Walsall Housing Group Limited (202009396)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009396

Walsall Housing Group Limited

30 September 2021

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 the resident’s request for rehousing, property adaptations and support for medical needs.
This Service has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a fixed term, assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a three bedroom house, which the resident has occupied with his wife and growing family since 2016. The resident has vulnerabilities which are recorded on the landlord’s files.
The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that it uses gold, silver and bronze bands to reflect applicant housing needs, with gold the highest priority. The landlord may award a discretionary gold priority for one offer only, which includes cases where there is a critical need to move, such as a risk of serious crime; where there is an urgent medical need or disability; and where there is a social need where a property is overcrowded by two bedrooms. Applicants who refuse an offer are asked the reasons for refusal, and if an offer is considered reasonable an application will be suspended for twelve months, after which it is an applicant’s responsibility to reactivate their application.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy sets out that it offers minor adaptations to customers and works in partnership with the local authority for larger grant-funded adaptations. It advises that adaptation requests are assessed against individual and family housing needs, and that in some cases rehousing is the most practical, cost effective solution and will be prioritised/supported in preference to adaptations wherever possible. Major adaptations are only provided following a professional needs assessment and permitted where practicable, reasonable and cost effective. The landlord aims to allocate adapted homes to those who will directly benefit from them, and so considers whether proposals offer long term solutions and considers the future letting prospects of a property. The landlord can refuse permission for an adaptation for reasons that include where it appears to be to reduce an overcrowding situation which arose after the tenancy was granted; where household needs could be more reasonably satisfied by a transfer to more suitable accommodation; and where works are not appropriate for the property structure, are substantial/expensive, or appear unreasonable.
After an informal stage, the landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure. At ‘investigation,’ it responds in 10 working days; at ‘review,’ it responds in 15 working days; and at ‘panel review,’ it responds in 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it does not consider complaints about staff, handled under a separate procedure, or consider complaints about issues that occurred over twelve months before the complaint. It also sets out that it reserves the right to decline escalation requests where each element has been investigated.

