. It also asked the resident to let it know which jobs the contractors had left cards for when they were unable to gain access, so it could reschedule appointments that the resident had missed.
Through February 2021, the resident continued to report ongoing repairs and ASB issues she was experiencing with her neighbour. The landlord arranged a home visit on 25 February 2021 to discuss these matters with her. During the visit, she told it that operatives had been “taunting her mental health” and making inappropriate comments. As a result, she would no longer allow the landlord access to complete outstanding works. They also discussed the resident’s ASB concerns, which included reports of “dog mess”, drug use and physical assault, which the police had investigated. The resident showed the landlord photographs relating to historical issues relating her neighbour’s garden.
Citizens Advice wrote to landlord following contact the resident had made with it. We do not have a copy of the letter, but the landlord responded on 2 March 2021. It explained that the resident would not allow any of the landlord’s operatives access to work in her home. It also stated that it had, on several occasions, made the resident aware of its ASB policy and procedure but that she did not want to engage in the process, or complete diary sheets. As a result, the landlord had been unable to investigate her reports. It added that, after consulting its management move policy, it would be offering to assist the resident with a move “on the grounds of health and wellbeing”.
On 8 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour was constantly “tapping” on the wall and making her dog bark. The landlord responded on the same day. It told her that, due to the strain the ASB and repairs were having on her wellbeing and health, it would offer her a management move. It explained that she would receive up to 2 “reasonable offers” of properties in her areas of choice.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 March 2021 to thank it for “taking time to help” with a management move. She said she was “going to ask to have a advocated meeting with the next door to resolve issues”. She also stated that she had a leak from above her boiler and over the bathroom. On 11 March 2021, the landlord called the resident to speak to her about her repairs and her neighbour. It was decided that, if the resident could send evidence of the ASB, the landlord would look into it. The resident stated she could only do this via email as she was dyslexic and could not complete diary sheets.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2021 and 30 March 2021 with further reports of outstanding repairs, including a leak above her boiler. The landlord told her, on 30 March 2021, that it would chase her boiler repair. The resident told it that, as she just wanted the boiler fixed, she was happy for the landlord to give the contractor her mobile number. On the same day, the resident told the landlord she was offered a property but that she had refused it because it was in a “very busy area”. She confirmed she was looking for a 2 bedroom bungalow or house.
Further to the resident’s reports of leaks from the boiler, the landlord attended on 31 March 2021. Due to the unavailability of a required part, it arranged for the boiler to be replaced.
On 1 April 2021, the resident sent the landlord a stage 1 complaint (Complaint A). The landlord has not provided the Service with a copy of her complaint. However, it is understood from the landlord’s response that the resident had raised the following issues:
1. Leaks and boiler problems for the preceding 3 years;
2. Floorboards that had dropped following previous leaks;
3. Leaks coming from her sink and hot water tap;
4. A window that was sticking;
5. Water damage in the kitchen from previous leaks;
6. Electrical sockets crackling when in use;
7. The conduct of a gas operative and a member of staff she spoke to on 4 April 2021;
8. Issues dating back from 2018 with regard to her neighbour and the amount of animals they had at the property.
The landlord subsequently agreed to replace the boiler, and provided the resident with temporary heaters on 4 April 2021. The boiler installation was scheduled for 14 April 2021, but was postponed owing to the resident’s ill health.
