Sanctuary Housing Association (202220517)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220517

Sanctuary Housing Association

15 November 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs, in particular:
  1. Repairs to the resident’s pathway.
  2. The resident’s request to fit handrails.
  3. Repairs to the resident’s stairlift.
2. The resident’s complaint.
3. The resident’s concern that it discriminated against him.
4. The resident’s concern that its handling of the repairs had an adverse effect on his health, and caused injury.

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(f) the Scheme, the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

The resident’s concern that the landlord discriminated against him

Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 March 2023 and asked that we investigate his complaint, as he was unhappy with how the landlord had handled the repairs at his property. The resident stated that the delay in completing repairs to his pathway and stairlift had amounted to disability discrimination.
The serious nature of this is acknowledged and this Service does not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. In terms of whether the landlord committed disability discrimination against the resident is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue the matter through the courts.

The resident’s concern that its handling of the repairs had an adverse effect on his health, and caused injury

The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said that its handling of the repairs to his pathway meant his “mental health [had] suffered”. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. It follows that the resident’s complaint that its handling of the repairs caused injury is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers his mental health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. This Service has not sought to reach a determination on liability or injury. However, consideration has been given to any adverse effect, including distress and inconvenience, which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom house. The landlord has the resident recorded as vulnerable due to having limited mobility, and is considered to have a disability. The resident’s property is accessed at the front by a short path from the pavement to the front door. Due to his limited mobility, the resident has a stairlift fitted in his property.
The different aspects of the resident’s complaint, as outlined above, were addressed by the landlord as separate complaints. The complaints were running simultaneously, and there was an overlap in the actions of the landlord regarding different aspects of the complaints. Therefore, for clarity, this report will summarise the events for each aspect of the resident’s complaint separately.

Summary of events

Repairs to the resident’s pathway

The landlord started works on the resident’s front pathway, leading to the property, in early 2022. The works were to enable the resident to access his property with a mobility scooter. The exact date works started is unclear, but the landlord’s records indicate that it was instructed to put the works on hold by the resident’s Occupational Therapist (OT) in February 2022. This was recorded as being because of a change in the “household details”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 to make a complaint, and asked for an update about the repair to the pathway. He said he was unable to access his front door. The resident said that he was not able to use the pathway in the condition it was left in, due to his disability, and the operatives had “dug it up and left it”. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 June 2022, and said it would issue its response within 9 working days.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2022 and said:
1. It had visited his property to assess what works needed doing to the path on 17 and 29 June 2022, and its property services team would progress with the works
2. It had asked for an update from the relevant team on when works would commence, and would update the resident within 10 working days
3. It advised that he could ask his complaint to be considered at stage 2 if he was unhappy with its response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2022 and said he was “dissatisfied” that he had been left without access at the front of his property for “months” and was of the view that the landlord should have offered compensation. The resident said he had experienced “disruption”, due to not being able to go to the shops on his mobility scooter, and had to ask people to shop for him.
The landlord sent the resident updates about the pathway works on 16 and 31 August 2022, and said it had received quotes and would let the resident know when the works would start.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2022 and asked for an update, as he was still unable to use the path. The resident said that the operatives who had originally started the work had left rubble at the front, and the slabs they had installed were not done correctly. The resident stated that he felt “neglected” by the landlord. The landlord responded on 14 and 21 September 2022 and said:
1. It had raised a job to come and collect the rubble left in the garden
2. The path was 1 slab wide and was “usable” until made wider
3. As he was “moving out of the property soon” it would not be doing the works to the pathway, until the property was empty
4. The time taken to complete the repairs was longer than expected, and it had made the relevant teams aware that it needed to improve its communication when works are delayed
5. It offered the resident £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and £25 for the delay in acknowledging his complaint.
The resident responded on 21 September 2022 and said:
1. The path used to be 1 slab wide, and the landlord had widened it by the front door, and the last “quarter” was left unsafe and not usable
2. He had been told that it could take up to 3 years to be offered a move to a suitable property, and did not think the path was safe to use while he was waiting.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2022 and said it was considering the information the resident had provided and would provide a further update soon. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 October 2022 and said that it was liaising with the appropriate team about the works to the pathway and would provide a further update in early November 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 November 2022 and said it had asked the appropriate team for an “urgent update” regarding the works to the pathway. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 December 2022, and said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter, and wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 19 December 2022, apologised for the delay, and said it would issue a response within 20 working days. The landlord emailed the resident again on 13 January 2023, and said it was not able to provide its response, as it was awaiting an update. It said it would issue its stage 2 complaint response by 27 January 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 27 January 2023 and said:
1. After the resident had raised his complaint, there was a delay in getting quotes, which meant it was unable to start works
2. He experienced an inconvenience and delay due to its poor internal communication, about whether the works would go ahead
3. Its service was not “up to the standard” it expected and the delays were due to:
  1. Delays in receiving quotes
  2. Unclear records
  3. Miscommunications
  4. A lack of communication from its maintenance team
4. It was unable to provide a date of when works would start, as it was still awaiting an update from the relevant team. It apologised for the further delay, and said it would provide an update accordingly
5. It deemed a further offer of compensation was appropriate, and would normally make the offer as part of its complaint response. But, it had decided to make an offer of compensation once it had more information about when the works would start.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 2 February 2023 and reported that the way the pathway was left “prevented him being able to use his front door”. It was “so narrow” that he could not get his mobility scooter up the path.
The landlord sent a follow up complaint response on 20 February 2023 and restated much of the content from its stage 2 complaint response above. It offered £650 in compensation, made up of:
1. The £175 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response
2. £25 for having to “chase up” repairs
3. £50 for having to make a complaint to get issues addressed
4. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint
5. £25 for the delay in sending the stage 2 response
6. £75 for its complaint handling at stage 1
7. £250 for time and trouble.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said that he was unhappy with its offer of compensation. He said that he had not told it he was moving, and it should not have stopped works, or left his garden in the condition it was left in. The resident felt the landlord had incorrectly been of the view that he was moving soon, and he had explained it would take years. The resident stated that he felt “unsupported” and “like a prisoner” in his own home due the access issues. The landlord responded on 10 March 2023 and said it was going to review the resident’s complaint in “full” and would send its final response by 17 March 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 March 2023 and asked why it had taken “so long” for his complaint to be taken to stage 2, as its complaints procedure did not say stage 1 would last for “months”. The resident also emailed this Service on 13 March 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his pathway, and the amount of compensation he was offered.
The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 17 March 2023 and said:
1. It was unable to compensate the resident for health concerns or stress caused within its complaints procedure, but would offer compensation for inconvenience
2. It apologised that it was not yet able to give a start date for the repairs to the pathway, and its overall handling of the matter
3. It made a revised offer of £1175 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £650 it previously offered
  2. An additional £50 for its stage 1 complaint handling
  3. £75 for delays in responding to the resident’s emails in February and March 2023
  4. A further £400 for “overall time and trouble”.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint, as he felt the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord told this Service that the pathway repair was completed on 24 May 2023.

