Salix Homes Limited (202230622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230622

Salix Homes Limited

22 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for compensation.
   2. The resident’s request to move.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property, which is a one-bedroom ground floor flat, since 14 January 2019. He is vulnerable due to a diagnosis of mental health issues, severe migraines, non-erosive reflux disease, subjective memory loss and chronic muscle pain in his pelvic floor. The landlord’s records show that he has a physical/mobility impairment.
3. The resident provided diary sheets of noise nuisance to the landlord during the following periods:
   1. October 2019.
   2. April – August 2020.
   3. December 2021 – February 2022.

The diary sheets noted that his neighbour was playing loud music.

4. On 18 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request financial compensation. He said that living in a noisy environment for several years had impacted his health and he was suffering from migraines, TMJ (pain in the jaw) and facial pain syndrome as a result. He said that he had also lost his job and been unable to proceed with studying for a PhD. He therefore requested financial compensation for surgical treatment in a private clinic, loss of earnings, loss of social network and to repay the fees for his PhD course.
5. On 25 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It said it would discuss his case at a meeting the following Friday. It asked him to log any further incidents of noise nuisance in the meantime. However, it noted that he had told it the previous week that the loud music was no longer an issue and that he had last reported it 9 months previously.
6. The landlord also spoke to the resident on the telephone on 25 November 2022. It said that it would consider a management move which it would discuss at the next panel meeting because the resident had advised it that his current accommodation was not suitable due to his mental and physical health issues.
7. On 20 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to let him know that his application for a management move had been unsuccessful. It said that this was because the property he currently lived in met his housing needs and a move would not alleviate the issues he said he was experiencing. It also confirmed that it did not “pay compensation for this type of request” and his request for compensation was also declined. However, it said that he could take independent legal advice regarding this if he wished. It noted that he had no current noise nuisance to report, however should that change, he should contact it again.
8. On 19 April 2023 the resident complained. He said that the landlord had not accepted his request for rehousing and financial compensation and he was now also suffering from memory loss. He said that the complaint would be resolved to his satisfaction if:
   1. He was rehoused.
   2. Compensation was provided for:
      1. Migraine decompression surgery.
      2. Nose and upper jaw swelling rectification surgery.
      3. Pelvic floor reconstruction surgery.
      4. Mental damage, emotional and memory loss.
      5. Job loss.
9. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 20 April 2023.
10. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023. It said that it had considered a management move for urgent medical reasons. However, although it acknowledged that he had provided medical support letters, the management move panel determined that his circumstances did not meet the “high risk” criteria. It said that the panel had followed the correct procedure and therefore it did not uphold this part of his complaint. It also confirmed that it upheld its decision to decline his request for compensation due to medical complications caused by living in a noisy environment. However, it advised him again that he could take independent legal advice if he wished.
11. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 3 May 2023. He said that he had applied for rehousing via the local authority. However, the local authority had declined his application without justification. He said that he now had subjective memory loss which was a symptom of the migraines he suffered from due to living in a noisy environment for years. This had a major impact on his life and therefore he looked forward to fair financial compensation.
12. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 23 May 2023. It confirmed that it was satisfied that the management move panel had interpreted the medical letters provided correctly. It offered the resident an appointment with its tenancy sustainment team to discuss any further support that he might need.
13. It explained that the local authority administered the local housing register and that it had no control or influence over that process. It also said that the resident had not “provided any evidence that demonstrates a direct correlation between your accommodation and the compensation that you have highlighted”. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
15. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its policy and procedure.
16. The decision to decline the resident’s application for rehousing via the housing register was made by the local authority and not by the landlord. The Housing Ombudsman does not hold jurisdiction over the local authority in terms of how it handles its housing register. This would be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Because of this, the resident should refer these concerns to the LGSCO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.
17. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move and whether it handled this reasonably and in line with its policy and procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ request for compensation.

18. The landlord’s compensation policy states that insurance claims are out of scope of the policy and should be referred to its “Homes Risk and Insurance Manager.”
19. The resident said that his health had been adversely affected by previous alleged noise nuisance on 18 November 2022. The landlord responded to this request within a reasonable timeframe verbally and then confirmed its decision in writing on 20 December 2022. It said that it “did not pay compensation for this type of request”. This did not give a full explanation of its’ reasons for declining the request which meant that the resident was not fully informed.
20. The landlord suggested that the resident should seek independent legal advice regarding his report that his health had been affected. This was appropriate advice because a determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health or loss of earnings is more appropriate for the courts. However, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to refer him to its insurers or to advise him to make a personal injury claim. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord did this, or that it referred the case to the relevant staff member in line with its policy.
21. This failure cost the resident time and trouble because he was not fully informed on the next best steps to take and he referred the complaint to this Service for investigation.
22. Due to the failings identified there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.

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

23. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord should have agreed to a management move. Rather, our role is to review the evidence that is available and determine whether the landlord applied its policy and exercised its discretion fairly.
24. The landlord’s management move policy states that it will assess a request for a management move for urgent medical reasons using the following criteria:
    1. Where there is an immediate high risk of injury or death if the family or person remained in their current home
    2. Where there is an immediate high risk of family breakdown or mental illness if the family or person remains in their current home.
25. The policy also states that prior to the management move panel meeting the landlord will carry out a property inspection. It says that this should be used as an opportunity to discuss the resident’s needs and to check the following:
    1. What type of property they need.
    2. How many bedrooms are required to meet the household make up.
    3. Are there any adaptations currently in situ and would they be needed in the new property.
    4. What the customers support needs are and to identify any agencies they are currently working with.
26. The landlord responded to the resident’s request for a management move within a reasonable timeframe. It acted in accordance with its policy when it discussed his case at the management move panel meeting. It considered the medical letters provided and decided that his case did not meet the criteria for a management move on the grounds of urgent medical reasons.
27. This Service has seen no evidence, however, that it carried out a property inspection prior to the meeting. This failure to follow its own policy meant that it did not see the resident in his home to fully assess the situation. However, there is no evidence that this omission would have changed the landlord’s decision.
28. Therefore, while there was a shortcoming by the landlord, there has been no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for a move.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.

Orders

31. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
32. Pay the resident directly a total of £100 in compensation for time and trouble. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount.
33. Contact the resident to review the vulnerabilities that it has recorded for him. Ensure that all its systems reflect these. Consider any reasonable adjustments that may be required so that it can work better with him in the future.
34. Provide a briefing note to all relevant staff regarding the handling of requests for compensation in circumstances such as this case to ensure relevant signposting is made. A copy of the briefing to be provided to this Service within 2 months of the date of this report.
35. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

36. When the landlord next reviews its management move policy, it should review whether a home visit is required in all cases and adjust the policy if required.