The resident continued to correspond with the landlord during April 2021 with regard to her management move and the impact of having no heating or hot water. She said she wanted to be reimbursed for this. She stated she had been offered 2 properties that were in the “same state of disrepair” as the one she was living in.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord completed works to replace the resident’s boiler.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord sent the stage 1 response to Complaint A, which stated:
1. The resident had reported a gas leak on 15 July 2020 but the contractor did not find a leak. It visited the property on 17 July 2020 for a follow up appointment but there was no one at home;
2. The resident had reported inconsistent boiler pressure on 2 September 2020. It visited on 22 September 2020, completed the repair and checked for any leaks and issues with the boiler. It did not find any;
3. The resident had reported low boiler pressure and a containable leak on 16 October 2020. It attempted to visit on 9, 11, 12 and 26 November 2020, but no one was at home and the job was cancelled;
4. It visited on 17 February 2021 and noted there was no leak at the time but that there was evidence there had been a leak. It arranged a visit for 2 March 2021 to check if the pressure had dropped or if a leak had returned. It was confirmed the initial leak had been rectified;
5. The resident had reported on 17 March 2021 that the boiler was leaking again and a job was raised on an incorrect priority. Due to this, the landlord raised this again as an emergency;
6. Following a visit on 31 March 2021, it was confirmed that corrosion had caused a secondary small water leak, which was on a section of the boiler that was no longer available. As a result, the landlord arranged to install a new boiler on 14 April 2021;
7. As the resident was unwell, the installation did not go ahead as planned. The contractor provided her with its contact details so she could contact them with a suitable installation date;
8. On 20 November 2020, the landlord noted, during its visit, that the floor had not dropped but was creaking and needed part of the chipboard replaced. The job was booked in for 21 April 2021;
9. A visit was arranged for 14 July 2020 in response to reports of a leaking sink but was cancelled at the resident’s request. This was due to her healthcare problems and not wanting operatives in the property. The landlord arranged a new visit 24 February 2021 and fixed the leaks;
10. On 20 November 2020, the landlord attended to inspect her window but there was no one home at the time and the job was cancelled. This was also the case when the landlord visited again on 20 January 2021. It had booked a new appointment for 25 June 2021;
11. It inspected the property on 17 July 2020 following reports from the resident of water damage. The surveyor did not find any damage or raise any repairs.
12. A subsequent visit was arranged for 23 December 2020 to look at the kitchen and walls, and the resident told the operative she would prefer if this was re-arranged after the New Year. The appointment was re-arranged for 27 January 2021 but was missed because no one was home at the time. A further inspection took place on 2 March 2020 but the resident did not want the landlord to take any photos. The landlord would therefore have to carry out a further inspection;
13. It had arranged a visit for 3 July 2020 to complete an electrical test. This was completed successfully and confirmed all readings were satisfactory;
14. With regard to the conduct of the gas operative, it advised that he no longer worked for the organisation. However, in order to provide the resident with further reassurance, it requested that any future visits were carried out by 2 people;
15. It had completed a full investigation into the incident with the operative the resident had spoken to on 4 April 2021. It found no evidence they had mocked her mental health or that there was any laughing in the background of the call;
16. It had investigated the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB procedure. It had closed the case down following visits it had made and letters it sent to her neighbour. It had explained the process with the resident a number of times. This was to explain what information it needed from her in order that it could investigate her reports;
17. Following a visit on 25 February 2021, the landlord had agreed it would assist the resident with a management move on the grounds of health and wellbeing. It noted she was on the register and had been offered properties but they were not suitable. It stated it would continue to contact her when any suitable properties become available;
18. It did not uphold her complaint. It stated that it had looked into and raised each repair she had reported. A lack of access to the property had caused further delays in resolving some of the repairs. It stated it would continue to monitor the new jobs and inspections the resident had raised and that she should let it know if any of the arranged dates were unsuitable.
On 21 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that operatives had turned up at her property to repair her flooring but that she had only been made aware of this the day before. She spoke to the landlord on 22 April 2021 and asked for Complaint A to be escalated to stage 2.
On 6 May and 15 May 2021, the resident reported further ASB concerns regarding her neighbour. On 18 May 2021, she called the landlord to say that water was “running over her electrics” and that her toilet was backing up into the bath when flushed. The landlord asked for further details and the resident said she would not be allowing it access to her home.
On 21 May 2021, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to Complaint A:
1. It would arrange a joint visit to the property. This was so it could go through her concerns in detail and give her the opportunity to point out any outstanding repairs;
2. It was disappointed that the resident would not allow access to her home as this made it “very difficult” for it to come to a resolution;
3. It thanked the resident for the polite and courteous manner in which she had expressed her frustrations and concerns and apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused;
4. It would not be able to resolve her complaint unless it was able to visit her.
The landlord carried out a home visit on 29 June 2021, and went around the property with the resident to identify any outstanding repairs. The resident told it that her neighbour was pouring water into her property but the landlord could not see any evidence of this. The resident told it she did not want it to do anything regarding her ASB reports and did not want it to investigate the matter. She said she just wanted to move and was happy to allow the landlord access to do repairs.
