Sandbourne Housing Association (202004362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004362

Sandbourne Housing Association

30 June 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:
1. Response to the Covid pandemic.
2. Presence of staff onsite during the pandemic.
3. Handling of the resident’s transfer application.
4. Handling of the video taken of the resident.
5. Handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The accommodation is for people aged over 60 years old but is not an extra care housing scheme. The landlord states the resident lives in a one bedroom flat located on the third floor although the tenancy states the flat is located on the second floor. The tenancy began on 27 Jun 2016.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
Section 1.3 of the tenancy agreement states the landlord will provide an emergency call system and this is paid for by residents as part of the rent service charge.
Section 2.6 of the tenancy agreement states the landlord is to take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish shute and any other common part in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the property.
Section 4.1 (c) of the landlord lettings and transfer policy states eligibility to be placed on any particular waiting list may be restricted where specific eligibility criteria exist for example, properties to be let to those with qualifying local connections.
Section 8.1 of the landlord’s lettings and transfer policy states the banding used for housing transfer applications. Residents will be placed into one of three bands – Urgent, Priority or General.
The landlord has a three stage complaints process. Stage one will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two will be considered by a senior manager and will be responded to within ten working days. Stage three is a complaints panel. A request for a complaint to be escalated to stage three must be made by the resident within 28 days of the stage two response.
Section 5.2.4 of the landlord’s complaints policy states a request to be escalated to stage three of the complaint procedure will be refused where the resident:
1. has not provided new evidence to support the request.
2. the points raised have already been considered at stage two .
3. the points raised would not lead to a change in the outcome of the stage two findings.
Section 3.4 of the landlord’s complaints policy states “We might deal with a complaint differently if there are exceptional circumstances. It may be decided to omit stages of the complaints procedure, for example if a complaint is considered to be vexatious, pursued unreasonably, or is about a factual matter over which we have no discretion for management reasons. The Chief Executive or a Board member, who is not personally involved in the complaint, will make the decision to deviate from the standard procedure. The reasons for doing so will be fully documented and explained to the complainant”.

