The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Portobello Housing Co-operative Limited (202117768)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117768

Portobello Housing Co-operative Limited

29 February 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The resident’s reports of discrimination and harassment by the landlord for his health issues and disabilities.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and his resulting request to be rehoused.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the behaviour and communication of its members towards him.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was a member and tenant of the landlord, which is a housing co-operative, of a flat until it expelled him and obtained a possession order for the property in September 2023. He has a long-term illness, which causes him weakness and tiredness and is worsened by stress.
  2. The resident previously told the landlord in March 2020 that another one of its members had come into his property uninvited in February 2020. He described the member, who he said had threatened and harassed him in the past, as refusing to leave the property after he had asked them to do so 3 times. The member then only left the resident’s property after being told to by a different member of the landlord. He therefore asked it for its latest complaints policy and form, and he added that there were outstanding structural repairs at the property from 4 years earlier, which its above members had been inspecting.
  3. As the landlord’s subsequent general meeting in April 2020 stated that it had sent the resident its complaints policy and form twice already, it advised that these could be downloaded. He then requested these from it again in June 2020, as he was unable to download the documents, and he also asked it for details of its actions for his property’s structural repairs. The resident went on to complain to the landlord in July 2020 to ask it to stop what he considered to be deliberate harassment by it for his ill-health. He said that this was because it had not taken responsibility for the property’s repairs, and it had treated these and his resulting request to be rehoused differently to other residents’ requests.
  4. The resident also complained about correspondence from the landlord to his MP in 2019, and that the above incident at his property in February 2020 had caused him ill-health. He described the latter as a hate crime and harassment due to his health, and he considered that it should have arranged a surveyor’s inspection of the property instead of the incident’s members’ attendance. The resident explained that he had complained via email to the landlord because it had not provided him with the complaint form that he had asked it for several times. The member who he had complained about during the incident then acknowledged the complaint in July 2020, providing a complaint form and saying it would respond in due course within COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
  5. The resident subsequently chased the landlord for a complaint response in October 2020, when he reported that it had previously dismissed this. He also complained that a member he had complained about had contacted him, and he refused to respond to them or to other members he had complained about. The resident therefore asked the landlord to take his complaint to an outside agency as soon as possible. Its complaints officer instead re-sent him its complaint form and asked him to fill this in for the complaint to be dealt with. However, the resident declined to do so and added the complaints officer’s recent and past behaviour to his complaint, although the landlord agreed to seek mediation with him.
  6. The landlord then explained to the resident how to frame a complaint to it and ask him to provide it with a clearer, expanded, and understandable complaint by November 2020. It also asked him for dates and details of every incident he had complained about, offering him help from a member, representative, or advice agency. The landlord explained that this was required for it to investigate the full complaint under its complaints procedure, but it asked the resident for details of outside agencies that could do so too. He nevertheless declined to provide it with further information about the complaint in November 2020, as he had already complained to it, adding that it had sent him distressing unsigned and incorrect correspondence without copying in his MP, as previously agreed.
  7. The landlord therefore began seeking an independent adjudicator to investigate the resident’s complaint from November 2020. It also outlined the above details of the complaint for him in December 2020, as he had not done so, which excluded his property’s repairs as historical. However, the landlord declined the resident’s request for a single point of contact with it, as it was a collective organisation whose members shared voluntary duties evenly, while he declined to respond to unsigned correspondence from it. After its original independent adjudicator subsequently withdrew in March 2021, it instructed a replacement and again excluded his property’s repairs from the complaint, with their complaint investigation then taking place until June 2021.
  8. In July 2021, the landlord’s independent adjudicator’s complaint response found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations, despite repeated requests for this, and declined to uphold his complaint. They could not find its complaint acknowledgement to comment on, but they interviewed him, the members he had complained about, and witnesses, and they considered witness statements and supporting evidence. The resident’s description of the February 2020 incident was found to be contradicted by other witnesses, and his other claims to be unsupported. However, the landlord’s recommendations included to request and assess his medical evidence, require remote or proxy apologies from members unable to attend meetings, sign correspondence, and familiarise members with its complaints and anti-discrimination policies.
  9. The landlord subsequently accepted the above complaint response in September 2021. However, the resident disputed this as not including his oral statements, minutes, all of his complaint, or relevant correspondence. The landlord nevertheless confirmed to him in July 2022 that it considered the complaint fully investigated and ruled on, and that the matter was complete. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman about the above complaint handling and behaviour and communication of other members towards him. He also added his property’s historical and current repairs and his resulting request to be rehoused, and he considered the landlord’s handling of these issues to be discrimination and harassment for his health. The resident asked for the highest possible compensation and sanctions for the landlord to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by 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 will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42a, 42f, and 42l of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s reports of discrimination and harassment by the landlord for his health issues and disabilities.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and his resulting request to be rehoused.