Following the home visit, the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 July 2021 and stated:
1. During its visit, it identified a number of repairs. It would raise the works with a contractor who would contact her to make suitable arrangements;
2. The resident had advised that she did not wish for it to open an ASB case or investigate incidents she had reported;
3. Her management move application had been active since 18 March 2021 and it would continue to look for a suitable property for her.
Between 13 October 2021 and 10 December 2021, the resident continued to report various ASB issues regarding her neighbour. These included the pouring of oil into the drains and causing a blockage, banging on walls and drilling near her boiler. The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 December 2021 and explained it was unable to investigate incidents of ASB if she would not send it any evidence.
On 14 December 2021, the resident called the landlord to say she was turning down a further offer of a property as it was “not ready”. The landlord explained the lettings process and why it would have to consider this an unreasonable refusal. It added that it had made other offers, which she had also turned down. Following further discussion, the resident said she was happy to be considered for the property and asked the landlord to keep her updated on when she could move.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that the tenancy end date was 22 February 2022.
On 3 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a new complaint (Complaint B). She stated that:
1. Over the years, she had been reporting ASB issues about her neighbour and the landlord had failed to resolve them;
2. She had asked, on a number of occasions, for a move but the landlord had put the process on hold for months at a time;
3. While she was living at the property, there were a number of outstanding repairs that the landlord had not resolved;
4. Operatives had attended her home unannounced;
5. She had experienced an issue with her heating that the landlord had failed to resolve, and this had left her without hot water and heating;
6. She felt the landlord was harassing her and she did not wish to receive any further contact from it;
7. She was seeking compensation for various issues including bills, an insurance payment and the length of time she was left without heating and hot water.
The landlord and resident exchanged further correspondence over 15 and 16 March. The resident advised that she wished to receive an apology and compensation for the inconvenience she had been caused and damage to her belongings. The landlord asked what amount would be satisfactory to the resident. It is unclear whether the resident replied.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response to Complaint B on 25 March 2022, which stated:
1. It was unable to investigate any new ASB issues as the resident had advised it that she was unable to complete diary sheets. The resident had also declined on a number of occasions to engage in its ASB process;
2. It could not find any evidence that it had put the management move process on hold. The resident had been offered different properties but turned these down as they did not meet her criteria. A mutual exchange was also unable to progress due to the level of arrears on her rent account;
3. It was unable to carry out repairs to the resident’s toilet or plastering as it was unable to access the property;
4. It explained that residents receive text messages in relation to any scheduled appointments and this would include the date and time of the appointment. It said that she should have received those text messages. It reassured her that operatives would not attend her home unannounced;
5. It had attended every time the resident had reported an issue with her boiler, and had fixed it each time. However, there were many occasions where the resident had refused access to the operatives, which was the main cause of delays;
6. It was sorry the resident had been made to feel harassed. However, she would continue to receive communication from it until her tenancy ended. It reassured her that there were no outstanding jobs and that she would not receive any further text messages relating to repairs;
7. It had sent her an email on 16 March 2022, asking her to provide further information on the compensation she was seeking but had not received a response;
8. It said it had been unable to find evidence that the resident was left without heating.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 March 2022 to ask if she had cleared the property. It reminded her that, until the keys were returned, she would still be liable for rent on the property. The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to ask for Complaint B to be escalated.
Several emails where exchanged between 29 March 2022 and 18 May 2022 where the landlord sought clarification of the resident’s concerns. On 18 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that, in order to fully understand her complaint, it would need to speak to her by telephone.