Summary of Events

On 6 November 2017 the landlord received a completed application form for a transfer request from the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2017 to confirm that the resident had been registered on its transfer list with a registration date of 6 November 2017.
In 2018 the landlord issued a newsletter to its residents. In this newsletter the landlord stated it no longer received any funding to provide care or support services to assist residents in maintaining independence in their homes. If any residents considered that their home was no longer suitable for their needs, it could assist in seeking help to obtain disabled aids and adaptations. It also stated it may be able to assist in offering a transfer to an alternative home.
On 30 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to state it was carrying out a review of its waiting lists and asked the resident if he still wanted to remain on the transfer list. The resident responded on 4 February 2020 to confirm he wanted to remain on the transfer list.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord issued a letter regarding the Covid 19 virus to its residents informing them that contractors were continuing to work on site as normal but if the Covid virus spread as predicted it may become difficult for it to do so. The letter provided the current government advice and what to do if a resident felt unwell. The letter also informed the residents that the landlord was looking at an action plan to:
1. Prioritise emergency repairs.
2. Identify residents who may be particularly vulnerable.
3. Provide paper towels and pedal bins in communal lounges and kitchens in 60+ developments.
4. Temporarily increase cleaning of communal areas in flat blocks.
5. Scale back non-essential visits and inspections to limit the risk of potential spread of infection.
6. Suspend use of communal lounges and guest rooms.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord contacted its cleaning provider and asked for cleaning of communal areas to be increased. The next day the landlord wrote to its cleaning provider asking for assistance in obtaining hand sanitisers so these could be provided in the communal areas.
On 23 March 2020, the landlord wrote to all residents informing them it was scaling back on non-essential visits by staff and contractors and increasing the use of telephone and email communications. It also confirmed the registered office had been closed and its staff would be working from home.
On 24 March 2020, the landlord posted messages on tv screens in the communal areas stating:
1. To follow Government guidelines, its registered office was closed.
2. How residents could make contact for repairs or if they needed extra help or advice.
3. The cleaning of communal areas was suspended as cleaners were not on the Governments list of key workers.
4. The communal laundry room remained open.
5. Lounges and communal toilets were closed.
6. Guest rooms were closed except where the landlord had given permission.
7. Requested residents inform it if they are self-isolating.
8. To follow Government guidelines on social distancing.
On 6 April 2020 the landlord provided an update to residents to say as its usual cleaning company was not available due to the covid restrictions it had found an alternative provider that specialised in disinfection of residential properties and would be on site on 8 and 9 April 2021. The focus of the cleaning would be on laundries, lift and lift control panels, door entry panels in communal areas, door handles in common area and banisters and handrails.
On 8 April 2020 the landlord provided an update to residents on its actions during the pandemic including how it would handle repairs, its cleaning arrangements and how it could be contacted.
On 5 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated he had not heard anything from the landlord regarding his transfer and had not seen any members of the landlord’s staff for three months.
On 2 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it had been informed the resident was cutting back hedges and the cuttings were being disposed of in the general waste bins. It asked the resident not to do this.
On 10 September 2020 the landlord received a response from the resident. He asked for the officer who wrote the letter not to respond to him and said that she had not been on site for six months.
On 18 September 2020 the landlord responded to the resident and informed him that residents were not able to pick which members of staff could communicate with them. It also confirmed the staff available on site was due to its covid response which residents had been regularly updated by letter.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2020. In the letter the resident complained about a variety of issues and included the frequency of the landlord’s staff on site, his application for a housing transfer stating that the landlord had two housing lists and being require to pay rent on two properties if wanting to exchange. The resident stated to the landlord that he disagreed with the “stay away as we don’t want to catch it” approach and that it had been six months since he had seen the staff member on site and that was unacceptable.
On 5 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident and addressed the issues the resident had raised. Included in the response was
1. Site visits were reduced due to government Covid 19 guidelines but regular checks continued for safety checks.
2. It was common for residents who transfer to pay rent on both properties during a notice period due to the landlord not being able to relet the property during that time.
3. It was not the case that there was two waiting lists.
The landlord in its response to the resident on 5 October 2020 stated it was addressing the resident’s specific complaints however the response makes no reference to it being a formal response under its complaints policy or offered the resident any escalation rights at the end of the letter.
On 9 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating a member of its staff filmed him through a window in his flat. The resident stated he was in his underwear.
The landlord responded to the resident on 19 October 2020 and said it had reviewed the video. It concluded the video was not taken to take images of the resident but to record the verbal exchange between the resident and its staff member.
On 8 January 2021 the member of the landlord’s staff who took the video of the resident informed his manager that he had been called stupid by the resident during a site visit.
On 14 January 2021 the resident was issued with a tenancy breach letter for anti-social behaviour by the landlord’s solicitors. It stated the resident had continued to cause nuisance and act in an anti-social manor to a member of the landlord’s staff. The resident was instructed not to contact the staff member until at least 30 April 2021.
On 18 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated:
1. He had been on the transfer list since 6 November 2017 and was still waiting for a property.
2. He was shown one property during that time and was asked to pay two lots of rent which he stated was illegal.
3. Residents felt abandoned during the covid pandemic and there was no gel or spray provided by the landlord for a year and a half.
4. Several people caught Covid 19 and the landlord did not do anything.
5. He had not seen some staff members for over a year.
6. CCTV had been installed in a tree and on a wall.
7. An officer took photos of him in his pants.
8. The landlord was biased in its conduct towards residents.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated it considered the letter sent by the resident on 18 June 2021 to constitute a formal complaint under its complaint process. The letter said the complaint needed to be treated at stage two under the terms of its Complaints and Compliments policy. In the response the landlord said it would provide a copy of its complaints policy and stated:
1. Its staff were not on site during the initial stages of the Covid pandemic during March and April 2020 but since then staff were attending on a weekly or regular basis.
2. In its handling of the Covid 19 pandemic:
  1. None of the properties on the resident’s site were classified as extra care and all residents were deemed capable of managing without formal support. A decision was made during the first lockdown not to provide hand sanitiser in the communal corridors as they were thoroughfares and not stopping points. Staff were also not on site to ensure any sanitiser containers would have been topped up.
  2. Staff followed the Government guidance about staying at home but were attending the site more regularly.
  3. Appropriate signage was provided in all communal areas to observe government guidelines on wearing face masks.
  4. Residents were regularly reminded of how they could contact the landlord while staff were not on site.
  5. The landlord asked all residents to inform it if they were shielding, self-isolating or had contracted Covid so it could maintain a register for safety purposes and provide support where appropriate.
3. The resident had put in an application for a transfer in November 2017 but the landlord was not aware that the resident had a priority need to move and its policy states it will only prioritise transfers where there is a priority need such as a medical condition that would be improved by providing alternative accommodation. It asked if the resident felt they had a priority need to move to provide that information so his application could be updated.
4. The rent on two properties was due to when accepting a property, a resident would need to give notice on the existing property so it is likely the two periods would overlap and the resident would need to pay rent on both properties.
5. The resident had not provided reasons why he was unhappy with the CCTV being installed or gave any examples of the allegations of bias.
The resident responded to the landlord on 27 June 2021 and stated a copy of the complaints policy had not been sent to him in the landlord’s stage two response, that the landlord had missed many points and that he would like to escalate the complaint to stage three. The resident stated:
1. He and his solicitor was waiting for a reply from the landlord regarding his complaint about a staff member.
2. The landlord could not be bothered to put hand gel on site.
3. People were wandering around the corridors while staff hid in their office.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident. It apologised for not sending a copy of the complaints policy to the resident in the stage two response and provided a copy to the resident. In the response the landlord stated under sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of its complaint policy it would not escalate the complaint to stage three as the resident had not provided any new evidence to support the request, the points raised were already considered at stage two and the points raised would not lead to a change in the outcomes of the findings at stage two.

