Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202226591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226591

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

27 August 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

The complaint is regarding the lift at the resident’s property being out of service and the landlord’s response to his related concerns.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a purpose built, low-rise block. It is unclear which floor the property is on, but it is known to be above the ground floor.
The landlord has advised that its records outlined that the resident had experienced mental health issues and was a former care leaver. It noted during the complaint procedure that he reported having Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and anxiety.

Summary of events

On 16 September 2022, landlord records show the resident made contact by phone, asking to speak to a manager. He stated the lift in his block had been out of service for 6 weeks and the stress of this had caused him to self harm. He advised he had been stabbed in the back and therefore was unable to use the stairs while the lift was out of service. He felt “trapped” as a result, was unable to go shopping and he wanted a call back from the landlord to “speak about compensation”. Records show the resident called again on 20 September 2022, chasing the callback request.
On 26 September 2022, the resident rang again to raise concerns about the lift, saying it had been broken “on and off since last year (for) 2-6 weeks at a time” and this had affected his mental health and caused him to self harm. He had asked for the matter to be investigated as an official complaint, but this had not been done, although the landlord had told him one had been raised.
Landlord records show it logged the resident’s contact as a complaint and it wrote a letter of acknowledgement the same day. It provided information regarding its complaint procedure and advised the resident it would aim to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
Records show the landlord attempted to discuss the complaint with the resident on several occasions before it did manage to speak with him on 5 October 2022. Notes of the call show the resident advised he felt discriminated against due to the landlord’s failure to raise a complaint in July 2022. The landlord suggested raising a Subject Access Request (SAR) to investigate this allegation more fully and apologised that it had not raised a complaint sooner. It also stated it would send the resident a personal injury claim form as he advised he fell down the stairs at the block while the lift was out of service and hurt his back as a result.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It advised it was responding to the resident’s complaint of 16 September 2022 about the lifts in his block being out of service and that he felt discriminated against as his earlier requests to raise a complaint had not been actioned. It noted that he wanted an SAR and a personal injury claim raised and for the reasons why the lift kept failing to be investigated. It provided the following comments and findings:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had reviewed its records and spoken with the team responsible for “looking after” the lifts.
2. Regarding the reported lift breakdowns, it noted it had spoken with the resident on 9 occasions between March and September 2022, relating to 5 occasions when the lift was out of service.
3. It outlined the 20 repair call outs it stated had been recorded from the beginning of 2022, provided details of each reported repair issue and whether the lift had been left in service or what repairs were needed and when the matter had been resolved. It stated the records showed there had been “various reasons” for the lift breaking down, including “misuse of the lift”. It clarified there were not plans to carry out any major works to the lift as it was new, but it would “keep a close eye on any common themes” for the lift breaking down.
4. Regarding an incident where the resident reported falling down the stairs while the lift was out of service, the landlord advised that, as per a previous discussion, it was attaching a form via which he could raise a personal injury claim which its insurer would then investigate.
5. Addressing concerns about its complaint handling the landlord indicated that, while it did not have any record of receiving a complaint prior to 26 September 2022, it understood he had tried to raise one on “several occasions since July”. It offered an apology for its failure to raise a complaint and for providing incorrect information on how to log a complaint.
6. It understood the resident felt “discriminated against…and lied (to)” after incorrectly being told a complaint had been raised and that complaints needed to be submitted by email. The landlord sought to assure the resident it had not intended to make him feel that way and that it did not discriminate against its residents. It apologised again for not raising a complaint when this was first requested and for providing incorrect information. It clarified that complaints could be logged verbally.
7. It confirmed that an SAR had been raised and it would contact him in due course regarding this.
