The Guinness Partnership Limited (202216904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216904

Guinness Housing Association Limited

9 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 response to:

The resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation;
Concerns the resident raised about the housing scheme’s letting criteria;
The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

This report will also look at the landlord’s:

Complaint handling;
Record keeping.

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, this service 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, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised about the housing scheme’s letting criteria;
The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Concerns the resident raised about the housing scheme’s letting criteria

During the course of the complaint, the resident’s representative expressed concerns about the landlord’s letting criteria. The representative said that when the resident moved into the property in 2016, the landlord did not inform him that the housing scheme’s sensitive let criteria would not be permanent. He stated that, had the resident known this at the time, he would not have moved into the property.
The records show that the resident’s representative had discussed this matter with the landlord at the beginning of 2018. The landlord followed the conversation up in writing, on 19 January 2018. It explained that the scheme, “had previously been placed on a sensitive let criteria due to historical antisocial behaviour problems that has subsequently been resolved”. It added that, “when placing a scheme on a sensitive let criteria, this is normally for a defined period only until the scheme had stabilised”. It confirmed that, “it would be reasonable to assume in the future that this criteria is likely to be lifted”.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
While the representative engaged in discussion with the landlord about this at the time, the matter was not raised as a formal complaint. As such, the landlord’s formal complaints procedure has not been exhausted in relation to this issue. Should the resident remain concerned about this, he may raise a formal complaint with the landlord now. However, owing to the passage of time, the landlord may decline to raise the matter as a complaint. Any decision made by the landlord in respect of a new complaint should be in accordance with its complaints policy and with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

The resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s letter of 19 January 2018 also addressed discussions it had had with the representative about anonymous reports of noise nuisance. This related to reports the resident made in 2017 about a neighbouring property. Again, there are no records to suggest the resident raised a formal complaint about this matter at the time. However, the landlord confirmed, in 2018, that it had responded to the reports in accordance with its procedures and that, as it had not received any further reports, it had closed the case on 24 October 2017.
As mentioned above, Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
It follows that the resident’s concerns about how the landlord responded to his reports of ASB in 2017 cannot be considered as part of this complaint. If the resident continues to have concerns about any recent ASB, he should contact the landlord accordingly so that his reports may be investigated. If the resident wishes to complain about how the landlord dealt with historical reports of ASB, he should notify the landlord. However, as above, the landlord may decline to raise a complaint given that the events transpired many years ago. In any event, the landlord should ensure that it responds to the resident in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code.

Background and summary of events

The resident has lived at the property since 2016. The property is a one bedroom flat within a block that is owned and managed by the landlord, and was designated as a sensitive let when the resident moved in. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
The landlord’s records outline that the resident has several mental health conditions, including obsessive compulsive disorder, social phobia and anxiety. The resident receives support from a family member, who is listed on the tenancy agreement as the resident’s emergency contact.

Legal and Policy Framework

The landlord’s Estate and Neighbourhood Management Policy states that. where an infestation originates in a resident’s home or garden, they will be responsible for managing this unless otherwise specified in their tenancy agreement. Residents are required to keep their home and gardens free of insect and vermin infestations. If the resident is unable to manage the infestations because they are vulnerable, or for other exceptional reasons, the landlord may decide not to charge the resident for treating the infestation.
The landlord’s Pests Procedure states that, where a resident is vulnerable, or may be vulnerable, they may require its help to deal with a pest infestation and to stop it from spreading. The landlord should attend the property to inspect and to assess the situation and advise the resident of the decision and responsibility. The landlord should contact the resident who reported the infestation to advise that a contractor will inspect the properties within 5 working days of receiving the case, though this does not always result in the contractor treating the issue.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy has two formal complaint stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. This will be investigated by an independent manager, who will aim to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord needs to take longer to respond to either a stage 1 or 2 complaint, it will explain this to the resident and the deadline will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The Compensation Policy states that the landlord may offer a compensation payment in recognition of loss or damage and for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong, and the landlord was at fault. This type of compensation aims to restore the resident to the position they would have been in if the failure or omission had not occurred. The landlord makes payments of up to £250 where the issue was resolved within a reasonable time, and resulted in minor inconvenience. £250 to £700 is paid where the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience. The landlord will pay over £700 in cases where there was significant impact on the resident, which was likely to have cased longer-term distress.