Post Complaint

The resident contacted this service on 14 October 2021 and stated:
1. Since he complained about his landlord last year he was being persecuted by the landlord concerning his transfer applications.
2. The residents had no hand sanitiser for a year and a half in any building and people had died of covid but the staff had sanitiser in their offices.
3. A member of the landlord’s staff was taking pictures of him in his underwear through his bedroom window and the landlord refused to get rid of the staff member.
4. The landlord had installed CCTV without telling anyone or providing signage.
5. There was no viewable list for people who were applying for rental properties.
6. Refused to process his complaint.
The resident sent a complaint form that was received by the landlord on 26 November 2021. The complaint stated the landlord had been taking covid recordings of the resident in his underwear and he would like a copy of the recording for his solicitor and wanted to know how many people had viewed the footage. The resident stated it had been taken on a mobile phone and not on CCTV and did not comply with the data protection act. The resident requested a meeting with witnesses present.
The landlord responded on 2 December 2021 and stated it was happy to provide the resident a copy of the recording and asked the resident if he would prefer the copy to be sent on a USB stick or by email.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December and requested the copy of the recording be sent by email.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 December 2021. the landlord stated the video file the resident requested was too large to send by email and as an alternative it offered to upload the video to a dedicated file sharing website.
The resident responded on 11 March 2022. The resident stated:
1. He had not received a copy of the video recording he requested.
2. Had been waiting five years for a transfer and was being stopped by the landlord due to the complaint logged with this Service.
The landlord responded on 16 March 2022 and stated it had responded to the resident’s points in its letter dated 16 December 2021.
The resident responded on 22 March 2022 and said he took it that the landlord would not be sending a copy of the recording and that the cover up continued. The landlord responded the same day and stated it enclosed a copy of the letter from 16 December 2021 confirming its willingness to share a copy of the recording.
The resident was provided a copy of the recording on a USB stick on 5 May 2022 by the Chief Executive during a site visit.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in July 2021 the resident reported additional issues to the landlord. These included that the resident did not have a local connection to a particular town in September 2021, the landlord had not held a residents meeting for a long time and application for board membership. The landlord has issued a response to this complaint to the resident on 27 October 2021.
There is no evidence therefore of these matters having exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process, and as such will not be assessed further in this report. This is because this Service will not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and this Service is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

The landlord’s response to the Covid pandemic.