  3. The resident has complained that the landlord’s involvement in and handling of the events in his case was discrimination and harassment for his illness, including hate crimes. He has explained that this is because he considered its and its members’ actions towards him to be deliberate, that these worsened his ill-health, and that they were aware of his illness. Under paragraph 42f of the Scheme, however, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  4. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the resident’s reports of discrimination, harassment, and hate crimes, as it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy for these through the courts. This is because we do not have the authority to determine whether the above behaviour has occurred in breach of equality legislation for reasons such as health issues and disabilities in the way that the courts can. However, this investigation will otherwise determine whether the landlord’s actions were fair in all the circumstances of the resident’s complaints that are within our jurisdiction.
  5. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of both historical outstanding repairs at his property from 2016, and of current repairs at the property, as well as his resulting request to be rehoused by it. Nevertheless, paragraph 42l of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  6. The Ombudsman previously investigated, determined, and reviewed the landlord’s handling of historical outstanding repairs at the resident’s property from 2016 under complaint reference 201605123 in 2018. Therefore, we are unable to investigate this aspect of his complaint again. There is also no evidence that a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of subsequent outstanding repairs at his property has exhausted its complaints procedure yet. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this aspect of his complaint either. Although the landlord’s decision to exclude the current repairs from the resident’s complaint is considered as part of our investigation of its handling of the complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s July 2020 complaint about the behaviour and communication of the landlord’s members towards him, he included its correspondence to his MP in 2019. However, in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Therefore, as the resident’s July 2020 complaint to the landlord about its 2019 correspondence with his MP was not brought to its attention within a reasonable period of within 6 months of 2019, this correspondence is not considered by this investigation.

Behaviour and communication of members

  1. The landlord’s standing orders oblige its members to attend its general meetings, and to send signed and dated written apologies to its membership secretary if they are unable to attend. However, long-term illness is considered a legitimate reason for not attending its general meetings.
  2. The resident informed the landlord from 21 March 2020 onwards that he was dissatisfied with one of its members who had attended his property 25 February 2020. He explained that this was because they were uninvited, and they had not left after being asked to 3 times by him, but only after being told to leave by another member. The resident considered this and the uninvited member’s previous behaviour towards him to be threatening and harassment. He subsequently told the landlord on 10 July 2020 that this incident had caused him ill-health, and that he regarded this as a hate crime because of its awareness of his health. It is therefore concerning that, despite informing it of his above concerns, the member the resident complained about acknowledged his correspondence on 16 July 2020.
  3. The above acknowledgement only informed the resident that he would receive a response in due course within COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, and resent him documentation that he had previously requested from it. It was nevertheless inappropriate that, not only did the landlord permit a member who he had recently twice made serious allegations about to contact him, but that they did so on its behalf to acknowledge his allegations to it against them. This is because this was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to be fair in handling the resident’s case. The landlord should have done so by ensuring that it dealt with his allegations in a way that both appeared to be and was independent and impartial, and in a way that considered his vulnerabilities.
  4. However, by permitting the member who the resident had complained about to contact him on its behalf, the landlord did not ensure the appearance or fact of its independence and impartiality at this stage. It ought to have instead stopped all contact between him and the above member, particularly on its behalf, in order to give him confidence that they would not be involved in or influence its handling of his allegations. This is especially because the landlord was aware of the resident’s long-term illness, which was worsened by stress, and of his reports to it that the member’s previous behaviour had made him more ill. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not reassure him that the member would not contact him or be involved in his case again and then ensure this.
  5. The resident subsequently confirmed to the landlord on 2 October 2020 that he was dissatisfied that the member who he had complained about had contacted him. He therefore asked it to take his case to an outside agency as soon as possible, which demonstrated his lack of confidence in its handling of his allegations. This was also shown when the resident then added the landlord’s complaints officer’s past behaviour to his complaint to it after an email exchange with them on 5 October 2020. He therefore understandably confirmed on 16 October 2020 that he did not want to deal with anyone who he had complained about. Although the landlord appropriately began to seek an independent external investigation with the resident from 30 October 2020.
  6. However, the landlord’s latest correspondence to the resident was unsigned by the member who sent this. He therefore added this to his complaint on 13 November 2020 because he found this distressing, and that it did not copy in his MP as previously agreed, declining to respond to it. The resident also considered this communication to be harassment, intimidation, and hate crime. Therefore, by not preventing the members who he had complained about from communicating with him or handling his case, the landlord’s anonymous correspondence further reduced his already low confidence in its independence and impartiality. This, and not following his communication preferences was unreasonable, given the previous reported impact on the resident’s health.