8. It accepted its “service could have been better” regarding the resident’s complaint and made a “discretionary offer” of £50 compensation. This was intended to reflect the “personal impact on (him) and inconvenience” of the complaint not being raised in a timely manner and being provided with incorrect information.
Records show the resident called the landlord on 8 November 2022 to request his complaint be escalated. Notes of the call indicate the resident was “unclear why he wanted to escalate” but requested a callback to discuss the matter. The task was passed to a member of staff who was on leave and on 11 November 2022 and internal request was made for another staff member to contact the resident and “find out the reason for escalation” and log this “if required”. A further reminder was sent on 23 November 2022 before records show the landlord finally contacted the resident on 25 November 2022. However, the resident reportedly then terminated the call as he believed the staff member was laughing at him.
The resident called back later the same day and, speaking to a different member of staff, advised he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response for reasons that included:
1. The length of time it had taken to process the complaint, which caused him inconvenience and mental distress.
2. An ongoing injury had been worsened by having to use the stairs while the lift was out of service, and he then suffered a new injury when falling.
3. He was unable to see his son while the lift was out of service as his partner could not bring his buggy up the stairs.
4. He believed he was being discriminated against because of “his age or race”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2022 to acknowledge the escalation request and advise it aimed to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 December 2022. It reiterated its understanding of the resident’s concerns and noted that, as a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted his concerns to be further investigated and for the landlord to provide compensation. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. To investigate the complaint, it had reviewed the stage 1 response, spoken to relevant members of staff and spoken to its lift contractor.
2. Regarding the lift in his block, it considered that a thorough investigation was carried out at stage 1 of its complaint process and the resident had been provided “with detailed information in relation to the lift, when it broke down and when the contractor attended2 between January and September 2022. It noted that, since then, there had been a further 2 callouts in October 2022, with the lift being left in service on both occasions.
3. It acknowledged the times the lift had been out of service and how this had impacted on the resident, particularly with regard to him reporting to be unable to leave his home or receive visits from his child and it apologised for the “occasions where this has caused…inconveniences”. However, it stated that, having reviewed the repair information and the service provided by its lift contractor, it was satisfied their attendances were prompt and they took appropriate actions on each occasion. It advised that “unfortunately, at times lifts will have unexpected technical issues which are not within our control” but it remained committed to ensuring the lift was back in safe working order as quickly as possible after any breakdown. It reiterated there had been various reasons for the lift breaking down, including misuse, and although it recognised “this has been an inconvenience”, it had carried out repairs in a timely manner.
4. It noted the resident’s concern that “not having access to the lift” affected his health and he was “not always able to use the stairs” at his block. It provided advice on how to apply for a move to an alternative property on medical grounds and gave details of a mutual exchange scheme.
5. Regarding the resident’s reported injury, it reiterated the information provide within its stage 1 response. It clarified the issue fell outside of its complaints policy and provided contact details for its insurer.
6. Regarding his attempts to raise a complaint, it repeated its findings from its stage 1 response, again apologising for providing incorrect information regarding how a complaint can be submitted. It provided details of its complaints policy for the resident’s information. It also addressed his concerns regarding alleged discrimination and advised it had not found any evidence that suggested its failure to raise a complaint and provide accurate complaints information was due to any form of discrimination. It apologised for any miscommunication and advised it had taken his comments seriously.
7. While it “upheld” its stage 1 complaint response, it increased its compensation offer to £250 to better recognise the impact its failure to provide correct complaint information and raise a complaint had on the resident.
8. As it had at stage 1, the landlord signposted the resident to this Service if he remained unhappy with its final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The lift being out of service and the landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns

From the information seen by this Service, it is evident that the lift in the resident’s block experienced a number of breakdowns in the 12 months prior to his September 2022 complaint, and 2 more before the landlord issued its final complaint response in December 2022.
The resident’s frustration at these breakdowns is understandable. However, based on the evidence available, the landlord appears to have responded to each individual report reasonably. The repair logs provided appear to show that its contractor attended on the same day whenever a fault was reported and that, of the 20 occasions when they attended, after tests and repairs the lift was only left out of service on 5 occasions. This suggests that, on most occasions, the contractor successfully repaired the lift the same day so while there would have clearly been a level of inconvenience while the lift was out of service, this was not prolonged, and the landlord resolved the issue promptly.
From the repair records seen, there were 3 occasions when the lift was left out of service. These were on 21 March, 10 June and 2 August 2022, each time for 10 days, 7 days and 32 days respectively. According to the records available, on each of these occasions the lift was left out of service because either further repairs or parts were required. In its complaint responses, the landlord noted that lifts may break down for reasons beyond its control and that the causes of breakdown had been varied, including misuse and/or vandalism, a position which was supported by its repair records and contractor notes. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its explanation was reasonable.
While the resident would have undoubtedly been caused much greater inconvenience when the lift was out of service for an extended period, the periods when it was left out of service (10 days, 7 days and 32 days) appear to be slightly less than the periods of “2 to 6 weeks at a time” referred to within the complaint. From the information seen, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord unreasonably delayed in trying to resolve the issue on the occasions when the contractor could not leave the lift in service.
The landlord also appeared to act reasonably when considering the overall performance and condition of the lift. Following the resident’s complaint, records show it sought details of all the reported breakdowns to better inform its complaint responses and it did not identify any patterns of breakdown, or a need for major works or refurbishment. After the conclusion of its complaint procedure, and prior to this Service advising it would carry out an investigation, it arranged surveys of both lifts in the block in August and September 2023, which did not recommend any overhaul or refurbishment. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take and showed it continued to take the issue seriously and establish whether any further preventative measures could be identified.
In his complaint, the resident advised the landlord that he was unable to use the stairs while the lift was out of service and was therefore “trapped” due to a back injury, although in another contact with the landlord he advised he was “unable to keep using the stairs”. From the records seen, the landlord did not appear to be aware of this previously. Having been alerted to the fact that the resident may have been housebound while the lift was out of service, it would have been best practice for the landlord to consider whether it could have offered further assistance. It could have considered contacting the resident to carry out a risk assessment or to establish what, if any, support he had or what further support he may require. While this is not considered to be a service failure in itself, the landlord is recommended to contact the resident and update its records regarding his reported physical health problems and how they affect him and whether he has any additional needs it should be aware of if the lift is left out of service for an extended period in the future.
The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s comments about wanting to move to a new property due to the regular lift breakdowns. Within its complaint response it provided advice regarding how to apply for a management transfer on medical grounds and further rehousing advice. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
Overall, despite the obvious inconvenience a lift breakdown would cause to residents, the landlord appeared to handle the reports well and progressed repairs in a timely manner. As the landlord did not find any service failure with how it dealt with the repair reports, it was entitled to decline to offer compensation. While it should have considered whether further support could be offered to the resident while the lift was out of service, it otherwise responded reasonably and appropriately directed him on how to apply for a move to an alternative property. Based on the evidence seen, its position that the repairs had been handled appropriately was reasonable and in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding the lift being out of service and its response to his concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