The landlord sent the resident an extension letter, advising her that it needed more time to complete its investigation and that it would provide a response by 24 June 2022.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident. During the call, the following was discussed:
1. The resident had reported a number of repairs over the course of her tenancy and explained that she had had to move out of her property on a number of occasions because it was “uninhabitable”. She stated that operatives who attended her property had been rude and disrespectful towards her and her daughter;
2. She informed the landlord of a range of ASB incidents involving her neighbour;
3. She wanted an apology from the landlord and reimbursement of payments she had made when relocating to another address due to ASB;
4. She advised it of correspondence she had received regarding rent arrears. She said she was concerned that a letter had been hand delivered to her former address concerning legal action.
The landlord sent a further extension letter on 11 July 2022 and the resident responded on the same day to say she was struggling with the situation and wanted a date of when the complaint investigation would be completed. On 19 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to Complaint B, which stated:
1. The records showed a number of failed visits by operatives due to the resident refusing to provide access. This would have contributed to delays in completing repairs;
2. The repairs she had reported did not lead to the property being deemed as uninhabitable;
3. It was unable to address historical complaints about operatives without substantiating evidence;
4. It reiterated that it was unable to investigate her ASB reports if she did not engage in its ASB process. She had advised that she was unable to complete incident diary sheets due to her dyslexia and that she would update the landlord by email instead;
5. She had “refused” to provide evidence by email, which limited its ability to investigate her ASB reports. It was satisfied it had taken all reasonable steps to address her ASB reports and it could not take any further action without supporting evidence;
6. She had been approved for a management move and it had offered her 3 to 4 properties. It was normal practice, under its current policy, to remove an application for a management move when 2 properties had been refused. It was therefore satisfied it had made reasonable attempts to move her to a suitable alternative property;
7. It had spoken with its Income team and confirmed that they had not commenced any legal action against her for recovery of rent arrears.
The resident contacted the Service on 11 August 2022 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She stated that she wanted an apology and compensation for the way the landlord had dealt with her management move, ASB concerns and repairs to her boiler. She added that she wanted the landlord to acknowledge that it had made her “homeless”. She provided the Service with photographs of the homes it offered her, which she said were not ready and within areas she did not ask to be housed.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of ASB

It is noted from the records that there is a long history of ASB reports from the resident about her neighbour. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from February 2021 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. Any references to historical issues will be referred to in this report for the purposes of context.
When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and if it took proportionate action.
It is relevant to acknowledge that ASB cases involving reports and counter-allegations over an extended period of time, sometimes with limited or no corroborating evidence, can be among the most difficult for a landlord to manage. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important our assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that, during contact with the resident, it may be necessary to encourage them to complete ASB diary notes or send details of any incidents in an agreed format. If communication issues are identified, an agreement will be reached on the best way to record incidents.
Within her correspondence to the landlord, the resident explained that she was finding it difficult completing diary sheets due to her dyslexia. She had said she preferred to email the information instead. It is noted that the resident did not go on to provide further evidence via email. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the resident’s comments. It could have explored other ways to help her record and compile her evidence, such as offering assistance to connect with advocacy services or to use the information she had already sent via email in place of the diary sheets. It could have also offered alternatives such as suggesting that she provide recorded messages using a Dictaphone or mobile phone, or could have offered to transcribe the information the resident provided during telephone calls onto diary sheets. That the landlord did not explore such options, or discuss the matter further with the resident was a failing.
However, despite reporting various ASB incidents, the records show that that resident did not want to engage in the ASB process. There is also evidence she had advised the landlord she did not want it to speak to her neighbour about her ASB reports. The resident’s reasons for not wishing to engage with the ASB process are unclear. However, it is apparent that this made it challenging for the landlord to gather any supporting evidence or progress an effective investigation. The records indicate that the landlord did take steps to support the resident by conducting home visits to discuss her ASB reports and explain its ASB policy and procedure. There is also evidence that the landlord made efforts between August and December 2021 to approach the resident’s neighbour to discuss some of the ASB concerns the resident had raised. It should be noted; however, that without the resident’s consent, the landlord was limited in the details it could share with her neighbour, without the risk of disclosing confidential information.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states that, through initial contact with the resident, the landlord will identify any risk using its vulnerability risk assessment framework. An agreed plan would then be completed with the resident during the initial contact, through the completion of an action plan. It is not clear from the records whether or not the landlord had previously completed risk assessment for historical ASB reports.