  7. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord subsequently attempted to involve the resident’s MP, as well as to seek an independent adjudicator to handle his case, which it confirmed to him on 24 December 2020. However, it continued to send him anonymous correspondence, and he confirmed his dissatisfaction about this to it on the above date and 26 January 2021, while it considered this to be authored by it collectively on 7 January 2021. This meant that it was reasonable that the landlord’s independent adjudicator’s report of 26 July 2021 found its anonymous correspondence to be poor practice, which should have included the names of the authors, and so recommended that it do so.
  8. It was also understandable that the above report found that, after interviewing the resident and other members and considering witness statements, there was no evidence to support his allegations about the February 2020 incident. This is because his description of the incident was contradicted by the 2 other members present, as well as by the member who he had complained about, with no other evidence provided supporting his description. It is nevertheless of concern that, as with the landlord’s above correspondence to the resident, it did not prevent the member who he had also previously complained about from attending his property during the incident. This was inappropriate and led to a similar complaint from him, as it had not ensured that the attendance was handled independently and impartially without a member he complained about.
  9. The resident also added the above member’s past behaviour to his complaint. This included incorrect information to the Ombudsman and the landlord’s general meetings, and alleged threats and intimidation towards him outside such meetings. However, despite its independent adjudicator’s requests for dates, details, and evidence of these claims, this was not provided and so it was reasonable that the resident’s complaint about this was not upheld. This is because, in the absence of any evidence to support his allegations, the landlord was entitled to accept that these had not been established. This was due to the independent adjudicator appropriately seeking such evidence from interviews, witness statements, correspondence, and requests to the parties.
  10. It is concerning that the independent adjudicator was unable to find a copy of the above member’s acknowledgement to the resident in July 2020. Nevertheless, this was provided to the Ombudsman and the inappropriateness of the member sending this to him has been assessed above. With regard to the resident’s subsequent complaint about the landlord’s complaints officer, this involved allegations of incorrect information in a past complaint, threats, intimidation, and street harassment. However, again no dates, details, or evidence of these claims was provided despite its independent adjudicator’s requests and above enquiries for these. Therefore, it was also reasonable that this complaint was not upheld in the absence of any supporting evidence.
  11. The resident additionally complained about the landlord requiring him to send it apologies for missing its general meetings, when he was unable to do so due to his illness. The independent adjudicator found this to be reasonable because it was a principle of the landlord for its members to be involved in running it, with appropriate documentation required when poor health prevented this. They added that unwell members might also still be involved remotely or by proxy, and so recommended that such properly documented members still offer apologies remotely or via another member. This was in line with the landlord’s above standing orders about its general meetings.
  12. As the landlord’s standing orders obliged its members to attend general meetings, and to offer signed and dated written apologies to its membership secretary if unable to attend, it was permitted to ask the resident for these. As he was also permitted to not attend such meetings due to long-term illness, it may not necessarily have been inappropriate for it to require evidence of such illness for him to not attend. However, it was understandable that the resident also expressed concerns about sharing such sensitive and personal confidential information about his health with other members. This is particularly if he had complained about them and doing so might have affected his health.
  13. It was therefore reasonable that the independent adjudicator recommended that the landlord’s members were familiar with its anti-discrimination statement. This is so that information about illness was dealt with appropriately and did not lead to less favourable treatment. This also meant that it was reasonable that the independent adjudicator recommended that the landlord request and carry out an equality assessment of the resident’s medical evidence. This is because this was to support their recommendation for appropriately documented illness to permit remote or proxy apologies for not attending its general meetings.
  14. The above recommendation would have complied with the standing orders’ requirement for apologies, while making these less difficult to provide for unwell members than signed and dated written apologies to its membership secretary. The resident nevertheless raised a legitimate concern about whether it was appropriate for the landlord’s other members to handle his personal medical data, especially when he had complained about some of them. It has therefore been recommended below to review its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that these comply with its legal and other data protection obligations, as outlined by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  15. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that its members are not contacted or dealt with by other members who they have complained about, and that their communication preferences are met. It is noted that it is a small membership organisation without an employed staff, with its members instead sharing voluntary duties evenly. The landlord is therefore only expected to follow this report’s recommendations as far as it is reasonably possible for it to do so. The limitations on it have also been taken into account when making the following mandatory orders. These are due to the member who the resident complained about attending his property, acknowledging his correspondence, and dealing with his case, as well as the subsequent anonymous correspondence.