The request to fit handrails

On 2 January 2020, following an assessment of the resident’s mobility, his OT emailed the landlord and said:
1. The resident had “very poor mobility” and had difficulty transferring on and off his stair lift, in and out of bed and accessing the house at the back and front
2. The OT recommended installing the following handrails:
  1. At the front and side of the property to assist with access to and from the property
  2. Next to the resident’s bed
  3. At the top of the stairs to assist in transferring off the stairlift
  4. 2 handrails in the bathroom to assist with getting in and out of the shower.
The landlord’s repair log indicates that works to install the handrails were raised, but were declined internally, due to cost, on 18 February 2020. The landlord made a note on 19 February 2020 stating that it may need to attend to “scope works or try to reduce costs”. There is no evidence to indicate that the handrails were installed around this time, or that the scoping visit took place.
The resident’s OT emailed the landlord on 12 January 2021 and said, “despite efforts to chase up”, the works were still outstanding and asked that the works were booked in urgently. The OT said that, as the resident was having a new bathroom fitted, he would be best placed to advise on the positioning of the rails in the bathroom. On receipt of the email from the OT the landlord raised an ”urgent” work order to install the handrails, and spoke to the resident about the proposed works on 13 January 2021. The resident said, as he was having a new bathroom fitted and planned to move his bedroom around, it should get back in touch in a “few weeks” to install the hand rails.
The landlord sent internal emails on 22 January 2021 and asked that the team fitting the bathroom also install the handrails while at the resident’s property. The evidence available indicates that the handrails were not installed at this time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 August 2022 and said handrails were ordered to assist him in his home in 2019, and were never installed. The resident asked why the landlord had not yet fitted the handrails. The landlord responded on 31 August 2022 and said it was going to “look into” the works for the handrails. It is unclear whether the landlord took any action following this email to the resident.
The resident left a review on the landlord’s website on 30 January 2023 and said that the repair issues in his property were outstanding. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 2 February 2023 and reported that the resident said:
1. He needed handrails installing, and reported that he had been given 2 handrails “during lockdown”. At the time he was told he would need to install them himself, as the landlord could not “enter the property”
2. He had been told that fitting the remaining handrails would be arranged, but he was still waiting on handrails to be fitted in his bathroom and bedroom.
The landlord opened a complaint investigation, and sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2023 which said:
1. The “latest” order raised for the handrails was raised in January 2021.When it attended on 13 January 2021, it was asked to wait until after the bathroom works were completed to install the handrails
2. It had referred the works to its “planning team” and it was confirmed on 28 January 2021 that team was picking the matter up
3. It received no further contact about the handrails until 3 February 2023, following a report from the resident’s housing officer that the handrails had not been installed in the bathroom and bedroom;
4. The landlord offered £50 for the “overall delays” in installing the handrails
5. It had raised an order for the handrails to be installed, and the relevant team would be in contact to book in the works
6. The landlord apologised for the delays and poor communication in its handling of the stage 1 complaint and offered £150 in compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 February 2023 and asked it to consider his complaint at stage 2, as he was unhappy with its stage 1 response. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 February 2023 and said:
1. An order for handrails was raised on 18 January 2021, and due to the bathroom works this was referred to the appropriate team to “pick this work up in the future”
2. It noted the resident’s comments about its operatives being unwilling to enter his home to fit the handrails, due to Covid-19 restrictions. It said its operatives were adhering to the “guidelines and instructions” of the time
3. It had received no further contact from the resident about the handrails until 3 February 2023, when it was completing a home visit
4. It had booked the installation of handrails in the bedroom and bathroom for 11 April 2023
5. It reiterated its offer of £50 for the delay in installing the handrails, and £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience for its overall handling of the stairlift and handrail issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said that he felt the offer of compensation did not put things right for him. He said the handrails ordered by his OT had “never been fitted”, and he needed them to assist with his “poor mobility”, and he felt “unsafe” in his property. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 follow up response on 3 March 2023 and offered an additional £150 in compensation. This was for the “time, trouble and inconvenience” caused by its overall handling of the handrail and stairlift issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023 and said he was unavailable for the appointment to fit the handrails. The landlord rebooked the works for 18 May 2023. It does not appear that the handrail works took place on 18 May 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 May 2023 and asked why the handrails had not yet been fitted, and said the amount of time he had to wait was “unacceptable”. The resident stated that the agreed times to complete the works were “ignored”.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint, as he felt the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right.
The landlord contacted this Service on 25 September 2023, and confirmed the handrail works were completed on 21 June 2023.