There is no evidence it had attempted to complete a risk assessment following the ASB reports from February 2021. It is acknowledged that the resident showed unwillingness to engage in the landlord’s process. However, given the her vulnerabilities, the landlord should have considered how it could complete a risk assessment in order to establish the severity of the situation and the risk it posed to the resident. It could then have recorded its attempts to do this. However, despite the absence of a risk assessment, the landlord did make referrals to victim support services and made enquiries to the local authority with regard to safeguarding to ensure that the resident was adequately supported.
There are no records to show that the landlord had discussed an action plan with the resident. A comprehensive and meaningful action plan is an opportunity to agree a preferred method of contact, and to arrange convenient dates and times when the landlord could liaise with the resident. It is also a chance for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of what it was able to do and to set realistic objectives. Such a plan could have helped put a formal contact arrangement in place. However, it is recognised that the resident’s lack of engagement would have made it difficult for the landlord to follow a set action plan, particularly as there were times when the resident had told it she did not want it to investigate her ASB reports.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will ensure the resident can easily report incidents of ASB and that it will achieve this through various means. This includes the use of mediation, taking appropriate enforcement action and signposting to the relevant supporting agencies. There is evidence the resident had expressed an interest in mediation. She told the landlord on 9 March 2021 that she wanted to ask for “an advocated meeting” with her neighbour to resolve the issues. There is no indication the landlord had followed up on this or explored this option as a way of resolving the ongoing difficulties between the resident and her neighbour. It may have been the case that the landlord did not consider there was sufficient evidence of ASB to ask the neighbour to engage in mediation. However, if this was the case, it should have advised the resident as such.
It is positive to note that the landlord exercised its discretion and agreed in March 2021 that the resident could have a management move on the grounds of health and wellbeing. This demonstrates that it recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and level of distress, and that a move would be the best way of resolving the ongoing situation. Overall, the landlord did take reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s ASB concerns. However, given her dyslexia, the landlord could have offered the resident other ways to record an incident diary other than providing written records.

The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy sets out 2 levels of responsive repair. Emergency repairs are initially attended to within 24 hours in order to make the property safe, and these may require follow up work. This applies to repairs where there is an immediate or serious risk to the resident or property, and include severe water leaks or total loss of water in the autumn or winter. Appointed repairs include all non-emergency repairs that need to be carried out to remedy building defects and cannot reasonably wait for planned or cyclical works. Residents are offered a mutually convenient appointment time and the landlord will endeavor to complete the repair in a single visit.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes internal walls, floors and ceilings, and any installation provided by the landlord for heating and the supply of water, gas and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The tenancy agreement also states that he resident must allow the landlord’s employees, or contractors acting on its behalf, access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to carry out repairs, or other works to the home. The landlord’s repair records show that, where the landlord was able to gain access to the resident’s property, it completed repairs within its target response time, and within a single visit. It is evident that there were numerous occasions where the landlord was unable to gain access to complete repairs, either because the resident did not allow access or because she was not in the property when the operatives arrived.
The Ombudsman accepts that there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being completed because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot reasonably be considered to be within the landlord’s control. The resident raised concerns that operatives arrived at her property unannounced and with no prior notification of an appointment. in response, the landlord explained its processes and said it had no evidence of contactors attending outside of scheduled appointments.
It is noted that, in an internal note, the landlord has recorded that the resident did not wish to receive text messages. This record was dated from December 2020 and there is no indication it had been reviewed since then. It is unclear whether the landlord took this request into account when communicating with the resident about repair appointments. It would have been appropriate, in the circumstances, for the landlord to have discussed with her how she would best prefer to receive appointment notifications, while providing sufficient advance notice. This could have helped minimise any opportunities for the resident to miss appointment notifications, and avoid delays in addressing outstanding repairs.