  16. The landlord has been ordered below to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for any distress, inconvenience, and loss of confidence in it that he experienced from its above poor handling of his reports about its members’ behaviour and communication towards him. It has also been ordered to pay him £100 compensation in recognition of these failings. This is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of up to £100 compensation for the landlord’s failures resulting in such distress, inconvenience, and loss of confidence.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints should be made to it in writing, preferably using its complaint form, clearly stating the reasons for the complaint and the action it should take to rectify this. Its complaints officer is obliged to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 7 calendar days, it is required to investigate stage 1 complaints within 28 calendar days, and it is obliged to hold a general meeting to consider complaints within 3 months. The landlord is required to employ an independent expert to investigate final stage complaints and provide its next general meeting with a report to decide whether to uphold or overturn its original decision.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code published in July 2020 (the Code) obliged the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It was required to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. If this was not possible, the landlord was obliged to provide an explanation and a date when its complaint response would be received, which was to not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  3. The Code also required the landlord to make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels for them to do so. It was obliged to provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access the Ombudsman, as well as at the point that they exhausted its complaints process. The landlord was required to provide the resident with a detailed explanation setting out why a complaint was not suitable for its complaints process if it decided not to accept this. It was obliged to consider all information and evidence carefully, and to assess what evidence was needed to fully consider the issues of a complaint. The landlord was required to self-assess and publish its compliance with the Code by 31 December 2020, and to subsequently do so regularly.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 10 July 2020 on 16 July 2020, which was within its complaint policy’s 7-calendar-day and the Code’s 5-working-day timescales for it to do so. However, its complaints officer did not acknowledge the complaint, as required by the policy, and this was instead acknowledged by the member who he had complained, as outlined above. This was inappropriate and was followed by the subsequent breaches of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  5. The landlord did not then respond to the resident’s complaint within either the complaints policy’s 28-calendar-day or the Code’s 10-working-day response timescales for stage 1 complaints, as it did not issue a stage 1 response at all. It was understandable that, given his above loss of confidence in it and requests for an outside agency to consider the complaint as soon as possible from 2 October 2020 onwards, it escalated his complaint to an independent adjudicator at the final stage of its complaints procedure. The landlord was nevertheless obliged to provide the resident with a stage 1 response, which would have given it the opportunity to try and resolve his complaint with him and increase his confidence in it.
  6. A stage 1 complaint response also would have not prevented the landlord from escalating the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure, as he had requested, because it could have escalated the complaint at the same time. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not so, and that it took over a year from July 2020 until 26 July 2021 to obtain the independent expert’s complaint investigation report that its complaints policy required for final stage complaints. Moreover, although the landlord followed the policy by considering the complaint within 3 months at a general meeting, including on 2 October 2020, it did not consider the final stage report at the next general meeting from July 2021 required by its policy, but on 10 September 2021.
  7. Therefore, there were very inappropriately excessive delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, contrary to the complaints policy and the Code. These were further added to by the fact that it only confirmed to him that he had completed its complaints procedure almost 2 years after his July 2020 complaint on 2 July 2022, which was extremely unreasonable. However, there were also some factors beyond the landlord’s control that contributed to its above complaints handling delays.
  8. The landlord explained to the resident in July 2020 that it would respond to his complaint within the time constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions at the time. This was particularly understandable given that it was a small membership organisation without an employed staff, with its members instead sharing voluntary duties evenly. This and the landlord’s obligations under the complaints policy also meant that it was required to take the time to employ an independent expert to investigate the complaint, as requested by the resident. After he requested this in October 2020, it attempted to do so with his involvement from 30 October 2020, but it took it until 7 January 2021 to confirm to him that it had employed an independent expert.
  9. The landlord’s complaint handling was subsequently also delayed by factors beyond its control when its original independent expert withdrew on 1 March 2021. It then confirmed its discussions with its new independent adjudicator to the resident on 4 March 2021, who took until July 2021 to complete their investigation and issue their report. It would therefore have been understandably difficult for the landlord to have complied with its complaints policy’s and the Code’s above final stage response timescales due to it being delayed by the above factors, which were outside of its control.
  10. The landlord nevertheless contributed to some of its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case. It did so when it did not begin investigating his complaint from when this was made in July 2020, so that he had to chase it for a response on 2 October 2020, which was inappropriate. The landlord subsequently further delayed the complaint itself by seeking a complaint form from the resident on 5 and 30 October 2020, which it required from him by 13 November 2020. This was despite him declining to provide it with a complaint form and indicating that he had already given it the complaint information that he wanted investigated from October 2020 onwards.