Repairs to the resident’s stairlift

On 2 March 2022, the resident reported that his stairlift was not working. The landlord raised an “emergency” repair, and attended to fix the issue on the same day. The notes reflect the operative in attendance reprogrammed the lift, refitted the seat, and left the stairlift in working order.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2022 and said:
1. His stairlift had not been “operational” for 6 months
2. Its annual inspection had shown a “list of faults”, and its operative had said it would be in touch to resolve the issue
3. He had heard “nothing” since the inspection.
The landlord responded on 14 September 2022 and said it had asked the relevant team to raise a job for the stairlift. The landlord’s repair log indicates that it raised a job to repair the resident’s stairlift on 29 September 2022, and attended to the repair on 30 September 2022.
The resident reported that his stairlift had stopped working again on 4 October 2022, the landlord attended on 6 October 2022. The repair log notes reflect the operative left the stairlift in working order.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 and reported that the stairlift was not working again. The landlord raised a job on 27 January 2023 and it agreed with the resident to attend on 30 January 2023, to complete the repair. A contractor for the landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 January 2023 completed a temporary repair, and left it in working order. The resident left a review on the landlord’s website on 30 January 2023 and said that the repair issues in his property were outstanding. The landlord logged the review as a complaint.
The operative reattended on 31 January 2023 and completed the repair. The resident then contacted the landlord later on 31 January 2023 to report that the lift had broken down again, its contractor attended, but was unable to gain access to the property. The contractor returned on 1 February 2023 and completed the repair.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2023 and said:
1. It had attended to complete a repair to the stairlift on 6 October 2022, fixed it and left it in working order. It had ordered a new remote control at that time, but the lack of working remote control had not prevented the stairlift from working
2. Following the resident’s report of the stairlift not working on 13 January 2023, it had attended to fix the issue on 30 January 2023. It had then reattended on 31 January and 1 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in attending to the repair, and offered £50 in compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 February 2023 and asked it to consider his complaint at stage 2, as he was unhappy with its stage 1 response. The resident explained that he had memory problems, which meant he had not chased up the missing remotes for the stairlift. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 February 2023, and said it:
1. Had left the stairlift in working order on 6 October 2022, and had agreed to order new remote controls. It was of the view that a lack of remote controls did not affect the operation of the lift. It now understood that the remote control was how the resident called the lift down “independently”. It was sorry that the working remote controls were not returned within the timeframe that he was told
2. Was sorry that the resident had to chase it up to return the remote controls, and it understood that his memory problems had made the issue “very difficult” to deal with
3. Apologised that the contractor who had attended to the stairlift repair on 31 January 2023 had attended “so late at night”. This was due to it being an emergency callout and was done with the “best intentions” to ensure it could repair the issue as quickly as possible. It had recorded this as a “no access” visit;
4. Had attended the next day (1 February 2023) to complete the repair, and the lift was left in working order, and it understood that the resident now had fully operational remote controls for the stairlift
5. Wanted to offer £50 for the delay in repairing the stairlift, and £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience for its overall handling of the stairlift and handrail issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2023 and said that he felt the offer of compensation did not put things right for him. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 follow up response on 3 March 2023 and offered an additional £150 in compensation. This was for the “time, trouble and inconvenience” caused by its overall handling of the handrail and stairlift issues. The landlord acknowledged the “extreme impact” the “lengthy absence” of the remote controls had on the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 July 2023 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint, as he felt the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right.
The landlord emailed this Service on 25 September 2023 and said that the resident had not reported any further issues with his stairlift since it was repaired on 1 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair handbook states that it is responsible for the repair of external steps and pathways if the concrete or tarmac is damaged. The repair handbook states that if a resident requires a “minor adaptation”, such as handrails, it can make such changes within 28 days.
The landlord’s repair policy defines ‘appointed repairs’ as non emergency repairs, and it aims to complete them within 28 days. The policy states that the landlord will attend all emergency repairs within 24 hours to “make safe” the resident’s property.
The landlord’s aids and adaptions policy states that it assumes responsibility for repairing and servicing an aid or adaption that it, or a contractor working for it, has fitted. The policy states that the landlord is required to make reasonable adjustments for residents with disabilities when something is affecting their enjoyment of their property. When a repair to an aid or adaptation is reported and the “health and safety of a vulnerable resident” is of concern, then it must log it as an “emergency repair”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process, and its procedure states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. The procedure says stage 1 complaint responses, which it calls ‘front line resolution’, will be sent within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses, which it calls ‘investigation stage’, will be sent within 20 working days. The procedure states that claims for damages and personal injury are not dealt with as part of an offer of redress in a complaint response, but by its insurer.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can offer up to £400 in compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience when a situation has had a “high impact” on the resident. For complaint handling, the compensation guidance states it can offer up to £150 for significant difficulties in raising a complaint, or delayed responses.
Under the Equality Act 2010 organisations carrying out public functions are required to take positive steps to ensure disabled people are able to access their services as easily as non-disabled people. They should make adjustments when disabled people are placed at a substantial disadvantage (more than minor or trivial) because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning organisations cannot wait until a disabled person needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled people may reasonably need to access their services.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s pathway