In March 2020 the first lockdown regulations came into effect due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Government restrictions remained in place until July 2021. During the covid pandemic the Government issued guidance about how landlord’s should deliver its services during the pandemic.
The landlord has provided its risk assessment of the Covid 19 pandemic and has demonstrated the steps it took to handle the Covid 19 pandemic and keep its resident safe. The risk assessment was first produced on 11 March 2020 and updated as the pandemic developed. The landlord created a four-phase action plan for how it would handle the pandemic. Phase one focused on being prepared for the pandemic, phase two focused on communicating with residents, phase three focused on controlling the spread of the infection and phase four focused on staff being deployed to maintain critical business services and resources. The landlord took the appropriate steps to ensure it was prepared for the pandemic and had plans and procedures in place.
Following the landlord’s decision to increase cleaning of communal areas at its properties it contacted its cleaning contractor on 17 March 2020 to adjust its cleaning regime to focus on hard surfaces and the contractor confirmed it could be done. However on 24 March 2020 the landlord was informed by its cleaning contractor its employees were not on the government list of key workers and had to temporarily suspend all commercial activities. The landlord did not have any control over this decision.
The landlord in response to this sourced an alternative cleaning provider who was appointed on 6 April 2020 to conduct cleaning of the communal areas. The site of the resident’s property was visited and cleaned on 8 April 2020. The landlord reverted back to its original cleaning provider once restrictions allowed in June 2020. Residents were kept informed by the landlord by letter on a regular basis.
Evidence provided by the landlord show the areas cleaned were handrails in communal hallways, lift and lift controls, fire doors and handles, all switches in communal areas and door handles, switches dryers, and washing machines in the laundry rooms. This cleaning was carried out on 1 May 2020, 6 May 2020, 15 May 2020, 21 May 2020 and 29 May 2020.
The landlord increased the frequency of cleaning to all older persons sites in January 2021 following the increase in infections across the UK and although it incurred additional costs for doing so it did not pass these costs onto the residents through its service charges. Residents were notified by signage and TV screens in the communal areas. The measures taken by the landlord since the pandemic began, regarding the communal areas were cleaned was appropriate.
The landlord has stated it did consider the use of hand sanitisers at its sites. Records provided by the landlord do show it tried to source hand sanitisers and encountered difficulty in doing so due to availability versus demand at that time. The landlord said that as there was no contractual requirement in the tenancy agreement other than to ensure communal areas were cleaned it had no legal requirement to provide hand sanitisers in communal areas. The landlord did provide hand gel to the laundry room.
Government guidance did not place a requirement on landlord’s to provide communal areas with hand sanitiser. Although providing hand sanitiser would have provided an extra precaution against covid infections, the landlord was under no obligation to do so and given the steps it had taken in closing communal rooms and increased cleaning in areas that remained open the landlord provided an acceptable level of support to its residents.
Given that the pandemic was an unforeseen event the landlord was required to make changes to its provision of service very quickly and with restrictions in place. Although hand sanitisers were not provided by the landlord, the landlord did do all that could be reasonably expected to do in ensuring the safety of its residents with the cleaning provided, closure of communal areas and information provided to its residents.

The landlord’s presence of staff on site

The resident complained about the lack of staff on site during the pandemic. The landlord has said this was due to not having a tenancy requirement for staff to be onsite and scaling back visits made to the site while following Government guidance.
The tenancy agreement does not state that there is a requirement for the landlord’s staff to be on site at the accommodation for a specified period of time. The landlord as part of its service charge provides an emergency call system and has stated this was working throughout the Covid 19 pandemic and this has not been disputed by the resident. The landlord has also provided a copy of issue 16 of its newsletter, from winter 2017. This newsletter informs residents the landlord no longer received funding to provide care or support services. At the time of issue it offered support to residents who felt they would need to move due to the changes.
During the period between March 2020 and May 2020 the landlord has stated its staff was not on site to comply with government restrictions. It has evidenced how it communicated this to the resident in the form of notices posted in communal areas and messages displayed on TV systems on site. These messages informed the residents about the closure of communal areas, how the landlord could be contacted for repairs or general enquiries and the need for social distancing. Following the initial letter issued to residents on 13 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the residents an additional four times between March 2020 and May 2020 to keep its residents informed of its handling of the pandemic and how residents could be supported while its staff were not able to be on site.
The lockdowns initiated due to the pandemic caused anxiety amongst many people and may have created a feeling of isolation amongst residents. As the landlord was not required to have staff on site there was no failure in its staff not being on site during the lockdowns initiated by the pandemic or the frequency of its staff presence following the lifting on the lockdown restrictions. It is important though for the landlord to ensure its residents are able to make contact with their housing officer should the need arise and ensure the methods of contact are clearly communicated to its residents.

The landlord’s handling of the video taken of the resident.