Summary of events

On 17 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that his neighbour had left an old sofa, a carpet and other rubbish opposite his front door. He said that, a month later, he had bed bugs and could not get rid of them. He chased this up on 19 August 2022 and asked the landlord to email him as he did not have a phone.
The landlord wrote back to the resident via email, on 22 August 2022, to ask him which neighbouring flat had left rubbish in front of their property. It said that, when it had visited the scheme the previous week, it could not see any items that needed to be cleared.
As the landlord was unable to contact the resident by phone and it had not received a response to its email, it tried to visit the him on 14 September 2022 and left him a calling card.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2022 and stated:

As the resident was finding it difficult to have contact with people, he was corresponding on his behalf. If the landlord checked its records, it would see that it had permission to speak with him.
The block of flats was infested with bed bugs and the landlord had not grasped how invasive they were;
The resident had informed him that, over the past few years, several residents with hoarding tendencies had died. Their flats had been left empty for months and rubbish from those properties had been left in the hallways, posing a health and safety risk;
If the landlord had ensured proper cleaning and removal of rubbish, the problem would not have escalated;
He was deeply concerned about the impact the bed bugs were having on the resident. He had been constantly bitten and had to throw away almost everything in his flat.
He asked the landlord to treat the matter with a level of confidentiality as the resident did not want to be identified as the person who reported the issue.
He wanted the landlord to take urgent action so he did not have to raise the matter as a formal complaint.

The landlord responded on 9 October 2022 to say that it had passed the resident’s concerns to the appropriate team. It assured the representative that someone would either contact him or the resident within 2 working days. It stated that, as there were no records to show that the representative was authorised to act on the resident’s behalf, it was limited in the information it could provide.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 13 October 2022 to raise a stage 1 complaint and stated:

The landlord had still not contacted the resident about the bed bug issue and he therefore wanted to raise the issue as a formal complaint;
His complaint was in 3 parts, which were;

The landlord’s failure to provide a timely response to the ongoing problem of bed bugs, or to ensure the block was kept in such a way as to have prevented the problem in the first place;
The landlord’s failure to maintain the property as a sensitive let;
That he had dealt with the landlord on the resident’s behalf on several occasions and the fact he was not on the authorised contacts list either meant it had failed to keep accurate records or it had breached confidentiality.

He wanted the landlord to contact him by the end of the week with a plan of action;
He was “enormously disappointed” about how the resident had been treated and was “deeply concerned” for the resident’s diminishing mental health and loss of property;
That the resident be re-housed in a home rather than a block, where he could recover from the, “horrible experienced he has endured”.

The representative contacted the landlord a number of times, from 25 October to 2 November 2022, to say he was still waiting for a response to his concerns about the bed bugs in the resident’s property. The landlord attempted to call him back but had difficulty reaching him on the phone.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord tried calling the representative and left a voicemail message for him. The representative responded on the same day and stated: “I must insist that….this is now at a level 2 complaint”, due to the landlord’s “failure to respond to me”.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord wrote to the representative and stated:

It was incorrect to state that it had failed to respond to him;
It had made 4 telephone calls and left voicemails, sent 2 emails and made 2 attempted home visits, where it had left calling cards
The main purpose of making home visits was to inspect the property and ascertain whether there were bed bugs. It wanted to gather information in order to instruct its pest control team if needed, and establish how best to carry out any work while taking the resident’s medical needs into consideration;
The block was subject to regular monthly inspections, which included fire safety and communal cleaning. This was in addition to the cleaning contractor attending on a weekly basis. During the scheduled inspections, it photographed areas and had not noted any discarded furniture. In addition, it had not received any reports of dumped rubbish from other residents.
If the representative had evidence to the contrary, to supply this so it could investigate further.
It would be more than happy to make contact with the resident to provide housing options advice but hoped that, after it had dealt with the bed bug issue, the resident would no longer require a move.
In order to resolve the bed bug problem, it asked how the representative wanted it to contact him so it could coordinate the visits.

The landlord wrote a letter to the resident on 18 November 2022, informing him that it had made an appointment for its pest controllers to visit his property on 23 November 2022 to inspect it for bed bugs.
The landlord sent the representative its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022, which stated:

It had reviewed its contact records and found that the representative had first reported bed bugs on 4 October 2022 and said that, because of the resident’s mental health condition, he was not comfortable speaking to it directly about this.
It had asked the representative to help organise an appointment for its pest control contractor to attend, and this was scheduled for 23 November 2022.
It was reviewing the representative’s request for the resident to have a point of contact and its Customer Liaison team would be in touch to discuss any adjustments it could make to help support the resident.
On 4 November 20022, it explained to the representative that it tried to contact the resident in several different ways but had received no response. It asked that, if the representative had any further details about the resident’s reports, to let it know so it could investigate further.
The representative explained he had asked to make a formal complaint a month earlier. He had completed a contact request form on its website on 4 October 2022 and a customer liaison officer tried to call him. The representative called again on 2 November 2022 to request a stage 2 escalation; however, there was no previous complaint the landlord could escalate. It apologised that it did not make this clear at the time.
It partially upheld the complaint and said it would send feedback to its customer services team to, “ensure all processes are made clear”.

