Sanctuary Housing Association (202123379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123379

Sanctuary Housing Association

13 July 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 resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling and alleged discrimination, harassment and bullying during the property allocation process in 2015.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the maintenance of the lift and the condition of the communal areas.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and the landlord’s review of her application’s banding.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation for repairs she reported she had carried out in the property at her expense.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) and paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling and alleged discrimination, harassment and bullying during the property allocation process in 2015.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer in respect of the local authority’s allocations policy.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the condition of the communal areas.
5. The resident’s request for compensation for repairs she reported she had carried out in the property at her expense.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. A local authority’s housing allocations policy falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO deal with complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996, Part 6, i.e. applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria. This can include complaints about:
1. The assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
2. The operation of choice based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
This Service can consider the way the landlord in this case handled the accompanied viewing. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states that “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 six months of the matter arising”.
In respect of the resident’s transfer application, the landlord has advised that some of its properties fall under the choice based lettings scheme, governed by the local authority’s allocations policy. As such, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s internal transfer governed by the landlord’s internal transfer policy.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “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 six months of the matter arising. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour that was reported by the resident in her earlier complaint was from 2017. The resident’s advocate made a further report concerning antisocial behaviour on 3 November 2021 after the submission of the resident’s formal complaint. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint with her landlord concerning her landlord’s response to this more recent report of antisocial behaviour.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “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 six months of the matter arising”. The resident’s request for compensation for repairs she reported that she had carried out in the property at her expense was reported to this Service but not raised as part of her formal complaint to her landlord. She may wish to raise a further complaint with her landlord concerning this matter.
The resident may wish to consider referring the aspect of her complaint regarding the landlord’s handling and alleged discrimination, harassment and bullying during the property allocation process in 2015 to the LGSCO. The resident may also wish to seek further legal advice with regard to the provisions contained within the Equality Act 2010 pertaining to discrimination against persons with protected characteristics described within this Act

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 15 May 2015. The property is a two bedroom flat on the third floor in a purpose built block.
The resident has advised the landlord in 2016 that she has mental health vulnerabilities and suffers from depression. The resident also advised the landlord that her daughter suffers from asthma in 2016 in her transfer application in 2016. The resident’s two children were aged under ten at the time her complaint was made, with the youngest being under five years old.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for:
1. Maintaining and keeping in proper working order the “structure and outside of the property including roof, outside walls, outside doors, window frames, windowsills, drains, gutters, external pipes and chimneys”.
2. The maintenance of “internal walls, floors and ceilings, major internal plasterwork, skirting boards, doors, doorframes and door jambs” as well as the “installations for the supply of gas, electricity, water and sanitation including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, heating and water heating equipment where installed by the landlord”.
3. “Any communal areas including common entrance halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and other common parts including their electrical wiring”.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to:
1. “Pay the rent and all other charges weekly in advance”.
2. “carry out minor repairs such as (but not limited to) altering internal doors only for carpets, making good surfaces after fitting appliances, repairing small cracks in, or damage to, plasterwork… to ensure that all rooms at the property are properly ventilated”.
3. To report “any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible”
4. To provide access to the “landlord’s employees, or contractors acting on the landlord’s behalf, upon giving at least 24 hours’ notice in writing (except in an emergency) to enter the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection and repair”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure and will acknowledge complaints within five working days. It will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. If a resident is not happy with this response they can “provide any additional evidence which has not been considered, and to explain what they are looking for to resolve the complaint”. Then a “final response” is sent so in effect it is a three stage complaints process. The policy states there are “circumstances in which it is not appropriate for a complaint to be raised”. This includes “issues that occurred more than six months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken”.
The landlord’s compensation policy details its approach to compensation in the following ways:
1. Time, trouble and inconvenience – up to £400 can be awarded depending on the “effort” and “impact”.
2. Poor complaint handing – up to £150 in “recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure”.
3. Goodwill payments – can be awarded “at the discretion of the officer handling the complaint”. This is for “non-financial gestures of goodwill” such as “arranging works over and above our repair responsibilities”, “flowers or household plants or vouchers such as paint packs”.
4. Repairs compensation – can be awarded in a number of circumstances including:
  1. Missed appointment – £10
  2. “Damage to or loss of personal belongings, property or decoration – to allow the claimant to purchase a like for like replacement.”
  3. Decorating allowance.
  4. Room loss allowance – maximum percentage of 30% of the rent payable for loss of a kitchen and bathroom, 20% for a bedroom and 10% for living/dining room, 10% for a garden/outside space in summer and 5% in winter.
The landlord’s repairs policy details:
1. Emergency repairs such as “damage to any ground floor windows, making them insecure; insecure external door that inhibits the safety of tenants and property; water leak coming through the ceiling” should be completed within 24 hours of the repair request. The policy states a second appointment may be necessary following the initial repair.
2. Appointed repairs – applies to “all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required”. These are to be completed within 28 days.
3. Where a pre-inspection is required this should be completed within ten working days of work being requested.
4. Where damage has been “caused by a third party” it must be reported and repaired “in accordance with the group’s building insurance”. The “service user must be kept informed at every stage of the process by the surveyor”.
The landlord’s voids, allocations and lettings policy sets out the approach to void management and lettings. It details:
1. It will make an assessment of whether a housing applicant is “eligible to join the direct waiting list based on the customer’s circumstances and housing need”.
2. It will “promote properties which are owned and/or managed” by the landlord. It will also signpost to “various alternative housing options including choice based lettings and mutual exchange schemes”.