It is acknowledged the resident had raised concerns about the conduct of some of the operatives. The landlord acted appropriately when it arranged for all future repairs to be attended by 2 people as a way of addressing the resident’s concerns about the operatives. This would have ensured that any instances of poor conduct could be witnessed, and that further reports regarding staff conduct could be more effectively investigated. It is also noted that the landlord acted appropriately when it carried out a proportionate investigation into the concerns the resident had raised about the gas operative
It is appropriate that the landlord made positive efforts to work with the resident in order to identify and address any outstanding repairs. It carried out home visits in order to discuss the resident’s concerns in person, establish the exact nature of the repairs that were required and encourage the resident to allow it access so it could complete those repairs. It also made reasonable attempts to agree dates and times that were suitable for the resident when rearranging missed appointments. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, despite numerous occasions where it was unable to gain access to the property.

The resident’s reports of boiler repairs

It is understandable how frustrating it must have been for the resident to have experienced a number of faults to her boiler system that led to a loss of heating in her property. Given the nature of her vulnerabilities, the repeated visits would have been disruptive and distressing. However, the evidence shows that, where the landlord had not attended to boiler repairs within its target response date, it was due to its difficulty gaining access to the property. Overall, the records indicate that landlord had attended in a timely manner. Where some delays occurred, the records show that the contractor was unable to gain access to the property, despite having made repeated visits for a particular repair. The landlord could not have reasonably avoided those delays.
The records show that the resident reported problems with her boiler around 10 times between September 2020 and September 2021. The evidence indicates that various repairs did not relate to the same part of the system. It is understandable that the landlord would have sought, where possible, to repair the boiler rather than replace it. The tenancy agreement outlines the landlord’s obligation “to keep in repair and proper working order any installation provided by [the landlord] for space heating”. The installation of a new boiler would be considered an improvement. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to ensure any boiler issues could be resolved by way of carrying out repairs in the first instance. This is because landlord would have to work within limited budgets and has to weigh up the costs of repair versus replacement, particularly when it feels the boiler is still repairable.
It was appropriate that, when the landlord found that a specific boiler part was unavailable, it immediately arranged to install a new boiler. It is also positive to note that it took account of the resident’s vulnerabilities when it made the appointment for the installation. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that it only raises emergency repairs for loss of heating in the autumn and winter months. It was appropriate that it exercised its discretion and departed from its usual practice by raising the installation as an urgent repair, despite the fact it was during the spring.
The evidence shows that the original install date was 14 April 2021, which would have been 13 days after the job was raised. This was a reasonable timescale within which to complete a responsive repair. It is noted that the landlord had to delay the work because the resident was unwell. It is unclear from the records what steps the landlord took to reschedule the appointment. However, internal records indicate that the resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2021 to ask it when the installation would take place. The gas contractor informed the landlord that it had tried “on several occasions to gain access and the tenant [was] never in”. The contractor added that the resident wanted it to assess the “pipes at the top of the flue” before the install. Although it had assured her that these would be changed as part of the work, the resident would not let it install the boiler. The evidence indicates that the contractor was eventually able to install the new boiler on 11 May 2021. Given the circumstances, the landlord had made reasonable efforts to complete the boiler installation as soon as was practicable.
Although there is no evidence the landlord had explored ways in which the resident could have had access to alternative washing facilities while she waited for the new boiler, it acted appropriately when it provided the resident with temporary heaters on 4 April 2021. This ensured she was not left without heating for an extended period of time. In view of the above, the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports about boiler repairs.

Management move

The landlord’s Lettings Policy provides that, existing residents who have an urgent and exceptional need to move to a more suitable adapted home due to illness or disability may be transferred outside of normal allocation routes through the landlord’s management move register. In addition, it states that residents who are approved for a management move will receive up to 2 reasonable offers, and this would remain valid for a period of up to 3 months. There is no obligation on a landlord to offer a resident a management move; and any decision regarding such moves is discretionary. As such, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions in relation to the management move were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records state that the resident has “severe mental and physical health problems”. Given the extent of her vulnerabilities, the landlord appropriately exercised its discretion when it offered her a management move on the grounds of health and wellbeing. It correctly considered the impact on the resident of the ongoing ASB issues with her neighbour, the repairs and the level of distress this was causing her.