That the landlord sought to complete works to improve the resident’s ability to access his property was appropriate and in line with its aids and adaptations policy. The matter took over a year to resolve from when the landlord stopped works in February 2022, to when it completed the works in May 2023. It is noted that the landlord was instructed to stop works by the resident’s OT in February 2022, which evidently contributed to the delay, and was somewhat out of the landlord’s control. However, it is not disputed that the landlord left the path in an unusable condition for the resident, which was unreasonable. It may have been the case that the OT was seeking to facilitate a move for the resident at that time. But, that the pathway was left in an unusable condition was a failing in its handling of its repair obligations. The resident suffered a detriment of not being able to easily come and go from his property, which he evidently found distressing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 July 2022 did not give an indicative timeframe of when works would start, as it was unable to, but said that it would provide the resident with an update within 10 working days. This was a reasonable approach as the landlord sought to outline its position at the time of issuing a response, and manage the resident’s expectations about its progress.
The resident experienced the inconvenience of needing to chase the landlord for an update on the works, following its email in August 2022. It had said that it had quotes, and then later told the resident its position had changed (that it would wait until the property was vacant to do the works). Given the landlord had changed its position, it was unreasonable that it was not proactive in explaining this to the resident. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not conduct an adequate assessment of the impact leaving the works would have on the resident, which led to him experiencing a significant detriment.
In August and September 2022, the landlord’s communication about the pathway works was unclear and confusing for the resident. In August 2022, the landlord indicated that it had quotes for the works and would be progressing. It then emailed the resident in September 2022 to state it would not be doing the works until he had moved out. This change in position was evidently distressing for the resident, as he had been told it would take “years” to be rehoused, and he was of the view the path was unsafe to use.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The resident explained that it would likely take “years” to be rehoused. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, his disability, and the potential impact of his wellbeing of not being able to freely come and go from his property. That the landlord did not assess his individual circumstances, in line with its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s comments in its email in September 2022, that the pathway was “usable” was inappropriate, and failed to consider the individual circumstances of the resident. In line with its adaptations policy, the landlord had appropriately started works to widen the pathway, which it then stopped. The resident had expressed a concern that he could not use the pathway, due to the need to use his mobility scooter, to then claim it was usable was inappropriate. Particularly considering that it had initially agreed to do works, in order for the resident to be able to access his property more easily.
In line with the need to make reasonable adjustments, outlined in its adaptations policy, the decision not to complete works until after the resident had moved out was a significant failing. Even if the resident’s move was imminent, it still had a repair obligation, and a need to consider the impact the on the resident, as outlined above. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed works, so the resident could easily access his property. That it did not indicates it failed to apply the reasonable adjustment aspect of its adaptations policy. The resident suffered a significant detriment as a result, as he was unable to freely access his property while waiting to move, which he had explained could take years.
It is noted that following the concerns raised by the resident in September 2022, that the landlord changed its position, and had decided it needed to complete works to the pathway. This was appropriate in the circumstances, but had it not unreasonably changed its position in September 2022, the delay in completing works to the pathway may have been reduced.
By November 2022, the landlord had decided that it would complete the works to the pathway, and not wait until he had moved out, which was appropriate. From the evidence available it is unclear why the landlord was unable to give the resident an indicative timeframe on when it would start works. Given the delay up to that point, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been more proactive in giving the resident a timeframe. That it did not was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and a failure to abide by the 28 day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. The resident suffered a further detriment of living in a property that he could not easily access, and not knowing when the landlord planned to complete the necessary works.
Internal communications seen as part of this investigation show that the officer dealing with the resident’s complaint was proactive in trying to get the works to the pathway completed. However, it appears they were not getting responses from the relevant team. The urgency the complaint officer was dealing with the matter was appropriate, but responses were not forthcoming. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, as its poor communication evidently contributed to the delay in getting the works done. It is noted that the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations by providing regular updates between September 2022 and its final response of March 2023.
The resident raised concerns, in February 2023, that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for him. He gave an explanation of the detriment he had suffered and explained that he felt like a “prisoner” in his own home. On receipt of this information, the landlord decided to review its complaint and make a further offer of compensation. This was appropriate, as the landlord sought to revisit its offer in light of the new information it had received.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, and follow up responses, did show that the landlord had genuinely reflected on its handling of the matter, and what learning it had done in terms of its poor communication. However, its final response to the resident stated that, as part of its complaint process, it was not able to offer compensation for personal injury. While this was the correct application of its complaint procedure, that it did not tell the resident how he could make a claim for personal injury through its insurer, was unreasonable. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and an appropriate order has been made below.
The landlord appropriately revised the amount of compensation it offered throughout the complaint, to reflect the length of delays and the detriment the resident had described. The landlord also showed learning about how its internal communication contributed to the delays. However, the landlord did not give any detail on the learning it had taken to prevent similar failings happening again, and its comments that it had reminded the relevant teams of their responsibilities did not show adequate learning. The landlord offered a total of £950 for its handling of the substantive issue. The resident suffered a significant amount of distress and inconvenience, and the delay of over a year was well outside of the 28 day timeframe outlined in its repairs procedure. Further to this, the matter was outstanding at the time of its final offer of compensation. As it had previously done, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to revise its offer of compensation when it had completed the works. That it did not was unreasonable, and failed to take in to consideration the delay and full detriment the resident suffered. Its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £81.98 in rent per week between February 2022 and May 2023. During this period, he had limited ability to come and go from his property as he pleased. The resident had some benefit of living in the property over that period, but for 68 weeks he was reliant on people bringing him shopping, and claimed he felt “neglected” and like a “prisoner” in his property. The resident did not therefore receive an appropriate service for which he was paying rent. Taking this into account the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 30% of the rent covering the period from February 2022 to May 2023. The total amount of rent payable over that period was £5,574.64, so the compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £1,672.39.
The landlord’s handling of the matter was poor, and its internal communication showed a lack of urgency to resolve the issue for the resident. The matter took over a year to resolve, and having decided to complete the works with the resident in situ, it took a further 6 months to complete. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident suffered a significant detriment as a result. The landlord failed to have due regard for the vulnerability of the resident, and the impact the difficulty of access had on his wellbeing. Its comments about the path being usable lacked empathy, and failed to assess the resident’s individual circumstances, in line with its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s pathway.