The pest control contractor attended the property and carried out a chemical treatment, despite having found no evidence of bed bugs.
The representative wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2022 to escalate the resident’s complaint and stated:

The resident had notified it about the bed bug problem in August but it had not mentioned this in its response. He felt that taking 3 months to partially address the matter was a failure on the landlord’s part and he had received no explanation of why it had not acted sooner
The action the landlord had taken was inadequate and that ‘simply’ spraying the flat would not effectively deal with the problem. He said that the contractor had told him that, if the bed bugs were present in the block, they would eventually return to the resident’s flat, which is why he requested a full inspection of the block
Due to the landlord’s failure to deal with the bed bug issue, the resident had lost faith in its ability and therefore, any calling cards or contacts from the landlord would likely be ignored.
He sent an email on 13 October 2022 asking for his concerns to be investigated but did not receive an acknowledgement. Following this, he had made a number of phone calls and completed a web form. The landlord twice promised to call him back but never did, and twice he had been cut off during phone calls. He stated that the landlord’s, communication had been “awful”.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2022, saying he felt “angry and frustrated”. He asked if it was possible if the landlord could ask the rest of the block if they were having trouble with bed bugs. He added that he had been asking for a block inspection for 3 months, been bitten for 3 months and had lost everything he owned.
On 7 December 2022, the pest control contractor attended the property and the resident advised them he was happy with the treatment it had undertaken and did not want any further treatments. However, he told them he thought the whole block should be treated.
On 15 December 2022, the representative wrote to the landlord to say that, on 12 December 2022, the landlord had called at an inconvenient time and said it would call back later. It did not call back and so he tried to contact the landlord and, after a long wait, he was cut off. He stated that this was, “the third example of a promised call that never came”. The landlord responded the following day to say it did try to call back and left a voicemail message. It said it was trying to find recordings of phone calls so it could investigate the instances where it had hung up on the resident.
On 19 December 2022, the resident sent an email to say he still had an issue with bed bugs and the landlord sent the representative its stage 2 response on the same day, which stated:

It was sorry to hear about the issues the resident was facing in his home and for the impact this was having on him;
Its stage 1 response incorrectly stated that the bed bugs were first reported to it on 4 October 2022. It acknowledged that the contact from the resident on 17 August 2022 outlined the bed bug issue as his main concern.
It was supposed to return phone calls within 2 working days but it only attempted to reach him on the third day. It added that it had also delayed sending 2 replies by 15 and 5 working days respectively, and apologised for the inconvenience this had caused;
Although it had identified some failings in its communication, it was confident it had taken reasonable steps to engage with the resident to resolve his concerns;
Although it did not generally take responsibility for pest control in individual properties, it had gone outside its usual procedure to try and help the resident.
It had not been able to find any specific occasions where it had hung up on the representative;
It acknowledged that it had failed to log the representative’s stage 1 complaint on 13 October 2022 and took around 4 weeks to respond to his request to raise a complaint. This led to confusion over what stage the complaint was at and it had missed several opportunities to clarify that the complaint was not yet at stage 2. It admitted it had failed to exercise due diligence and that the delays could have been avoided;
It partially upheld the complaints and offered £45 compensation, which was broken down as: £25 for poor communication and failure to call back as promised and £20 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint;
It would provide feedback to the relevant teams on its failings to try and improve its service in future;
Pest control visits had taken place on 23 November and 7 December 2022. The bed bugs had been treated and the contractor had closed the job, with no further visits scheduled;
The contractor had not recommended treatments to any other properties in the block as it had not received any other complaints about the issue;
Whilst it was happy to review the resident’s request for a single point of contact other than the current one, this was not something it could guarantee and asked resident to continue speaking with the customer liaison officer in the meantime. It said it would contact the resident if changing his point of contact was something it could facilitate.