In December 2021, the landlord had succeeded in finding the resident a suitable property. This was around 9 months after it had agreed a management move. The evidence shows that it was in regular contact with the resident throughout the process. The time taken to find a suitable property were largely caused by difficulties the resident experienced finding a property she felt was suitable for her. The evidence also shows that the resident had already declined 2 offers, which were within her areas of choice. As such, while there was a delay in suitable alternative accommodation being found, the evidence does not suggest that this delay was avoidable.
Furthermore, it is noted that the landlord exercised its discretion further and offered the resident more than 2 property offers. This demonstrates that the landlord went over and above the requirements of its policy in order to support the resident and resolve her concerns. Taking this into account, the evidence shows that the landlord took all reasonable steps in order to support the resident with her management move.

Complaint

The landlord’s Customer Feedback policy sets out a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. The policy states that, if the landlord needs more time, it will make sure it keeps in regular contact with residents and keep them updated on the progress of its investigation. It refers to the second stage of its process as a ‘Final Review’, which is carried out by a senior manager. The landlord responds to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code states that, landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The landlord took 23 working days to respond to Complaint A. Although the delay was not excessive, there is no evidence it agreed and extension with the resident or provided a clear timeframe. That it did not communicate appropriately with the resident during the investigation of this stage 1 complaint was a service failure.
The records indicate that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 March 2022. The evidence shows there were delays while the landlord tried to establish telephone contact in order to get clarification of the concerns she had raised.
The Code states that, “on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties”. The landlord contacted the resident 2 days after receiving her escalation request, to let her know it needed clarification in order to fully understand her complaint. It offered to discuss her complaint over the telephone, which was appropriate. It is acknowledged that, in order to carry out an effective investigation and provide a thorough response, it is reasonable for the landlord to try and speak to a resident directly in order to establish a better understanding of the issues they have raised.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say, “we appreciate this may be difficult to articulate in an email and have therefore offered to speak to you to seek further clarification. I understand you have declined a telephone call”. Given the resident had been clear that she had dyslexia and the landlord had difficulty defining her complaint from her emails, it was appropriate that it attempted to speak to her over the phone. In this way, it would have properly been able to establish what issues it needed to investigate. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider providing the resident with details of advocacy agencies, or enquiring whether there she had family or friends that could act on her behalf. It could have also made enquiries with the resident about her communication preferences and what it could do to provide her with support. It is unclear why the landlord did not take such action. However, that it did not was a failing
The records show that it took 3 months before the landlord was able to have a telephone discussion with the resident, which would explain the delay in escalating her complaint. The landlord acted correctly in sending extension letters and to keep her updated about the progress of its investigation. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response to Complaint B was delayed, the evidence does not suggest that all of the delay was avoidable and most of it was attributed to the efforts it had made to seek clarification of the complaint. Once the landlord had spoken to the resident and established the content of her complaint, it provided a response within 20 working days. It is acknowledged that the delay would have been frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord was correct to try and speak to her to ensure its response reflected the concerns she was raising. Without the necessary clarification, the landlord could not have reasonably carried out an effective investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s management move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord did take reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s ASB concerns. Although it did not complete a risk assessment, there is evidence that, by referring the resident to external support services, it had made some assessment of the risk.
The landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, despite numerous occasions where it was unable to gain access to the property.
The landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s reports of boiler issues. When it was able to gain access to the property, it carried out repairs in a timely manner. It also made efforts to install a new boiler as soon was practicable, and provided temporary heaters to ensure the resident was not left without heating.
The landlord appropriately approved a management move for the resident on the grounds of health and wellbeing. It communicated regularly with her to help find a suitable property. It also exercised its discretion when it departed from its policy to allow more than 2 offers to be made.
Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint appropriately and made efforts to ensure it fully discussed the resident’s concerns with her to ensure it conducted an effective investigation. However, the landlord’s communication was lacking when it investigated stage 1 of Complaint A, and this was a departure from the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case;
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its poor communication while it was investigating stage 1 of Complaint A.

Recommendations

The landlord to remind staff that any consideration of risk or whether further support is required should be logged as a formal risk assessment. This will ensure that it follows its procedure in all cases.