When considering the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to the incident and determine whether it complied with its obligations under its policies and procedure.
The landlord has stated how it took steps to view the video provided by the member of staff and considered the content of the video and the context in which it was taken. After being informed by the resident of the video being taken the landlord responded to the resident ten days later confirming it had reviewed the video and spoken to the member of staff concerned. The landlord concluded the video had been taken to record a verbal exchange between the resident and the staff member. These findings were communicated to the resident by letter.
It is acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation. Given that the resident had not yet been able to view the video, the letter did not give the resident any opportunity to view it or invite the resident to discuss it to try and resolve the concerns raised. Had the landlord done so it may have helped in the resident and landlord understanding each other’s perspectives on the incident.
In his complaint the resident made an allegation about the member of staff who had taken the video and that he had been filmed in his underwear. In the complaint response the landlord addressed the allegations made about the staff member but failed to issue a response about the video being taken. The landlord instead referred to the letter it had issued in October 2020 rather than address the complaint point raised and issuing a complaint response.
In the evidence provided to this service it is clear that after the complaint procedure the resident had asked repeatably for a copy of the video to be sent to him. The landlord did make some attempts to provide a copy via email which was unsuccessful due to the video file size and through a file transfer site. It is not clear why the file site option was not successful. An offer to provide the video via a USB stick was first made in December 2021 when the resident was given the choice of USB stick or email. When the email option was not successful the USB option does not appear to have been reoffered until the resident was eventually given a copy via a USB stick in May 2022 in person. This was 18 months after the video was taken and too long for the resident to wait for a copy to be issued to him. There was no explanation given as to why a copy could not have been given to the resident via USB any earlier.
With regards to if the video should have been taken, the landlord’s professional conduct and boundaries policy does not address a situation where a video recording is being taken of a resident by a staff member. There is no evidence provided to show the resident’s consent to be filmed was given. If the landlord is allowing its staff to take video evidence of any contact with residents the landlord should ensure its policies and procedures are updated to reflect this, taking into account any requirements under the Data Protection Act.

The landlord’s handling of the residents transfer application.