The representative wrote to the landlord on 23 December 2022 and stated:

He was ‘enormously’ disappointed with the landlord’s response and clarified that there had only been one visit by the pest control contractor;
The contractor had phoned the resident and said that a second spray was pointless without the whole block being done and they were telling him something different to what the landlord was saying;
The landlord was continuing to ignore his instructions to contact him and not the resident directly. He had told it that the resident’s mental health had got worse but the landlord had still come, “banging on his door and putting notes through” telling him it had been trying to make contact.

On 23 December 2022, the landlord responded and apologised for giving incorrect information about the pest control visits in its stage 2 response.
It is unclear what action the landlord took in response to the resident’s report of 19 December 2022. However, the pest control contractor attended the property on 24 May 2023 to install bed bug monitors but the operative was unable to gain access. The resident said he did not have bed bugs and did not want any further visits. The operative gave the resident some monitors as a precautionary measure.
The representative wrote to this Service to escalate his complaint. He stated that the landlord had not properly dealt with the bed bug issue, that it had misled the resident regarding the sensitive let issue and its communication had remained poor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns that his mental health had been detrimentally affected by the bed bug infestation in his property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health but this service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.

The resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation

Although the landlord is not generally responsible for dealing with pest infestations that affect individual properties, the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and exercised its discretion to help with the matter. While the contractor was unable to identify any bed bugs in the property, the landlord arranged for a spray treatment to be carried out. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and would have gone some way to put the resident’s mind at rest.
The landlord also acted appropriately when it sought to investigate whether or not other properties in the block had reported issues with bed bugs. It is positive to note that the landlord attempted to install bed bug monitors and provided them to the resident. This demonstrates it made reasonable efforts to monitor for any risks of possible infestations, going forward.
The landlord’s actions were appropriate overall. However, contrary to its Pest Procedure, it took the landlord nearly 2 months to acknowledge the problem, and 3 months before it arranged the initial pest control visit. The delay was excessive and, given the nature of his vulnerabilities, it would have caused the resident unnecessary additional distress and worsened the impact the situation was having on him.
The evidence shows that the landlord experienced some challenges contacting both the resident and his representative. In an email dated 4 November 2022, it listed several instances where it had attempted to make contact. This included telephone calls and home visits. It is understandable the landlord wanted to work with the resident to resolve the bed bug issue and its efforts to reach him were well intentioned. However, the representative had told the landlord, in October 2022, that the bed bug issue had caused the resident’s, “mental health to deteriorate so badly that he is struggling to have contact with people”. He said that this was the reason he was acting on his behalf. It is also recorded, in August 2022, that the resident was chasing up a response to his report and asked for the landlord to email him as he did not have a phone. It was therefore unclear why the landlord continued to try and contact the resident without first checking with his representative. At the time, the landlord had failed to properly take into account the resident’s mental health or his discomfort interacting with people.
The landlord was at fault for failing to return some of the representative’s contacts when it had committed to do so. It was appropriate that it had acknowledged its communication was lacking. It was correct that it offered, in its stage 2 response, an apology and compensation in recognition of this.
The landlord was also at fault for providing inaccurate information in its stage 1 response. It stated that the resident had first reported bed bugs on 4 October 2022, rather than in August 2022. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the landlord’s part, and suggests it may not have properly recorded the information regarding the resident’s first report. These details would therefore not have been available to the member of staff who investigated the stage 1 complaint. In addition, this would have explained why the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s report of bed bugs, and why it only acted once the resident’s representative contacted it later, in October 2022.
The evidence shows the landlord found no evidence of bed bugs, either in the resident’s property or the block as a whole. Despite this, it is evident from his communication to the landlord that he was experiencing substantial distress from what he perceived to be a pest infestation in his property.
The records show that the resident’s mental health conditions had been explained to the landlord in a doctor’s letter dated 17 March 2016. This was before the resident moved in. In the circumstances, it would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a welfare check. It could also have liaised with appropriate agencies in the community, such as the local adult social care team, the community mental health team or the resident’s GP.
This would have helped ascertain if there was any additional support the resident may have needed or if there were safeguarding concerns. The landlord’s failure to take appropriate action to safeguard the resident demonstrates that it did not sufficiently assess the risks to him following his correspondence, or contacts made from his representative who had mentioned the resident’s ‘diminishing mental health’. The landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s report of bed bugs and its failure to take sufficient account of his vulnerabilities when dealing with the issue was maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that the landlord, “will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days of receiving it” and, “will aim to resolve complaints as quickly as possible, at first point of contact where possible. The Policy states that the landlord will ensure it keeps residents regularly updated with the progress of the complaint, even if there is no new information to provide.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, or that it had logged it when it was made. The representative states, in his email of 13 October 2022, that he, “would now like to escalate this to a complaint so please forward to the appropriate person”. The email goes onto state that, “the complaint has three parts”. The landlord failed to act appropriately after the representative was explicit in his wish to raise a complaint. The failure to properly record the complaint suggests a further example of poor record keeping, which allowed the complaint to be missed, and no further action taken.
In the absence of a stage 1 response, or update from the landlord about the complaint itself, the representative asked for the complaint to be escalated at the beginning of November 2022. This, in turn, led to confusion over to whether the complaint had been escalated to stage 2, or whether it was still being investigated at stage 1. The representative was left to chase up what he thought was a stage 2 complaint, with little clarification from the landlord about what action it was taking to address his concerns. It is clear from this that the landlord’s communication was poor.
It took the landlord over a month to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Although the delay was not overly excessive, the landlord did depart from the timescales set out in its policy and the Code. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation for its complaint handling failures in its initial complaint response.
In its Complaints Policy, the landlord states: “In each case we will verify the identity of the person making the complaint and their relationship to” the landlord. “All complaints will be managed confidentially and in line with the Data Protection Act 2018”.
In its response to the representative’s report of a bed bug infestation, dated 9 October 2022, the landlord had stated: “There are no authorised contacts so I’m not able to attach this to his profile and nor am I able to discuss with you any developments other than address directly what you have mentioned below”.
While this was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policy, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord was proactive in seeking confirmation from the resident. It is noted that the matter was referred to a different team. However, it is unclear whether the landlord did obtain the necessary permission. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed this both with the resident and the representative prior to accepting the stage 1 complaint. That the landlord did not take such action was a further failing in its complaint handling. It is also noted that the representative expressed his concern that the resident had already provided consent, and queried whether the landlord had failed to keep an appropriate record. The landlord failed to address this comment during the complaints procedure. It would have been reasonable to do so. That it did not was a missed opportunity, and a failure to respond to all of the complaints points raised.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to handle complaints in line with its Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Thing Right and Learn From Outcomes. It is evident that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint did not follow these principles. It was appropriate that the landlord tried to demonstrate some learning from the failings it had identified and offered compensation in its stage 2 response. However, the amount offered did not adequately reflect the poor complaint handling and the impact this would have had on a vulnerable resident.