3. “Applicants have the right to request a review of certain decisions”. This includes a “banding decision”. When a review is carried out the landlord “should contact the customer in writing to confirm the final outcome of the review detailing both the reasons for the decision and any changes made as a result”.
4. It will consider an applicant’s medical/disability status where required. It may use an “independent occupational therapist who will make recommendations about the level of priority to award and any property restrictions or requirements”. It requires “the applicant to complete a health and disability assessment form”.
5. It operates a banding system with three bands, A to C:
  1. Band A being for “exceptional transfer cases where the need for a transfer to be carried out as soon as possible is both acute and urgent”.
  2. Band B is awarded for “domestic abuse, harassment and hate crime, severe under occupation, severe overcrowding”. It also covers cases where applicants have a “medical condition or disability that is caused or exacerbated by their housing circumstances and there is a prognosis that the situation will not improve and will be alleviated by a move to alternative accommodation”.
  3. Band C is awarded for under occupation and overcrowding, inappropriate accommodation, non-dependent overcrowding, welfare/social grounds.
The landlord’s repair records indicate earlier repairs reported by the resident that were completed at the time that the resident submitted a previous complaint in 2017, including the issue of damp and mould. She referred to these earlier repairs in her later complaint in 2021. For the purpose of this investigation, the repairs that are considered are those reported from the period around 12 months prior to the submission of the resident’s formal complaint of 21 April 2021. The resident reported a number of repairs after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process that are summarised in the summary of events below for context. The resident may wish to raise a further complaint concerning these repair issues and her further report of damp and mould that was also made at this time.
The resident reported the condition of the communal areas in relation to rubbish, “faeces and urinating in lifts and stairwells”. The landlord’s communal repair logs detail a report from 2017 at which time the landlord took action to write to residents pointing out their obligations under the terms of their tenancy agreements, and that it would carry out ongoing inspections. As there are no further reports concerning the condition and rubbish in communal areas after this time, for the purpose of this report the period of time considered is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. Similarly reports of lift breakdowns have been considered in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s communal building records detail that the landlord’s contractor undertakes bi-monthly lift maintenance. Reports of any breakdowns during this period are detailed within the report.

Summary of events

The resident reported a repair on 20 February 2020 to two windows in the bedroom and front room as “seals had gone, allowing water ingress even when windows are closed”. The repair record details that there was “no access” on 28 February 2020. An appointment was subsequently made with the resident on 2 March 2020 that was marked as completed and some rework was required to “overhaul two windows and renew x2 panes of glass”.
On 27 March 2020 the order to “overhaul two windows and renew x2 panes of glass” was suspended due to covid-19 and the repair record states a text was sent to the resident the same day.
On 28 July 2020 the landlord phoned the resident to rebook the appointment for 10 September 2020. The repair records do not show whether the contractor attended on 10 September 2020 to complete the work, as the work was marked complete on 26 October 2020. This was 174 working days after the initial report, though the lockdown affected the completion of the works as referred to in the assessment and findings section of this report.
The landlord’s repairs log for the building shows that a works order was raised on 5 October 2020 to check the lift as it seemed to have “been stuck”. It states that the “lift is working” but needs to be checked. The landlord’s records do not show when the work was completed.
The resident reported an issue with her bedroom window on 27 October 2020. The repair records state that this was for the window handle in the bedroom and to change the window mechanism. It is not clear from the repair records whether this was for the same window. This was booked in for 18 December 2020 and then cancelled “due to further lockdown”.
The communal repairs log shows that a works order was raised on 19 November 2020 in relation to the lift’s “cedes tape” which was not straight in the lift shaft. A further works order was raised on 19 November 2020 which stated “lift keeps stopping”. It reported that the “caretaker got stuck for two minutes”. It reported that “this keeps happening and only lift on site”. Work on the lift was completed on 21 November 2020.
The resident sent a stage one complaint to her landlord on 12 April 2021. In this she stated:
1. She alleged that she was “a victim of bullying, unfair and unethical treatment, “ethnic and age discrimination” and stated that she experienced “neglect and mistreatment”, “harassment” and “bullying” in relation to the allocations process for the property that she had accepted in 2015.
2. On moving to her property in 2015 “the repairs required were ongoing, in fact it was ongoing for three years”. For “the first year and a half I lived with mould, windows that did not close properly, antisocial behaviour, a gap in the front door, a faulty boiler amongst many other defects”.
3. She had “continuously raised complaints” concerning the repairs and had contacted her local MP and Shelter for support. Following this the landlord “at last began any major repair that was required”.
4. She experienced “years of unhabitable, inadequate conditions: such as antisocial behaviour from the neighbour upstairs; and constant sewage odours”. There “was the constant spit, rubbish, faeces and urinating in lifts and stairwells”. On raising concerns to her landlord she had been advised that “nothing could be done until the person doing it was caught”. The landlord had “refused to put up cameras”.
5. The “lift was more than often broken”. The resident stated that “by this time I had my second child in 2016 and had to carry the pram, shopping and my daughter up three flights of stairs”.
6. In 2013 she had already been diagnosed with depression and had several breakdowns”. This had “become worse heightened by this covid19 pandemic and being alone with no family or support”.
7. As the property is a two bedroom property her “daughter and son have to share a room”.
8. The wire mesh up by the balcony and in front of the front door “is rusting and dangerous for the children”.
9. As a remedy she wished to be “considered for another property or at the very least be allowed to bid for a property again”.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement by email to the complaint on 16 April 2021. In this it stated that:
1. It takes the “concerns about discriminatory treatment very seriously and will investigate this thoroughly”. It requested that the resident “clarify in what aspects of the issues” the resident felt she had “been treated in a discriminatory way”.