Repairs to the stairlift

In line with its aids and adaptation policy, the landlord adopted responsibility for repairing and maintaining the resident’s stairlift. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and an appropriate application of its policy.
When the resident first reported that the stairlift was not working in March 2022, the landlord logged the repair as an emergency repair, and attended the same day to fix it. This was appropriate in the circumstances, considering the vulnerability of the resident, and the importance of the stairlift has for him being able to safely move around his property. The landlord appropriately applied its aid and adaptations policy, and logged the repair as an emergency.
From the evidence available it is not possible to establish the accuracy of the resident’s email of 14 September 2022 that claimed the stairlift had been inoperative for “6 months”. The Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s claim. However, there is no evidence the resident reported further concerns to the landlord after it repaired the stairlift in March 2022, until his email of 14 September 2022. That the landlord did not raise a repair to the stairlift until 29 September, was an unreasonable delay. It is noted that once the repair was raised, the landlord treated it as an emergency. But this was 2 weeks after the resident had reported the repair, and was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident suffered a distress and inconvenience of the landlord not attending to the repair within a reasonable timeframe. Considering the importance of the stairlift, and the vulnerability of the resident, this is particularly concerning.
When the resident reported the stairlift had broken again in October 2022, the landlord attended promptly and left the stairlift in working order. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and an appropriate application of its repairs and adaptations policies.
There was a further delay in attending to the stairlift repairs in January 2023. The resident reported the repair on 13 January 2023, and the landlord did not attend to complete the repair until 30 January 2023. This was another unreasonable delay, and the resident suffered further distress and inconvenience as a result. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint response, appropriately, acknowledged and apologised for the delay in attending to the repair in January 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised that it had caused an inconvenience to the resident by calling to complete a repair late at night. The landlord clearly explained the reason it had done so, and its actions were appropriate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord called late at night, and this must have been inconvenient for the resident. That it did supports its own explanation that it was treating the repair with the importance it warranted.
The landlord revisited its offer of compensation, in a follow up response on 3 March 2023. This was due to the resident’s explanation of the impact not having remote controls, had on his ability to use the stairlift. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and is evidence that the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns about the impact the situation had on him.
The landlord’s complaint responses appropriately apologised and offered redress for the fact there had been a delay in responding to the repair in January 2023. Its follow up response also reflected on the impact of the lack of remote controls, which was appropriate. However, it was silent on the delay in September 2022, which was unreasonable, and a failing in its handling of the matter. Neither did the landlord’s complaint responses show what learning it had done about its handling of the matter, and how it could prevent delays occurring in the future. The landlord offered a total of £50 for the delay attending to the repair. Its stage 2 complaint follow up response also offered a combined total of £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience for its handling of the handrail and stairlift issues. It is unclear how this amount was reached for its handling of the 2 separate issues. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can offer up to £400 in compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience when a situation has had a “high impact” on a resident. The landlord’s own assessment of its handling of the stairlift repair accepted it had an “extreme impact” on the resident. It is therefore unclear why it did not offer a higher level of compensation for its handling of the matter. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord logged the repairs to the stairlift as emergency repairs, which was appropriate. There were 2 occasions where it delayed logging the repairs which had a significant impact on the resident’s ability to easily move around his property. On both occasions there was a delay of around 2 weeks, which was an unreasonable amount of time to wait for such a serious repair to raised. As such, relevant order have been made below.