The landlord as per section 8.1 of its lettings and transfer policy places an applicant who is looking to move into one of three transfer bands. These consist of “Urgent”, “Priority” and General”. Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of the lettings and transfer policy sets out the criteria required to be placed in either of the “Urgent” or “Priority” bands. The resident in this case is placed in the general band. The landlord states it reviews all applications on waiting list periodically and normally annually. The resident is entitled to request an appeal of his banding if he feels the incorrect banding has been applied or if his circumstances have changed since the original banding decision was made.
The resident has complained about the length of time he has been waiting for a transfer. The landlord’s housing lists are based on an eligibility criteria to which an appropriate housing needs band is awarded to each applicant. Once the band is awarded the length of time in that band will dictate the order in which an offer of accommodation is made. This method of allocation of housing is used widely across the social housing sector.
The landlord has stated that as new applicants apply to the transfer list the possibility exists that they could be placed in one of the urgent or priority bands. This would place them in a higher position for a property than those in the general band. Section 9.4 of the landlord’s Lettings and Transfer policy states the order of preference for accommodation will be:
1. Transfer applicants
2. Applicants who have been registered longest in:
  1. Urgent band
  2. Priority band
  3. General band
Based on the criteria of allocations in the landlord’s lettings and transfer policy it is therefore possible a new applicant could be offered a transfer sooner than the resident if the landlord has assessed they have a higher need for housing.
The landlord will allocate properties as they become available. The landlord will have no control over the amount of properties or frequency that properties become available as this will be based on households in those properties moving on.
It is understandable the resident would be frustrated at having been waiting for six years for a transfer to another property. There is however no failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be transferred as it has assessed the resident’s housing need, placed him on the transfer list and will allocate based on the terms of its lettings policy once a property becomes available.
The resident stated he was told when offered a property previously that he would have to pay rent on two properties for a period of time. The landlord has confirmed this in its complaint response to the resident stating this is due to having to give notice on the existing property which is usually four weeks and this would potentially overlap with the start date of a new tenancy.
Section 6.1(j) of the lettings and transfer policy does state that if offered a transfer to a property transfer applicants will be responsible for meeting their own costs associated with their move which are likely to include a joint rent and service charge/support charge liability until their existing tenancy ends. The landlord also stated this in its letter to the resident on 13 November 2017 when confirming the resident’s acceptance to the transfer list.
The policy makes it clear that the resident may have to pay rent on both properties for a period of time however the landlord should consider if this is in the best interests of its resident’s given the landlord owns both properties and therefore could be flexible in the notice required or start dates of new tenancies to avoid any unnecessary additional costs to its residents.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord dated 18 June 2021 which the landlord states it received on 21 June 2021. The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 25 June 2021 and stated the complaint was being responded to at stage two of its complaint process. There has not been any evidence of a stage one response being issued by the landlord in relation to the complaint points being considered in this investigation.
Section 3.4 of the landlord’s complaint policy does allow for the landlord to make the decision to respond at stage two. However, the policy is clear that it would be under exceptional circumstances and the reasons for deviating from the standard procedure would be fully documented and explained to the complainant. The landlord in its stage two response to the resident did not offer any explanation or reasons for its decision to respond to the complaint at stage two.
The landlord refused to move the resident’s complaint to stage three of its complaints process citing 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of its complaints policy. Having reviewed the contents of the resident’s escalation request and the landlord’s complaint policy the landlord was fair in its determination. There was no further evidence provided in the escalation request by the resident and therefore the landlord would not have any further evidence to consider. The previous points made by the resident had already been considered and determined by the landlord at the stage two stage of its complaint process.
The landlord’s decision to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two and not stage one however meant that once the refusal to escalate the complaint to stage three was made the resident did not have the opportunity to have his complaint reviewed by another member of the landlord’s staff before reaching this Service.
When the resident complained about the video being taken of him the landlord’s response was to focus on the accusation against its staff member of being a ‘deviant’. The landlord did not address the resident’s point of the video being taken. Although evidence provided to this service shows the landlord has responded separately to the resident in October 2020 when the video was initially taken, it did not form part of the landlord’s stage two response to show it was considered as part of the complaint points raised by the resident.
The resident in his complaint raised the issue of CCTV being used by the landlord and the landlord being biased in its treatment of the resident. The landlord responded in the stage two response asking for more information as it stated the resident did not provide any further information in his complaint.
The purpose of a complaint is for the landlord to investigate the issues raised by the resident and provide a response and if required, redress to those issues. The landlord did not do that for the issues raised regarding CCTV and biases while it investigated the complaint and before it issued the complaint response. Instead in the stage two response it asked for the resident to provide more information leaving those elements of the complaint unresolved.
This Service’s complaint handling code states ‘Landlord’s shall provide early advice to resident’s regarding their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service, not only at the point they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman Service can provide advice and guidance to residents about pursuing a complaint with their landlord.
The complaint response issued at stage two by the landlord made reference to stage three of its process however it did not inform the resident of his rights to contact this Service. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy does not mention this Service until section 5.5 of the complaints policy and this is after stating a complaint is not upheld after review.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the pandemic.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the presence of the landlord’s staff on site during the Covid pandemic.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the video taken of the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded quickly to the government restrictions put in place due to the Covid 19 pandemic. It closed communal areas, increased cleaning and kept resident’s informed via signage, tv screens and letters. Although hand sanitiser was not provided in communal areas, the landlord was under no obligation to do so.
The accommodation block is not an extra care facility and does not required staff to be on site. The landlord’s staff worked from home when required to do so and returned to the site as required by the landlord when restrictions were lifted.
The resident was assessed under the landlord’s transfer policy and allocated the appropriate housing band. Once the resident was assessed the landlord cannot control the length of time a resident is waiting as it operates a housing need combined with length of time of the list allocation policy.
The resident was not invited to discuss or view the video. The copy of the video was not issued to the resident until 18 months after the video had been taken despite multiple requests from the resident. The landlord could have done more to provide this to the resident at an earlier stage and reduce the time and trouble taken for the resident to request it.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage one and did not provide reasoning for answering the complaint only at stage two. The landlord failed to investigate all the points raised in the resident’s complaints before issuing the response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord apologise to the resident for its handling of the video taken and handling of the complaint. It should pay the resident £350 consisting of:
1. £100 for its handling of the video of the resident.
2. £250 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews is staff conduct and behaviour policy to include reference to circumstances where video recordings are taken by members of its staff and how this will be handled, taking into account any requirements under the Data Protection Act.
The landlord reviews is complaint process to ensure complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and all decisions are communicated to residents clearly.