2. It had reviewed the resident’s account and found that “repair issues were investigated through a complaint that was closed in 2017”. It stated that the “other matters you raise as having affected you after you moved in are not current”
3. It advised that if the resident had “any current repairs or antisocial behaviour” to report this to the landlord.
4. A review of the applicant’s transfer application would take place and if the resident’s “circumstances have changed” it would conduct a review of the banding awarded.
The landlord’s records detail that the resident phoned the landlord on 19 April 2021 to request a phone interview with regard to her complaint. The landlord passed this information on, however, the records do not show whether a call took place at this point. She then emailed the landlord on 24 April 2021 and advised that “on further reflection I do not believe that a phone call of that nature is appropriate at this given time and given the circumstances of my complaint”. She stated that if the landlord needed “a discussion” she would prefer “an agreed time, in a professional setting and me having a witness of some sort”. She wished for a response to the email she had sent as “it has taken a week for the phone call I received”. She advised that she had “still not received written receipt of my complaint sent on 12 April 2021”.
The landlord rebooked the repair to the window handle on 7 May 2021 and the job was marked complete on 10 May 2021. This was 134 working days after the resident’s report, though the further lockdown will have affected the landlord’s ability to complete the work as above.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2021 in response to the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement. In this the resident advised that she welcomed the “thorough investigation” and the “review of my transfer banding”. She then asked questions regarding the allocation of the property and advised that her “ethnicity played a part in the bullying”. She stated that her housing officer had called on 19 April 2021, however it was not convenient to speak. She was “not sure if the call was regarding my complaint or the review of my case”.
The resident reported a further repair with regard to a fault on her extractor fan on 13 May 2021 which was making a loud noise.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2021 to chase up a response to her complaint. She stated that she was “deeply concerned that no one has contacted”. She advised of her view that “my complaint is not being regarded as important, which is causing me anxiety and impacting my mental health further”.
The landlord sent a further stage one acknowledgement on 27 May 2021. The resident replied to this the same day and referred to her complaint regarding alleged “discriminatory treatment” at the time the property was allocated in 2015. The resident again welcomed the “banding review” to be undertaken by the housing officer and would “seek to provide documentation in support”.
The resident referred her case to her MP on 27 May 2021. The MP wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2021 to ask it to answer the points raised in the resident’s complaint and provide a response. The landlord acknowledged the MP enquiry on 16 June 2021.
The landlord sent an update to the resident’s complaint on 17 June 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the delay in responding.
2. That to “manage your expectations about the outcome”, it “is really important to ask what you feel would be a fair outcome or what would put right your concerns with Sanctuary?”
3. As the main concerns raised by the resident were from 2015, that this would require “reviewing any documentation or correspondence we have from this time period, as well as reviewing our policy at the time which is a little more time-consuming”. Considering the “serious allegations of racial discrimination” it wished to respond “as fully, sensitively and in a considered way”.
4. It “may not have full records” from the time in 2015/16. It requested that if the resident had any correspondence from this time to send this in. It apologised for asking the resident to do this “but unfortunately, there is no alternative”.
5. It would be in contact again with a further response once this further information was available.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email at the same time to advise that she was “disappointed that as advised by you, you may not have full records”. She was collating information that she had “relating to this matter, but as you can appreciate if such an established organisation such as yours is struggling to find anything then it will be just as hard for me”. The resident referred to the landlord’s email of 16 April 2021 to advise that the banding review had not taken place. She tried to contact the relevant officer on 9 June 2021 but “was advised to go to a letting officer”. She spoke to this officer on 10 June 2021 and was advised that the “housing officer should have dealt with me”. She felt that the housing officer “did not wish to deal with me” and requested another officer “who would like to correspond with me”.
The repair raised on 13 May 2021 to the extractor fan was marked completed on 9 June 2021 but found to require a new fan. The new fan was fitted on 28 June 2021, 39 working days after the resident’s report of the fault.
An internal email of 21 July 2021 from a senior member of staff, responsible for investigating the resident’s complaint, to the resident’s housing officer asked “have you initiated a banding review case”? If this was “not appropriate” the housing officer was asked if he had advised the resident “that she is not going to increase in banding?” The email advised that the resident “suggests that you have not been in contact with her about her transfer application recently”. It was pointed out that the resident “is a customer who needed some additional support and advice”. A request was made for the housing officer to “make contact with her by phone and follow up with an email to be recorded”. This would “demonstrate your support and advice about her housing options”.
The landlord responded to the MP enquiry on 22 July 2021 to advise that it was investigating the resident’s complaint. In respect of the banding review, it advised that the housing officer was “reviewing her case” to consider whether a “submission for a review of their transfer banding” would be appropriate. It also suggested the resident consider pursuing a mutual exchange and provided the relevant website “due to the shortage of available social housing and the high number of households in housing need”.
The landlord’s housing officer responded on 22 July 2021 to the internal email sent on 21 July 2021 to state that he would make contact that day and update the resident. The landlord’s records detail that a call was attempted but there was no answer and an email was sent by the housing officer on 22 July 2021 to advise that the call was to “discuss your housing circumstances and options and see where support may be offered”. The resident was advised to “call or email” to look into this.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 August 2021 enclosing correspondence between 2015 and 2018. She stated that a letter was also enclosed from the resident’s GP “requesting housing”. The GP letter seen by this Service does not specifically request housing. It is not known whether this is the letter that the resident was referring to. The resident advised in respect of the suggestion to pursue a mutual exchange that she had been “trying to use this scheme since late 2016 when it was first suggested but to no avail”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2021 to confirm receipt of her email with the various documents that she had supplied. It advised that it had received some other historic emails and files and would be reviewing the evidence.