The resident’s request to fit handrails

It is evident that, following the request to install handrails from the resident’s OT, that the landlord was concerned about the cost of the works. From the evidence available, it appears that the landlord wanted to conduct a further visit. This itself was not unreasonable, as the landlord is required to ensure it uses funds appropriately. It is unclear, from the evidence available, what action the landlord took at this time, and no outcome of the proposed visit was recorded. This was a failing in the landlord’s record keeping about its handling of the issue. The landlord put the works on hold, due to a concern about costs, and it appears not to have followed this up, or communicated its decision not to install the handrails the resident. This was a significant failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s repair handbook states that if a resident requires a “minor adaptation” such as handrails, it can make such changes within 28 days. The works did not take place until over 3 years after the resident’s OT first requested them. It is noted that some of the delay could be attributed to the need for the landlord to reduce costs of the work when it was first raised in January 2020. That the landlord failed to follow up on this in 2020, and then again in January 2021 is a significant failing that caused the resident distress, time, trouble and inconvenience. The resident has “very poor” mobility and is evidently vulnerable. The lack of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the matter, given the OT’s comments about his mobility are particularly concerning. That it did not have appropriate regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 is also of concern.
The resident was cost time and trouble in the need for his OT to chase the handrail works up a year later in January 2021. He also suffered the distress of not having necessary aids to help him move around his property. This is further evidence that the landlord failed to have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
Following the concerns raised by the OT, in January 2021, the landlord realised that it had not followed up on the works and sought to book them urgently. It contacted the resident on the same day to book the works, which was appropriate, given the delays up to that point. The resident said that he was having works done to his bathroom and it was agreed the landlord would make contact in a “few weeks” after the works were complete. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and the landlord took a pragmatic approach.
Internal emails from January 2021, show that the landlord sought to learn from the previous outcomes of its handling of the matter. The landlord sought to ensure it was “picking the job back up” so the handrails would be fitted after the other works were completed. This was reasonable and evidence that the landlord sought not to make the same mistake again. However, it is evident that the handrails were, again, not followed up on. Which was a further failing. The outcome of the job, raised to install the handrails in January 2021, is not present within the evidence available, and is a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping, and internal communications.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response admitted a failing that it had not followed up on the works, when they had been raised again in 2021. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or address the fact that the handrails were originally ordered in January 2020. The tone of its stage 1 complaint response was cursory and did not reflect, in any detail, its handling of the matter up to that point. That it did not address the individual circumstances of the resident, and the impact a lack of handrails had on him, was unreasonable. The resident’s OT described him as having “very poor mobility”, the lack of consideration of this fact in its complaint response is concerning, given the evident vulnerability of the resident. This was a further missed opportunity to carry out a proper assessment of the resident’s circumstances, in line with its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appeared to suggest that it had not received further correspondence about this issue until February 2023. This was inaccurate, as the resident had raised a concern about the handrails in August 2022. It is noted that the resident was not contacting the landlord regularly about the matter, however its comments were inappropriate. The landlord had failed to follow up on something it had agreed it would do, and to suggest that it had received no further contact about the matter was unreasonable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in following up on works it said it would do. The resident’s silence on the matter was not an indication it was resolved.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not give the resident an indicative timeframe on when it planned to install the handrails. Given it had accepted a failing, due to the delays the resident had experienced to that point, its comment that the relevant team would be in touch was unreasonable. The open ended approach in its stage 1 complaint response indicates that the landlord had not learnt from the outcomes of its handling of the matter to that point. This conclusion is further supported by the fact it took a further 4 months for the handrails to be installed. It is however, noted that the resident cancelled the appointment booked for 11 April 2023. There was a further delay, as the landlord did not complete the works on 18 May 2023, as it had agreed, which was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
An internal email from 15 February 2023, as part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation, shows that it was aware the handrails were originally ordered in January 2020. Its stage 2 complaint response was silent on this fact and, as with the stage 1 response, suggested the matter had only been outstanding since January 2021. This was unreasonable and is concerning that the landlord did not address the matter dating back to 2020 in its complaint response. This approach lacked transparency, as the landlord did not seek to address the concerns raised by the resident in full. His email of August 2022 indicated the matter had been outstanding for 2 years, that it did not address this was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident’s comments in February 2023 indicate that the landlord installed the external handrails “during lockdown”, but the landlord did not to enter his property to install the internal handrails. From the landlord’s records, it is not possible to determine when the handrails were installed “during lockdown”, which is further evidence of the landlord’s poor record keeping in its handling of the matter.
The first Covid-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs as long as they were carried out in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections, if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021. Therefore, the comments made by the landlord regarding Covid-19 restrictions were inappropriate, given the importance the works had on the resident’s ability to use his property more easily.
It is evident that the landlord did not complete the handrail works within the timeframe set out in its stage 2 complaint response. This was, in part, because the resident cancelled the appointment for April 2023. However, it is unclear why the works did not go ahead as planned, on 18 May 2023. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord communicated with the resident about the delay. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident experienced the distress of further delay in completing the works to help him move around his home more easily. That the landlord was not proactive in explaining the further delay to the resident, in order to manage his expectations, was a further failing.
The landlord offered a total of £50 for the delay in installing handrails at the resident’s property. Its stage 2 complaint follow up response also offered a combined total of £300 for time, trouble and inconvenience for its handling of the handrail and stairlift issues. It is unclear how this amount was reached for its handling of the 2 separate issues. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can offer up to £400 in compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience when a situation has had a “high impact” on a resident. Given that this particular matter was outstanding for over 3 years, it is unclear why the landlord did not offer a higher level of compensation for the detriment experienced by the resident.
Further to this, the landlord’s complaint responses did not offer any meaningful reflection on its handling of the matter, lacked empathy and were inaccurate. It is of particular concern that the landlord was aware the issue dated back to 2020, but did not reflect this in its stage 2 complaint response. As such the compensation it offered for its handling of the matter did not fully put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £81.98 in rent per week between January 2020 and June 2023. During this period, he experienced difficulty in using his bedroom and bathroom easily, and told this Service he felt “humiliated” at not being able to easily move around his property. The resident had some benefit of living in the property over that period, but for 178 weeks the matter was outstanding. The resident did not therefore receive an appropriate service for which he was paying rent. It is noted that part of this delay was outside of the landlord’s control, as the resident cancelled the repair appointment for 11 April 2022. Taking this loss of amenity into account the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 10% of the rent covering the period from January 2020 to April 2023 (when the resident cancelled the appointment). The total amount of rent payable over that period was £13,854.62, so the compensation ordered for loss of amenity in relation to the handrails is £1,385.46.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint about the pathway