Summary of events

In 2017, this Service understands that after an incident, the resident was housed in temporary accommodation and offered a ‘critical’ move on recommendation of the police and the landlord’s community safety team, whose formal recommendation noted some preferred areas. The landlord’s contemporaneous records note it informed the resident it would only make one offer. Subsequently, a property in one of the preferred areas noted on the formal recommendation was located, which the resident viewed in July 2017 and declined. The resident and his wife subsequently returned to the tenancy around August/November 2017.
In February 2018, the information provided advises the landlord and the resident met and discussed his desire to move. The landlord noted it informed the resident that it would not move him as he had previously been offered a property which had been turned down as it was in the wrong area, which was not considered credible grounds. The landlord noted the resident reported he was spat at when he viewed the property he declined, and that he made allegations of racism against staff present, both of which the landlord noted it disputed. The landlord noted the resident raised concern about his and his family’s wellbeing, and notes it advised him to contact the police if in imminent danger. The landlord noted the resident reported that living in the property impacted his mental health, and noted it advised him to contact his GP/support worker and to supply medical evidence to its housing moves team to look at a move on medical grounds.
In October and November 2018, the information provided advises that the resident contacted the landlord’s community safety and housing moves teams. The landlord’s records advise its community safety team informed the resident that, as things stood, it could only offer advice and would not consider a rehousing case; and if he had evidence of serious risk to his family, then he could liaise with the police about a move. The landlord’s records advise its housing moves team noted the resident was unhappy with the housing priority he had been awarded after reactivation of an housing application, and he was provided information about appealing this.
On 23 September 2019, the resident complained to the landlord.
1. He detailed the background to becoming a tenant and subsequent events that had occurred. He explained that his family had been through a lot over the past five years, that being left in the property was affecting them, and that he believed there was sufficient evidence to change to a higher banding.
2. He was unhappy that reasons for refusal of a property in 2017 were dismissed as invalid and that his rehousing case was closed. He was unhappy that when he later raised new incidents and difficulties, the landlord reiterated the previous refusal and said no further assistance could be provided.
3. He was unhappy that at the meeting in February 2018, he was accused of lying (about the alleged spitting incident when he viewed the property in 2017), and advised that he felt a member of staff was racially opinionated. He was unhappy that he was not informed earlier about a possibility of a medical move, as he advised that the member of staff was aware of his health conditions. He was unhappy that the member of staff did not provide further assistance and passed on his rehousing request to the housing moves department, which later decided supporting information supplied was not enough to change housing priority.
4. He felt there had been misconduct and requested an investigation into this. He also reported that he had sent letters to the landlord about property adaptations which had received no reply.
On 10 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord about lack of reply, following which it identified the complaint had been saved to a repairs report in error. On 16 October 2019, the landlord acknowledged the complaint; apologised to the resident; and provided explanation about what went wrong and a process change that had been made to prevent the issue happening again. It also invited the resident to provide information about the previous letters he said he had sent.
On 21 October 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a home visit to discuss the complaint, and on 11 November 2019 community and housing managers from the landlord visited the resident. Prior to this, it explained the visit was to gather information so that it could understand the complaint and resolution sought; and after the resident explained vulnerabilities meant he found it difficult to comprehend what individuals say in person, it offered to send questions that would be asked in advance.
The landlord’s contemporaneous records of the meeting advise it spoke about the resident’s complaint and the ongoing situation he was most concerned about. The landlord noted the resident would consider his housing location and impact on family and health, and that he would contact the landlord when he had an idea of what he wanted for his family long term. It noted a visit from the local authority’s adult social care department was awaited and that the resident would connect any social workers with the landlord so that a solution could be worked on collectively. It noted that the resident’s case would need to be handled sensitively due to his vulnerabilities.
On 20 November 2019, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint:
1. It acknowledged a key element of the complaint related to the rehousing case in 2017 where a property was offered to the resident. It advised it had a one offer policy but recognised location suitability was important. It acknowledged that any future locations suggested for rehousing should be carefully considered, to ensure he felt better integrated and able to access support and services that met his family’s needs.
2. It advised that to move forward with concerns the resident had about intimidation and tension in his area, it was agreed he would report concerns to the police; discuss housing needs with his family; and contact the landlord with a clear perspective on potential relocation to another area within the borough.
3. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience and if the resident’s experience had not been a good one. It advised it had a regular programme of training and development and that customer engagement standards would be addressed in these. It provided a weblink which detailed the complaints procedure, including the resident’s right to request complaint escalation and the landlord’s right to decline the request.
On 10 December 2019, the resident wrote a reply which this Service has not had sight of. From the landlord and resident’s accounts, this stated that the resident intended to discuss his housing concerns in further detail at a later date as he had no energy left. The landlord’s records report that it did not acknowledge and progress the complaint, as it interpreted this to mean that the resident may prefer to postpone discussion and progression of the complaint until he felt better. It noted that it had understood that previous contact from it had made the resident’s anxiety worse in the past, and so was trying to be led by him here.
On 20 December 2019, the resident queried lack of acknowledgement, after which the landlord provided explanation and informed him that it would progress the complaint when he let it know he was feeling better. The resident advised there had been miscommunication and requested the landlord to progress the complaint, explaining the delays had worsened his anxiety. On 24 December 2019, the landlord apologised to the resident for the miscommunication. It confirmed it would be discussing his case internally in the first week of January and invited him to detail any issues he wished to be raised at this.
Following this, the complaint was internally discussed. It was noted that procedure was followed historically and it had been unable to meet the resident’s needs. It noted that the resident reported that he was caused mental health issues and anxiety by stressful neighbourhood issues (anti-social behaviour and crime), which it currently saw no evidence for. It noted that it had agreed an offer of rehousing may reduce the resident’s mental health issues. It noted that this was declined and that the resident wanted the current property to be converted to include an open plan kitchen or an extension for a ‘panic room,’ rather than to be removed from the area which affected him.
On 22 January 2020, the landlord issued a follow up to its stage one response, in which it explained it was clarifying its investigation and outcome.
1. It noted that when investigating the complaint, it became clear that a key component related to staff and a period between February 2017 and February 2018. It highlighted that its complaints policy advised there were certain matters it would not consider as a complaint, including staff conduct and incidents that occurred more than twelve months previously; but that on the basis of available evidence and internal discussions, it believed staff had acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures.