The landlord’s communal repairs log details a works order was raised on 21 August 2021 to repair the lift which was not working. A repair was carried out on 23 August 2021 when it was found that the “car top stop switch activated”. The lift was “returned to normal service”.
The landlord’s senior member of staff chased up the housing officer on 14 September 2021 for an update on the “conversation re housing options and transfer”. The housing officer emailed on 15 September 2021 to advise that he had been unable to contact the resident in July 2021 but would make contact. The housing officer advised the operations manager in a further email of 20 September 2021 that he had spoken to the resident by phone that day and that the resident had confirmed “that nothing new and is awaiting for the allocation of an appropriate property”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 to chase up a response to her complaint. The landlord emailed back on 20 September 2021 to offer apologies for the delay and the intention to provide its response week commencing 20 September 2021.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 24 September 2021 which was 117 working days after the resident’s stage one formal complaint. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the delay in “providing a definitive response”. It referred to the correspondence that had taken place to “clarify the specific areas of concern”. It outlined that in line with its “complaints procedure we would not, ordinarily review concerns related to historic matters”. However, due to the “severity of the allegations of racial discrimination” it had proceeded with its investigation.
2. It had reviewed its records relating to the lettings process. It confirmed that the property “underwent void works” and it was ready to let as at the “end of April 2015”. It could not find any “clear evidence” that officers were “attempting to apply pressure on you to view and sign up to the property”.
3. It was unable to uphold the complaint that the resident “received discriminatory treatment” during the application, viewing and sign up process.
4. It offered compensation of £75 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident reported a further repair with regard to her boiler on 28 September 2021 causing the hot water to run cold and that due to this she could not “bath her and her children. The repair was completed on 29 September 2021.
The resident made four phone calls to speak to her housing officer between 8 October 2021 and 28 October 2021. It is not clear whether the resident was able to speak to the housing officer as the records do not detail any conversation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2021 indicating she did not accept the landlord’s finding of no racial discrimination and no service failure. The resident’s advocate then wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2021 to escalate the resident’s complaint. In this the resident’s advocate detailed:
1. The circumstances around the resident’s allocation to the property in 2015. The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response at stage one.
2. That for a three year period the property was “riddled with mould and damp, with a lack of ventilation, and a frequently broken lift”. This meant that the resident “had to carry her pushchair and children up the stairs”.
3. The communal areas were “kept in a poor condition with human faeces and urine” with the area outside the resident’s flat being noted as a “common problem”. That there were still “outstanding maintenance issues”.
4. Attempts made by the resident to communicate with the landlord “tend to go ignored unless she is receiving support from charities” or her MP. An allegation was made that the “avoidance” to address the resident’s concerns and the circumstances surrounding the allocation “reinforce the notion that she is the victim of prejudice based on her gender, race and socio economic status.
5. A request for the resident to be “given the opportunity to move into a property that is more suitable for her family’s needs in the local area before her mental health deteriorates any further”.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint acknowledgement letter on 22 October 2022.
The landlord’s complaint handler and the resident’s advocate exchanged a number of emails on 3 November 2021 concerning the landlord’s communication with the resident that the advocate had alleged had “not been responded to in a timely manner”. The advocate also alleged that the resident had advised that she had attempted to contact the housing officer “many times who has hung up on her, and consistently promises to call back and never does so”. The advocate advised that the resident had been trying to contact him for “over a month” concerning her neighbours. The advocate confirmed in a further email the same day that the housing officer had phoned the resident, however it was inconvenient and he was due to phone again the following day.
The resident’s advocate emailed the landlord again on 5 November 2021 to advise that the housing officer “failed to keep his word and did not call back” with regard to a “disturbance from a neighbour”.
Internal emails between the complaint handler and housing officer of 5 November 2021 detail that the landlord would not be investigating the resident’s “concerns in relation to repairs and how her antisocial behaviour have been handled”. It would only consider this if the “issues were raised within the last six months/3 years retrospectively as in line with our policy”. He advised that he phoned the resident two days prior but it was not convenient to speak “as she was on a school run”. He was then given “a very specific time window to ring”. He states that he did ring at this time but the resident “did not answer her phone”.
The landlord emailed the resident’s advocate on 5 November 2021 to advise that it could “only deal with what was raised as the original complaint. Incidents after the complaint being raised cannot be recorded as part of this complaint”. The landlord advised that the original complaint concerned the resident’s “accusations of discrimination when she was allocated her property in 2015”.
The landlord’s records show that the housing officer attempted to call the resident on 8 November 2021 and the resident had emailed back to state that she was busy. The record states the call was made to discuss “issues around your tenancy and circumstances”. Following this the housing officer spoke to the resident on 9 November 2021 and sent an email to ask if she had “any information about anything you wished to discuss in an email”.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 17 November 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the delay in responding at stage one.
2. The landlord understood the outcome sought by the resident was “to be given the opportunity to move into a property that is more suitable”.
3. The landlord was “unable to facilitate a move to alternative accommodation” as part of the complaints process. However it was “able to investigate” the “reports of discrimination, bullying and harassment”.
4. The landlord would not normally review “concerns relating to historic matters”. However “considering the severity of the allegations of racial discrimination made” it had proceeded with the complaint.
5. In its investigation concerning the alleged “bullying, unfair and unethical treatment”. The landlord had reviewed its records. It was unable to see any records that showed the resident had expressed concern “about the pressure, racism and disparaging attitude when signing up for the property”. It advised that “the evidence indicates that your sign up was carried out in line with our lettings policy and procedures”.