Record keeping

The need for good record keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important, not only so the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its residents, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision making after the event. This can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure it maintains clear and accurate records of its actions. It is recognised that the landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to the failings this investigation has identified. This has been be taken into account in the Ombudsman’s overall findings and the cumulative impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a bed bug infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Although the landlord exercised its discretion and took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when it provided treatment for bed bugs, it was slow to act on those reports and took 3 months to arrange an initial pest control visit. The landlord could reasonably have taken steps to ensure that it was clear about who it would be communicating with. Further action could also have been taken to ensure that the resident was adequately supported.
The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint and missed opportunities to put things right. The landlord also delayed in ensuring that it had the requisite permissions to discuss matters with the resident’s representative. It failed to address concerns raised by the representative about the fact that the resident had already provided consent for him to liaise with the landlord.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor which affected how it responded to the resident’s reports and resulted in factual errors within the complaint responses.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £800, which is calculated as follows:

£400 in recognition of the delay in responding to the resident’s report, for its poor communication and record keeping, and for failing to explore appropriate support in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities;
£250 for the landlord’s poor complaint handling and the time and trouble pursuing the complaint;
£150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping.

The revised total amount of £800 to be paid within 4 weeks of receiving this determination. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £45.
The landlord is ordered to provide, within four weeks of receiving this determination, with a copy to the Ombudsman, an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for its maladministration.
The landlord to contact the resident’s representative to confirm if there are details about his condition or other circumstances that he would like it to be aware of when arranging home visits, and if there is any support the resident would benefit from. The landlord should then consider contacting appropriate support services about welfare checks and/or any safeguarding concerns. It should then ensure that its relevant systems are updated with any information the representative provides and then, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, confirm to the Ombudsman that this action has been completed.
The landlord should carry out a review of the learning from this case and what improvements it needs to put in place as a result. This review should include consideration of record keeping and complaint handling, and the landlord is asked to formulate an action plan on how it will address the issues identified from the reviews, and share this with the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide complaint training to staff on the importance of data protection when handling complaints, and to review its processes to ensure that clear steps are followed by staff in the event that a complaint is received by someone other than the resident.