  11. The landlord then added to its complaint handling delays by taking until 4 December 2020 to frame the resident’s complaint itself from the information that he had given it about this. It was also not obliged by the complaints policy to seek a complaint form from him and he was not required to provide it with one, as he had already complained to it in writing in accordance with its policy in July 2020. While the landlord disputed that the resident clearly stated the reasons for the complaint and the action it should take to rectify this, in line with the policy, he confirmed that he had provided it with all of his complaint information in October 2020. It should therefore have proceeded with this information from that date instead of doing so anyway from December 2020.
  12. It is of concern that the landlord did not make it easy for the resident to complain it by providing different channels for him to do so, but by requiring this from him in writing and in a complaint form, which was contrary to the Code. Although it is noted that it complied with its complaints policy by offering him a member to help him to complain to it, or to use an advice agency or representative to do so. It is also concerning that the landlord did not follow the Code by either providing early advice to the resident regarding his right to access the Ombudsman, or at the point that he exhausted its complaints process.
  13. The landlord later told the Ombudsman that it considered that there was no need for it to have given the resident our details. It explained that this was because he was aware of us from his previous complaint to us, the complaints policy, and his subsequent complaint to us. However, not only was this still contrary to the Code, the only guarantee that the resident would have been aware of his right to contact the Ombudsman for assistance throughout his complaint would have been if the landlord had told him this, as required by the Code. It was therefore inappropriate that it did not do so, particularly because this showed that it did not always inform its residents about us as part of their complaints, which would disadvantage residents who were unaware of us.
  14. Moreover, the landlord did not follow its obligation from the Code to provide the resident with a detailed explanation setting out why his repairs and rehousing complaint was not suitable for its complaints process. It also did not show that it considered all the information and evidence about the repairs and rehousing complaint carefully, and assess what evidence was needed to fully consider this. This is because the landlord instead only declined to consider this complaint as historical during complaints panel meetings on 17 November 2020 and 3 March and 29 June 2021. This was unreasonable, as the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction with its handling of his current and not historical repairs and rehousing requests on 21 March, 11 June and 10 July 2020, but it still excluded this from his complaint.
  15. The landlord’s above exclusion of the resident’s repairs and rehousing complaint prevented him from having the opportunity of seeking to resolve this with it, as well as from bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. It was therefore understandable that he complained to us that its independent adjudicator’s report in response to his complaint excluded his oral statements, minutes, all of his complaint, or relevant correspondence. This is because the landlord neither included all of the resident’s complaint to it within the scope of the report, so that all of this could be addressed, nor did it follow the above published complaint timescale and investigation requirements, or agree alternatives to these with him. This was inappropriate and disadvantaged him.
  16. The landlord was therefore responsible for handling the resident’s complaint poorly with its above failures. It is also of concern that it did not follow its obligations from the Code to self-assess and publish its compliance with the Code by 31 December 2020, and to subsequently do so regularly. The landlord later explained to the Ombudsman that it was reviewing its complaints policy in light of the Code and would consider adopting this. However, compliance with the Code is mandatory for it as a member of the Scheme, and this will become statutory from 1 April 2024. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to self-assess and publish its compliance with the Code, as well as recommended below to review its complaint handling members’ relevant training needs.
  17. The following orders have also been made for the landlord to comply with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to put things right in relation to its poor complaint handling above. It has been ordered to write to the resident to acknowledge and apologise for the failures in its handling of his complaint identified by this investigation. The landlord has also been ordered to pay the resident £600 further compensation in recognition of any adverse effect that he experienced from its poor complaint handling, which it failed to acknowledge or attempt to put right. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation of up to £600 for such adverse effects from failures by the landlord that it did not acknowledge or attempt to put right.

Determination

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42a, 42f, and 42l of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The resident’s reports of discrimination and harassment by the landlord for his health issues and disabilities.
    2. The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and his resulting request to be rehoused.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the behaviour and communication of its members towards him.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise for any distress, inconvenience, and loss of confidence in it that he experienced from its poor handling of his reports about its members’ behaviour and communication towards him, and for the failures in its handling of his complaint identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £700 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £100 in recognition of any distress, inconvenience, and loss of confidence in it that he experienced from its above handling of his reports about its members’ behaviour and communication towards him.
      2. £600 in recognition of the failures in its handling of his complaint identified by this investigation.
    3. Self-assess and publish its compliance with the Code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/complaint-handling-code-2024/ within 16 weeks.
    4. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 16 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the below recommendations.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that these comply with its legal and other data protection obligations, as outlined by the Information Commissioner’s Office at https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/.
    2. Review its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that its members are not contacted or dealt with by other members who they have complained about, and that their communication preferences are met.
    3. Review its complaint handling members’ training needs at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/.