6. The landlord “was unable to investigate the historic issues” regarding “the condition of the property, historic antisocial behaviour records” along with “recent claims of non-contact from your housing officer”.
7. The resident had a transfer application and had been awarded “band C”. It advised that “any potential transfer will depend on the choice based lettings agreement in that area as some areas do not allow transfers”. The resident was encouraged to “pursue a mutual exchange with another social housing resident through homeswapper”.
8. The landlord did not have any evidence that communications were not “responded to in a timely manner”.
9. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s allegations regarding “discrimination, bullying and harassment”. The complaint was therefore not upheld. The landlord advised that it was satisfied that it had “acted appropriately in handing your offer of accommodation, current transfer application and communication”.
10. The goodwill gesture of £75 remained.
The landlord’s communal repairs log details a works order raised on 22 November 2021 as the lift was not working. A report was also made that “someone keeps urinating in the lift”. A call was made to the housing officer to check if he was aware of this but he reported that he was not aware of this. The repairs log details that the housing officer agreed that he would “have a word with the caretaker and send out a letter”. The repairs log indicate that an operative was due to call on 26 November 2021 and it states at this time “service interruption completed”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2021 to request that her case be kept open. The landlord emailed back to advise that the complaint would be kept open until 30 November 2021, “unless you can provide me with any further evidence to support your claims”. The landlord emailed the advocate and the resident again on 30 November 2021 to advise that as no further evidence had been received by the resident to “substantiate her claims” then as per its policy the complaint would be closed.
On 29 November 2021 the repair log details that the lift was out of service again. The repair log details that a “technical visit required”. The lift was out of action until work was completed on 2 December 2021.
After the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident reported a number of repairs to her landlord on 2 December 2021 that are detailed below:
1. She reported “hole and cracks around this hole in the plaster” on 2 December 2021. This was marked completed in the landlord’s repair logs on 15 December 2021. However, it was found that an asbestos survey was needed and a follow up works order was raised on 16 December 2021 for the survey to be carried out. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the survey was completed. The work to repair the ceiling was completed on 15 February 2022.
2. She reported a repair on 2 December 2021 as the “copper pipework in the bathroom which runs from the floor to the ceiling has come loose so is moving a lot and starting to effect the plaster in the ceiling causing it to crack”. The repair record states that there was “no access” when the contractor attended on 16 December 2021 and it is not clear from the records when any work was completed.
3. The resident reported damp and mould within the bathroom The resident’s report stated that she “tried to clean this but this keeps coming back”. The record stated that the resident advised that she “does use extractor fan and windows to vent the bathroom but doesn’t help”. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 December 2021 to complete a mould wash.
The resident referred her complaint about her landlord to this Service on 17 January 2022. In this she advised this Service the issues she had raised in her complaint to her landlord concerning the allocation of the property in 2015 and the alleged prejudice, bullying and harassment. She referred to the property being “not fit to live in at the time”. She had had to “resort to paying for several repairs” at her expense which she wished to be compensated for. It had taken “more than a year for crucial repairs to be acknowledged and carried out”. She stated she had “ongoing issues with the property and neighbours”. She had reported repairs that were outstanding including a “hole in my ceiling” and that the flat had “recently flooded from a leak from the flat above causing damage to my personal possessions”. She wished the landlord to provide a “formal apology” due to “their poor services”, and the “right to formally bid for another property” or for the landlord to “rehouse me to a more suitable property in the surrounding area”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property

The resident reported a number of issues with her windows, with the initial report being made on 20 February 2020. This was attended to by the landlord within its policy timescales of 28 working days but required a “rework”. The landlord halted work due to covid-19 with the initial lockdown announced by the Government on 23 March 2020. Whilst the lockdown was outside of the landlord’s control, further explanation was not provided, other than the text sent on 27 March 2020. The work was finally completed on 26 October 2020 which was 174 working days after the initial report. This was considerably outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
Although the lockdown will have impacted on the ability of the landlord to complete the repairs to the window, creating an unavoidable backlog of repairs, the first lockdown ended in June 2020 and so the completion of the work was unreasonably delayed. It would be expected that for repairs to windows where water ingress is a likelihood, as well as the windows being potentially unsafe, if for example, due to the defect they could be opened by children, would be appropriately risk assessed. This would have been appropriate considering that the resident lived on the third floor with young children, the youngest being under five years old at the time of the complaint. No record has been seen that any risk assessment had taken place to consider the prioritisation of the repairs to the windows, and to consider the degree of risk, which was remiss of the landlord. Overall taking the events into account, the communication for this work was poor with no updates being provided to the resident.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the resident’s further report regarding her bedroom window on 27 October 2020 concerned the same window she had previously reported as this is not stipulated in the landlord’s records. It is good practice to accurately record the location of works to be undertaken so that landlords can track the effectiveness of works to be carried out. It was also remiss that the repair records did not make clear whether there was any security or health and safety issue with regard to whether the window could close and lock or be opened. Whilst evidence has not been seen that there could be a risk, the record does not detail whether the windows were insecure and could not close. This was important considering the resident had young children as mentioned and was living in a third floor flat. An appointment was booked in for 18 December 2020 and then cancelled again “due to further lockdown”. The third lockdown will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to carry out work, however, Government guidance to social landlords did clarify that landlords could carry out emergency/urgent repairs. There were no records though that detailed any risk assessment as mentioned that would helped the landlord to determine the priority for this particular work.