From the information seen by this investigation, there is no clear evidence the resident raised a complaint prior to September 2022. Landlord records of contact in June 2022, when the resident stated he first sought to raise a complaint, show calls were received on 13, 21 and 29 June 2022 regarding the lift breaking down. However, as the caller was noted as being someone other than the resident, it is unclear if a third-party was calling on his behalf, or if the landlord’s records are mixed-up. Although the log from 13 June 2022 clearly notes the caller was “not happy”, due to the lack of clarity over the caller’s identity, it is not possible to determine that the resident had made contact that should have been raised as a complaint.
Despite this, in its complaint responses the landlord did not dispute that a complaint should have been raised earlier. It was positive that the landlord offered an immediate apology for this – even prior to sending its stage 1 response – and that if gave repeated apologies for any failure to raise a complaint prior to September 2022. Its responses appeared to convey that it understood the impact this had had on the resident, and it was reasonable that it sought to put things right by way of an offer of compensation. It was also reasonable that it reviewed the award of compensation within its stage 2 complaint response and the final offer of £250 was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a positive step in attempting to resolve matters.
At both stages, the landlord’s responses appeared fair and contained a considerable level of detail and there is evidence it sought to appropriately investigate the concerns the resident raised.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to address the resident’s concerns about him being discriminated against. Based on the information available, the Ombudsman is careful to stress that evidence has not been seen to suggest the resident’s race or age had any impact on the landlord’s actions or that it treated him different to other residents because of either characteristic. It is also unclear why the resident believed this to be the case as no specific examples or issues were noted.
While the landlord was entitled to reach the conclusion it did (that there was no evidence the resident had been discriminated against), it could have done more to discuss the matter with him and understand why he felt the way he did, rather than simply advising it had no evidence that discrimination occurred and stating that it did not discriminate against residents. This would have ensured the resident felt listened to and may have helped him to feel the landlord took his concerns seriously. That it failed to do this was not a service failure, but the landlord should consider how it handled future cases where allegations of discrimination are made without specific incidents or examples being cited.
It is noted that, once the landlord had written to the landlord to acknowledge his complaint and escalation request, it provided its responses within its stated timeframes (10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2) from that date. However, in both cases there appeared to be delays between the landlord receiving the initial complaint and escalation requests and its acknowledgements of these.
Records show the landlord treated the resident’s contact on 16 September 2022 as the date the complaint was raised, but its response was not sent until 5 October 2022, 13 working days later. Although this was not a lengthy delay, the landlord did not acknowledge that its response was issued outside of its stated target. The landlord’s acknowledgement letter of 26 September 2022 stated it would provide a response within 10 working days and it did do so. However, the 10 working day response target should have started from the date the resident made his complaint, not from when the landlord acknowledged it.
Similarly, records show the resident first asked for his complaint to be escalated on 8 November 2022. Although the landlord noted the resident’s reasons were “unclear”, that was the date the landlord’s 20 working day timeframe started from, not when it acknowledged the complaint on 30 November 2022. This meant that the stage 2 response should have been provided by 6 December 2022, whereas the landlord actually issued its escalated response on 16 December 2022, 8 working days outside of target. While this is again not a significant delay, it was not appropriate, and the landlord failed to recognise this. The fact that both stages of the complaint were delayed in this way is of concern and may indicate wider poor practice in its complaint handling. By starting its response target from the day, it acknowledges complaints or escalation requests, the landlord acted unreasonably, and its actions had the effect of effect of unfairly extending the complaint procedure. That was particularly pertinent in this case, as the landlord had already recognised the impact the delayed complaints process had had on the resident, so this would have added further stress and inconvenience.
Within his complaint, the resident also advised he had fallen down the stairs and injured himself. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has been provided with further details regarding when the incident happened or what the nature of the injury was. However, the landlord appeared to deal with the report reasonably, advising the resident the issue sat outside of its complaint procedure and directing him to make a personal injury claim. Records indicate a claim form was sent to him along with its stage 1 complaint response and, while the resident later advised in his escalation request that he had not received this as promised, the landlord appropriately provided its insurers contact details within its stage 2 response.
It is also noted that within the landlord’s log of the complaint in September 2022, mention was made of the resident reportedly self-harming due to the stress caused by the lift being out of service. However, the landlord’s records do not show that it followed up on this. In the landlord’s Vulnerable Persons policy, it states that “safeguarding duties” apply if a resident is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or experience of abuse or neglect. If a concern is identified, the policy states the landlord will follow its Safeguarding Policy and make relevant referrals.
Self-harm is not specifically referenced in either of the policies referred to above and from the evidence seen, it is not clear whether the threshold for a referral would have been met. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have acted on this information and recognised a potential safeguarding concern, from a best practice perspective if nothing else. It was already aware that the resident had mental health issues, and, during the complaint process, he made more than one reference to potential self-harm. The landlord should therefore have considered how it could support and/or protect the resident from the harm he had disclosed.
This could have involved contacting him to find out what support, if any, he currently had in place, whether he had support from a social worker, mental health team or GP and talking through any options available. It should also have also recorded a decision as to whether it considered whether any further safeguarding steps were appropriate.
Based on the above findings, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation to reflect this failing and to review its practice regarding the logging of complaints and escalation requests to ensure its stated response targets are being applied appropriately. It has also been ordered to review to review this case and consider whether its Vulnerable Persons and Safeguarding Policies were adhered to appropriately, how it responds to reports of deteriorating mental health and self harm from residents and whether any further staff training is required.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord regarding the lift being out of service and the landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns.
2. Service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

Records show the landlord acted promptly to each report of a lift breakdown it received. On the occasions when the contractor could not leave it in service after their first attendance, this was due to parts being required and there is no evidence the landlord unreasonably delayed any repairs. It appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer when made aware of his reported injury and provided advice regarding available rehousing options.
The landlord accepted it should have logged the resident’s complaint sooner and it sought to put things right via its apologies and an appropriate offer of compensation. However, there were unreasonable delays between it logging and acknowledging both the complaint and escalation request and this had the effect of unfairly extending the complaint procedure. It should also have had greater consideration of the resident comments regarding self-harm, which he brought up during the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £125 to reflect the additional identified errors in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to carry out reviews which concentrate on the following:
1. How it logs complaints and escalation requests, how ensures that its policies regarding target timeframes are appropriately implemented and whether any additional training is required for relevant staff.
2. How it responded to the resident’s reports of self harm during this case and consider whether its Vulnerable Persons and Safeguarding Policies were adhered to. It should consider whether these policies need reviewing further, how it responds to residents’ reports of deteriorating mental health and self harm and whether any further staff training needs are identified.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing how it addresses discrimination claims received from residents, particularly when specific incidents are not cited. It should also consider whether any additional staff training needs are needed.