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint 9 working days after he made it. This was 4 days outside the timeframe stipulated in its complaint procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is noted that this was not a lengthy delay, but was nevertheless a shortcoming in its complaint handling, which inconvenienced the resident.
The resident received a stage 1 complaint response 18 working days after he made it, which was 8 days outside of the timeframe stipulated in its procedure and the Code. Again, not a lengthy delay, but this was a further inconvenience to the resident, and a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. That the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise to the resident for the delay as part of its stage 1 response was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not show any learning, and did not adequately assess its actions up to that point, which was unreasonable. The lack of detail and genuine reflection in the stage 1 response was not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. The complaint response detailed the actions it had taken, but gave no assessment of its handling of the substantive issue up to that point. This was inappropriate, and a failing in its complaint handling, and created an unfair complaints process for the resident. He had complained about the landlord’s handling of the pathway issue, that it did not show any learning or reflections on its handling of the matter was poor complaint handling. The result was an inconvenience to the resident of not receiving a transparent and reflective complaint response from the landlord.
The landlord, unreasonably, created a protracted complaints process for the resident. On receipt of the stage 1 complaint response, the resident told the landlord that he was “dissatisfied”. That it did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2, at that time, was unreasonable. The Code states that if the “complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it must be progressed to stage 2”. It is unclear why the landlord did not progress the complaint to stage 2 when the resident had expressed his dissatisfaction with its response. That it did not was a further failing in its complaint handling, which created a protracted process for the resident.
It is noted that during this time, the landlord was proactive in providing the resident with updates about its progress with the substantive issue. The correspondence, seen as part of this investigation, always included an explanation that he could have the complaint considered at stage 2, if the resident wanted to. The resident would often respond to the emails, expressing continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the matter. But, the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2, until he explicitly asked it to, in December 2022. That it did not escalate his complaint sooner, was unreasonable and a further failing in its complaint handling. The resident’s own comments about the length of the process demonstrate that the landlord, unreasonably, created a protracted process. The resident queried why it had taken “months” to get to stage 2, which supports the view that the resident felt his complaint should have been escalated sooner.
Following the resident’s explicit request to have his complaint considered at stage 2, the landlord did not acknowledge his request for a further 10 working days. While not in itself a lengthy delay, it was a further shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling, in what had already been a protracted complaints process for the resident. It is noted that when the landlord was unable to provide its stage 2 complaint response, within the timeframe in its procedure, it asked the resident for an extension. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and an appropriate application of the Code, and sought to manage the resident’s expectations.
Unlike the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, its stage 2 complaint response was genuinely reflective about the resident’s experiences, and apologetic about the service he had received. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and sought to put right the shortcomings in its stage 1 response. The decision not to offer compensation, at the time of the response, was reasonable, and the reasons explained to the resident. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances as the landlord wanted to have a clearer picture of when the matter would be resolved, so it could offer an appropriate amount of compensation. This is evidence that the landlord sought to consider the individual circumstances of the resident, and his experiences, to try and put things fully right for him.
As outlined earlier in this report, it is evident that the officer dealing with the complaint was proactive in trying to coordinate the works needed. This was appropriate and is evidence that the resident’s concerns were taken seriously. However, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the delays in escalating the resident’s complaint to a more senior level, contributed to the delays in the handling of the substantive issue. Had the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 at an earlier stage, this may have reduced the amount of time the resident waited to get the appropriate works progressed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint process was also protracted, as it effectively issued 3 stage 2 responses. While it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to put things right and revise its offer of compensation. The landlord issued 2 letters stating that it was its final position on the matter, only to issue a 3rd and final response later. The resident’s frustration at the length of the process is evident from his email of March 2023 asking why it had taken so long to get to stage 2. This approach increased the detriment suffered by the resident by making what was already a protracted process, even longer.
The landlord’s stage 2, and follow up responses, were apologetic, and the tone was appropriate. It acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable and offered redress for its handling of the complaint at stage 1. However, it did not acknowledge that it would have been reasonable to escalate the resident’s complaint sooner, and there was a lack of learning shown about its complaint handling process. As such, the offer of £175 of compensation it made for its handling of the complaint about the pathway, did not fully put things right for the resident, and a series of appropriate orders have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint about the handrail and stairlift

The landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns about installing handrails and stairlift as one complaint. For clarity, the above summary dealt with these substantive issues separately. However, both issues were dealt with under the same complaint, therefore the assessment of handling of the complaint has not been separated.
The resident emailed the landlord in August 2022 and said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the handrail issue. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that stage was inappropriate. The Code states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction however made”, it is therefore unclear why the landlord did not consider the resident’s email of August 2022 as a complaint. This was a further failing in its complaint handling, as it did not apply the complaint handling principles set out in the Code. It is noted that the landlord did later apply these principles when the resident left a review on its website in January 2023, citing his concerns repair issues, and opened a complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 10 February 2023, admitted failings in both its handling of the handrail and stairlift issues. It appropriately apologised and offered the resident compensation. However, it failed to reflect on what it had learnt about its handling of the issues, which was unreasonable. Its stage 1 complaint response was not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
As outlined above, in relation to the handrail issues, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not transparent. Internal emails sent as part of its investigation indicate that it was aware the matter had been ongoing since 2020. But, the complaint response only references the matter having been ongoing since 2021, this was inappropriate and a further complaint handling failing. The Code states that a complaint investigation “must consider all information and evidence carefully”. That the landlord failed to reflect, apologise or even acknowledge the matter had been outstanding since January 2020, was inappropriate and a failure to abide by the Code.
The landlord offered the resident £150 for its handling of the complaint at stage 1. However, it failed to show what learning it had done, or offer an assessment of why it felt there were failings at stage 1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked transparency about its understanding of events and failed to show what it had learnt about its handling of the substantive issues. As such, the £150 it offered for its complaint handling in this complaint, failed to fully put things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s pathway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s stairlift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to fit handrails.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was a lack of urgency to remedy the pathway issue for the resident, which took over a year to resolve. Having decided to complete the works in November 2022 it took a further 6 months to resolve, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident suffered a significant detriment as a result, and the landlord failed to have due regard for his vulnerability. Its comments about the path being “usable” lacked empathy, and failed to consider the individual circumstances of the resident.
The works to fit handrails did not take place until over 3 years after the resident’s OT first requested them. The landlord did not follow up on the works when first raised in 2020, when raised again in 2021, and was not proactive in resolving the issue for the resident. The resident was cost a significant amount of time and trouble in chasing the landlord to do the works. The landlord’s complaint responses lacked empathy and did not consider the overall impact on the resident, considering his particular vulnerability. The landlord failed to show appropriate learning about its handling of the matter, leading to an inappropriate response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord logged the repairs to the stairlift as emergency repairs, which was appropriate. There were 2 occasions where it delayed logging the repairs. On both occasions there was a delay of around 2 weeks, which was an unreasonable amount of time to wait for such a serious repair. The impact of the delays is increased due to the vulnerability of the resident, and how it affected his ability to easily move around his property.
There were delays in escalating the resident’s complaint about the pathway issue, which led to a protracted process for the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses about the handrail and stairlift lacked transparency, failed to show adequate learning and despite acknowledging a high level of detriment, did not offer appropriate redress.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £6,532.85 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £950 it offered for its handling of the repairs to the pathway (if it has not already done so)
  2. An additional £1,672.39 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the delay in completing repairs to the pathway
  3. An additional £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the pathway
  4. The £50 it offered for the delays its handling of the handrail works (if it has not already done so)
  5. An additional £1,385.46 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the handrail works
  6. The £300 it offered for time trouble and inconvenience for its handling of the handrail and stairlift issues (if it has not already done so)
  7. An additional £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of handrail works
  8. The £50 it offered for the delays in completing the stairlift repair (if it has not already done so)
  9. An additional £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the stairlift repair
  10. The £325 it offered for its handling of the resident’s complaints (if it has not already done so)
  11. A further £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the repairs to the pathway and stairlift including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks. The review should give particular consideration to:
  1. Its poor internal communication
  2. Its record keeping, in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management
  3. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident
  4. How its failure to follow up on works, and how its poor record keeping contributed to the delays
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in understanding the following:
  1. Understanding the impact on a resident when responding to a complaint
  2. The importance of a transparent and meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes
  1. The dates and content of the training should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord conducts training with its staff to enable them to understand its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. The training should cover meeting the needs of individual residents when providing a service to them.