It took 134 working days until the work was marked complete on 10 May 2021. Again this was considerably delayed and whilst it is recognised that covid-19 impacted landlords’ ability to complete non-urgent repairs in 2020, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate more effectively with the resident regarding the impact of covid-19 and why the landlord was late in carrying out repairs. Evidence has not been seen that this happened. This evidenced further poor communication. Effective communication regarding delayed works was particularly important given the resident’s vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of.
The resident reported in her stage one complaint of 12 April 2021 a repair required to the wire mesh up by the balcony and in front of the front door stating that it was “rusting and dangerous for the children”. The resident’s report did not explain the degree of risk in the rusting wire mesh. However, there is no evidence that shows that the landlord at any point considered the condition of the wire mesh and took remedial action, as necessary, or even raised a works order, to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The lack of consideration of this again evidences poor communication with the resident and internally between the landlord’s complaints team and repairs team.
The repair to the extractor fan of 13 May 2021 was attended to within the landlord’s policy timescales and the work to renew the fan was also completed within the policy timescales. Similarly the resident’s report made on 28 September 2021 for a repair to the boiler was carried out within the landlord’s policy timescales and this was repaired the following day.
In summary, whilst some of the resident’s reports of repairs were completed within the landlord’s policy timescales, the earlier reports of repairs required to the windows were unreasonably delayed. The repair concerning the wire mesh reported in the resident’s complaint appears to have been ignored by the landlord. Whilst covid-19 has undoubtedly impacted on the completion dates, the landlord’s communication with the resident and between its own teams was not adequate. This left the resident with a period of uncertainty. The landlord failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerability in that she could be impacted to a greater degree than another resident without this vulnerability when faced with the uncertainty as to when the reported repairs would be completed. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lift and maintenance of communal areas

With regard to the maintenance of the building’s lift which, as mentioned above, is the only lift in the building, the landlord’s repairs logs show that there were five works orders raised during the period from 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint and up until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process before the landlord closed the complaint on 30 November 2021. The five works orders were raised in relation to the lift not working properly or breaking down. The landlord’s repair logs detail that bi-monthly lift maintenance was taking place. It is appropriate for a landlord to undertake regular lift maintenance, especially with the lift being the only one in the building.
The landlord’s repairs log did not provide details of the completion date of works reported to be undertaken for the lift which was reported that it had “been stuck” on 5 October 2020. The repair records were ambiguous as it simultaneously stated that the lift was both stuck and in working order. The landlord needed to keep accurate and complete records to avoid such ambiguity and to enable it to understand the age and condition of the structure and fittings such as the lift. This Service has recently published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management that allows a landlord to keep both a building and people safe, now and in the future as a tool to manage buildings. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
The report of the lift stopping on 19 November 2020 referred to the caretaker getting stuck in it for a couple of minutes. The repair was undertaken two days later on 21 November 2020. This was a relatively short timeframe, however, as the resident was living on the third floor and had two young children, a broken lift would have a greater impact on her.
The report that the lift had stopped working on 21 August 2021 led to a repair being completed on 23 August 2021. The lift was “returned to normal service”. This was again two days later and would have caused inconvenience to the resident during the two day period that the lift was out of action.
The lift was reported again on 22 November 2021. Despite a repair being undertaken on 26 November 2021, only three days later the lift was faulty again and required a “technical inspection”. This meant that the lift was out of action until 2 December 2021. This Service has not seen that any technical inspection was carried out on 22 November 2021, which would have been appropriate to prevent a loss of service within a short space of time which would have likely caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
In respect of the report made on 22 November 2021 that “someone keeps urinating in the lift”, whilst the housing officer undertook to speak to the caretaker and to write to residents no records have been seen that this happened. This is antisocial behaviour and moreover unhygienic and unpleasant. The landlord had a responsibility to investigate this and deal with it under its antisocial behaviour policy and procedures. Once again the landlord’s record keeping has not been adequate to demonstrate the actions it has taken to respond to the issue that the resident and her advocate had reported. It could have then have provided information on this to the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses.
It is important for the landlord to maintain accurate and complete records. This ensures that the landlord has a good understanding of the actions it has taken, the age and condition of the structure and fittings within its property, enabling outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy above does not specify timeframes for repairs to a communal lift nor is the timeframe evident from the landlord’s log of repairs. Common repairs such as a lift breakdown should have a clear timeframe attached to it, so expectations are clear for all. The landlord should update its policy to ensure that this reflects suitable timescales taking into account “health and safety” of residents that it refers to in the current policy. If a lift is out of action in a block of flats this could cause considerable discomfort and inconvenience for any resident, particularly for the resident who had young children at the time. It would be beneficial for records for lift repairs to contain information on households who would be particularly affected by a lift breakdown. This would enable the landlord to consider whether to expedite the works.
To summarise the landlord has a maintenance schedule which means that the lift is serviced at bi-monthly intervals. It is appropriate and would be expected for the landlord to regularly service the lift to ensure its continued good operation in line with its repair obligation. Whilst the repairs undertaken to repair the lift when it had broken down were completed within a relatively short period, the lack of a clear timescale for residents to refer to was a service failure. In the absence of a prescribed timeframe or agreement with the lift contractor to repair the lift, and in the knowledge of the fact that the resident had young children and lived on the third floor and had no other lift to use, it would be reasonable for the emergency repair timeframe to apply (subject to the availability of any parts required to complete the repair). The fact that there had been five reported faults in a year should have led to further investigations by the landlord into the condition and usage of the lift, and the effectiveness of the maintenance regime. The landlord’s record keeping did not evidence letters being sent to residents to address the antisocial behaviour issue referred to above. These issues amount to a service failure for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer and the landlord’s review of her application’s banding

Whilst this Service is unable to determine the priority of a resident’s transfer application, it is the role of this Service to consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this investigation the key issues considered are whether the landlord followed its own policy and procedures, its communication and its response timescales.
The landlord made the suggestion on 16 April 2021 to review the resident’s application and to then possibly review the banding of the application, thus building up the resident’s expectations. According to the landlord’s policy consideration of a banding review applies to an “applicant and/or member of household who resides with them as part of their family”. No record has been seen that the landlord asked the resident “to complete a health and disability assessment form” in accordance with its policy, or that any further evidence was requested from the resident to help support the landlord’s consideration of its own suggestion to review the application. Given the resident’s vulnerability it was unreasonable that the landlord did not expedite the review of the application to consider a banding review.
The evidence shows that the resident was passed around when trying to contact the housing officer on 9 June 2021 and then being “advised to go to a letting officer”, who then advised her that the “housing officer should have dealt with me”. This demonstrates the landlord’s lack of ownership of the resident’s case causing unnecessary delay and frustration to the resident. It is therefore not surprising that she reported that she felt that the housing officer “did not wish to deal with me” and requested another officer “who would like to correspond with me”.
No records have been seen, that the landlord gave any further consideration of this possible application and banding review until the senior member of staff chased this up with the resident’s housing officer on 21 July 2021, over two months after the landlord suggested it. This resulted in an attempted unsuccessful contact on 22 July 2021 by the housing officer. The housing officer followed this up with the email sent on 22 July 2021 to advise that the call was to “discuss your housing circumstances and options and see where support may be offered”. The resident at this point was advised to “call or email” to look into this. It was appropriate for the housing officer to follow up the unsuccessful phone call with an email. However, no records have been seen that any further attempt was made to contact the resident, nor any letter sent or any reference to a “health and disability assessment form” being made. Despite the offer of support it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive.
The landlord’s operations manager had to chase up the housing officer for a second time for an update on the application review on 14 September 2021. It was only then that the housing officer managed to speak to the resident on 20 September 2021 to advise “that nothing new and is awaiting for the allocation of an appropriate property”. This was five months’ after the landlord promised to review the application with a possibility of a banding review. No records have been seen that there was any written follow up to the resident as per its policy to what seems to be an indication that a review would not be undertaken. Written communication to advise the review outcome would have given the resident the opportunity to challenge any inaccuracies or for her to provide further evidence, for example evidence from a doctor, however no record has been seen that she was given this opportunity.
It is not clear whether the landlord’s phone and email contacts on 8 and 9 November 2021 requesting the resident to contact to discuss the “issues around your tenancy and circumstances” referred to the resident’s later report postdating her formal complaint regarding antisocial behaviour, or whether this was in connection with the landlord’s promised review of her application. The lack of detail in the phone record and email of 9 November 2021 represents a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping as it is not clear if any substantive issues were discussed and why the landlord decided to rely on email correspondence? As no record has been seen of the review outcome, it is not clear whether the landlord completed it in line with its commitment to the resident. This was further evidence of the landlord’s poor record keeping and poor communication.
In summary, the landlord’s lack of action to expedite the review promised in April 2021 of the resident’s application and possible banding review would have undoubtedly left the resident feeling that she had been forgotten about and that her case was “not being regarded as important”. Given that it was the landlord who raised the resident’s expectations in the first place, it should have provided the necessary form, the opportunity for the resident to submit further evidence in support of her application, and a written response in accordance with its own policy. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication with the resident and its internal communication was poor. The landlord was fully aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have given full consideration of this in providing its response at an earlier point. This caused detriment to the resident as well as the time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. The issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint of 12 April 2021 within its policy guidelines on 16 April 2021. In this acknowledgement, rather than consider its own records regarding the resident’s more recent repair requests, it simply advised that if she had any “current” repairs to report them. In line with its responsibility to resolve complaints it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate any more recent repairs as well as its response to these. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified any outstanding repairs with the resident when investigating her complaint and to refer these to its repairs team. This is especially important since the landlord was aware that the resident “is a customer who needed some additional support and advice”.
The landlord’s policy states a stage one response should be sent within ten working days. In this case, the resident had to reach out to her MP on 27 May 2021 as well as chase up her landlord for a response causing her distress as well as time and trouble. The landlord responded by sending a further acknowledgement letter that same day. This may have been confusing for the resident as the landlord had already issued its acknowledgement. The fact that the resident stated she was “deeply concerned that no one has contacted” and that “my complaint is not being regarded as important, which is causing me anxiety and impacting my mental health further” should have alerted the landlord to expedite its response. It could have at least outlined the reasons for the delay (which it did in its later response in June below) and a timeframe by which the resident could expect to receive a response to manage her expectations.
The landlord indicated in its email of 17 June 2021 that it would take time to obtain records from 2015 concerning the resident’s reports of discrimination, harassment and bullying, however, it failed to give any indication of when the resident could expect a response. Whilst this Service does not doubt that there could have been issues collating historic information, it could have explained this at an earlier point in the complaints process to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord also put some onus on the resident to provide any documents that she had to help with its investigation. It was not surprising that the resident’s response to this was to advise of her disappointment that the landlord “may not have full records” and that “if such an established organisation such as yours is struggling to find anything then it will be just as hard for me”. This also meant additional time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident to assist the landlord in answering her complaint as well as a loss of confidence in the landlord’s ability fully and fairly assess this complaint.
The landlord’s stage one response was finally sent on 24 September 2021 which was 117 working days after the resident submitted her stage one complaint and considerably outside of the ten working day response time indicated in its policy. This was an unreasonable timescale, even taking into account the collation of the historic records. The landlord’s complaints policy gives a number of “circumstances in which it is not appropriate for a complaint to be raised”. This includes “issues that occurred more than six months previously, unless there is evidence that this has been raised to staff and no action has been taken”(emphasis added). In light of this policy, the landlord could have reviewed its repair records to ascertain whether there were any outstanding repair issues remaining and provided details within its complaint response. If it had done it would have seen the outstanding repair to the bedroom window reported by the resident on 27 October 2020. It could have also ensured that the resident’s report concerning the wire mesh up by the balcony was reported and a timescale for completion could have been provided. This would have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was proactive in identifying unresolved issues and resolving the resident’s complaint.
The resident’s advocate reiterated the complaint issues in the escalation request made on 21 October 2021. This referred to “many” of the “outstanding maintenance issues” that “continue at the time of writing” and this also included the issues raised by the resident concerning the communal areas. Again this should have alerted the landlord to clarify what outstanding maintenance issues there were at this time so that it could then put them right. No record has been seen to indicate that any clarification was sought regarding any outstanding repairs issues by the landlord at this point.
The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement to the escalation request to stage two was sent within the five working days timescale set out in its policy on 22 October 2021.
The landlord’s email of 5 November 2021 to the resident’s advocate on 5 November 2021 advised that it could “only deal with what was raised as the original complaint”. However, as mentioned the landlord failed to investigate all the issues raised in the complaint.
The landlord’s stage two response of 17 November 2021 was sent within the policy timescale. However, once again it failed to address all of the issues in the resident’s complaint and deal with any current maintenance issues. It did not explain what happened with regard to the transfer application review and possible banding review, nor the reason for any decision taken, if a decision had been taken. This was unreasonable given the fact it had promised to review the resident’s transfer application in April 2021 as mentioned above and the resident was therefore left without a definitive outcome to the landlord’s own suggested review. The compensation of £75 offered as a “goodwill gesture” does not, in the opinion of this Service adequately address the landlord’s delays at stage one of the complaints process nor its failure to investigation and address all of the issues raised by the resident that prompted her to complain in the first place.
In summary, the landlord unreasonably delayed its stage one complaint response and despite the need to gather further historic information, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident or with its own teams. It put some onus on the resident to provide information that would take time and trouble for her to collate. It failed to fully address all of the issues raised by the resident in her complaint, including the repairs, and in relation to the outcome of a banding review suggested by the landlord itself. The landlord failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerability in providing assistance to her enquiries in line with its policies causing her detriment. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance to the lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the resident’s request for a transfer and the landlord’s review of her application’s banding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident concerning the delays to the repairs to the windows that had been impacted by covid-19. The landlord failed to take account of the resident’s vulnerability in its communication. Its records keeping was poor and the resident was left for an extended period of time before final repairs were completed on the windows. No record has been seen of follow up enquiries in response to the resident’s report concerning the wire mesh up by the balcony evidencing poor communication between the landlord’s own teams.
The landlord carried out the lift repairs within a relatively short period of time, however, its policy did not specify a timescale but given that this was the only lift in the building, it would be appropriate for such work to be undertaken in a more timely manner. Given the repeated failures, it would have been appropriate to consider a overhaul, though the records do not indicate that this happened. The landlord’s record keeping and communication was not adequate in recording completion of work undertaken to the lift on one occasion and in connection with the report of someone urinating in the lift and its proposed action to write to residents to remind them of their obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord failed to progress its promised transfer application review and possible banding review in a timely manner. It did not manage the resident’s expectations or take consideration of her vulnerabilities in its delayed response. It failed to provide the necessary form to the resident so it could consider the medical needs of the resident and her household. Its communication to the resident and internally was inadequate and it failed to keep the resident updated on the promised review, nor communicate any outcome in writing in line with its policy.
The landlord unreasonably delayed its stage one complaint response which was issued five months after the resident sent her stage one complaint and not in accordance with its own policy. The landlord failed to respond to all the aspects of the resident’s complaint and no record has been seen that it passed on the repair reported in the resident’s stage one complaint to its repair team, or update the resident on when she could expect its stage one response evidencing poor communication. Its complaint responses also failed to update or provide any actions to be taken, or any outcome in respect of the resident’s transfer application and banding review. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or to take account of her vulnerability and the likely effect of a delayed response and lack of action would have on her causing continued detriment whilst she pursued her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.
3. Pay the resident £200 in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance to the lift.
4. Pay the resident £800 compensation in respect of the resident’s request for a transfer and the landlord’s review of her application’s banding
5. Pay the resident £500 compensation in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, if it is has not already done so, the landlord should carry out an inspection and undertake any remedial works to the wire mesh by the balcony and in front of the front door. It should confirm completion to this Service.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to progress a review of the resident’s transfer application to consider a possible banding review. It should confirm completion of this review to this Service.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Resident’s panel outlining as a minimum:
1. The learning points identified from this case and what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in dealing with vulnerable residents. It should set out a clear timescale for improvement actions, overall case management, and oversight by named postholders, alongside a monitoring and a regular governance reporting process.
2. The intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 2 and the requirements under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments, and Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles.
3. The intentions and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). It should implement changes as a result of this self-assessment to its record keeping practices.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord update its repairs policy and procedure within twelve weeks to reflect timescales for carrying out repairs to lifts within blocks of flats to ensure that residents are aware of the service standards expected to be achieved.