2. It explained that it had aimed to establish how it could address the resident’s housing concerns, and that it had concluded that while he remained in his home the potential for future intimidation was possible and may continue to affect his health. It explained it had agreed to offer support by recommending he be awarded priority for rehousing to alternative accommodation, suitably distant from his current home but close to his children’s school.
3. It noted that in a response dated 10 December 2019, the resident did not consider rehousing would eliminate the threat he faced, and was now looking for his current property to be adapted to support a current medical condition. It noted it was unclear how an additional room to the current property would mitigate the risk of intimidation, but it noted it had previously explained it may not be in a position to alter the home and that the local authority may be able to consider a disabled facilities grant.
4. It advised it welcomed discussions on how to move forward with the resident’s housing concerns.
On 3 April 2020, the resident detailed dissatisfaction in a letter (this appears to have been started in January 2020 but sent to the landlord in April 2020).
1. He queried which complaint stage he was at, as he had requested a response to his complaint at the second stage. He was unhappy the stage one response in November 2019 had failed to address complaints about staff and the follow up response had not addressed points in his letter dated 10 December 2019.
2. He queried how the landlord had since recognised the importance of location and awarded priority, but found that staff had previously acted in line with policy, when they had refused to help based on similar information.
3. He disputed agreeing that rehousing was the best way forward, and advised he had explained the landlord’s delays meant his children had become settled at school and rehousing would have a negative impact on mental health. He advised he and his wife had agreed to discuss their options, and that in his response on 10 December 2019 he had confirmed he sought adaptation of his current property to add a room for mental wellbeing/current severe mental health difficulties (this Service understands the room requested is a panic/safe room).
4. He acknowledged he was informed the local authority may consider a grant, but advised his social worker had told him the landlord had a scheme they could apply for. He reported that an application to this had since been made which was declined on the basis he had no physical impairment.
5. He advised that the landlord had not taken reasonable steps to remedy the complaint and requested the complaint about a member of staff to be escalated to the landlord’s third stage. He requested for works to be carried out in relation to reinforced front and back doors; a ‘safe room;’ plug sockets; electric wires; a hole in the roof; damp; and a thermostat.
Following this, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and explained that the Covid-19 pandemic would impact investigation and response times.
On 9 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
1. It noted that the focus of the complaint was staff actions from February 2017 to February 2018, and it explained that there were matters it would not consider under its complaints policy, including staff conduct which is investigated in line with human resources policies and procedures. It advised that it was satisfied the previous response addressed concerns about staff conduct.
2. It noted that after his complaint about the impact his current property was having on him and his family, he had been offered support through a recommendation that he be awarded rehousing priority. It noted he had since declined this and requested for his current home to be extended to provide an additional room to support mental health needs. It noted he was informed the landlord would not alter his current home but that he could approach the local authority for a grant.
3. It noted he mentioned making an application to the landlord for adaptations. It advised it had found no record of this but had contacted the local authority, which reported receipt of an enquiry about funding for a ‘panic room.’ The landlord advised the local authority reported that requested supporting information had not been provided, which it explained would have been why the request was refused.
4. It advised that repairs did not form part of the complaint but it had arranged for a relevant team to schedule a property inspection.
5. It advised it sympathised with the resident’s situation and difficulties, but it was satisfied the complaint had been considered and a fair and reasonable solution offered based on the circumstances. It asked the resident to let it know if he would like to be considered for priority rehousing so it could support him through that process, and it provided information on how to refer the complaint to this Service.
On 23 July 2020, the resident detailed dissatisfaction with the response.
1. He raised concern that the landlord was not following its complaints procedure and that it had not directly confirmed whether it accepted or declined his escalation request. He felt the landlord was using its policy to avoid addressing his underlying complaint about service failure and lack of a duty of care.
2. He confirmed the focus of the complaint was staff conduct but advised this was to October 2019, explaining the member of staff had refused to see him and a support worker around August 2019. He acknowledged he had sought priority rehousing from 2017 to 2019, but restated that he disputed agreeing that rehousing would be the best way forward, as he was now reluctant to allow the landlord’s failures and delays to unsettle his children and force them to rehouse.
3. He reported that the local authority had advised that to proceed with a grant, the landlord would need to consent to a building extension; and he requested the landlord’s formal consent so he could apply for the grant.
In July and August 2020, the information provided advises that the landlord discussed matters with the local authority. Following this, the landlord emailed the resident and informed him that the local authority had not received a referral from his Occupational Therapist (OT) which detailed adaptions required. It advised that he would need to contact his OT and work with them to decide what adaptations would meet his needs, and it went on to explain steps in the process.
On 21 August 2020, the landlord issued a further response to the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
1. It explained complaints about the conduct of a member of staff fell outside its complaints procedure, but noted it had advised this had been looked into.
2. It noted that the resident advised he no longer wished to be rehoused and wanted his current home adapted, and that staff had written to him to see how an adaptation would support him going forward and mitigate risk of intimidation. It explained that this was because it wanted to work with him to gain a clearer understanding of what he saw as a reasonable solution.
3. It advised that with all complaints, it was committed to finding a reasonable solution. It explained that this sometimes meant it engaged in conversation or correspondence, or sought to establish a clearer understanding of a complaint, that was not always a response or escalation at a particular stage. It acknowledged that its correspondence on 22 January 2020 could have been clearer that this was a follow up to its stage one response and explained why the complaint had not been escalated at this stage.
4. It confirmed the case had been assessed by senior staff and that it considered it had investigated and responded to the original complaint. It explained that it will escalate complaints where there is new information or if something has not been considered earlier, and advised that as this was not the case, it would not escalate the complaint. It again asked the resident to let it know if he would like to be considered for priority rehousing so it could support him through that process, and it provided information on how to refer the complaint to this Service.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service and has confirmed that his complaint is about rehousing. He has also raised dissatisfaction that the landlord has not offered appropriate support for his PTSD or his wife’s cancer. He has explained that he is not currently seeking a move and is seeking for his property to be extended, as it is overcrowded.
The information provided advises that in the three months after the landlord’s final response, the local authority approved a grant for a ‘panic room’ and more recently the resident may be seeking installation of a wet room. This Service understands that the landlord did not consent to the ‘panic room’ and does not consider the resident’s current home to be suitable for the size of his family or the type of extension that would be required to accommodate them. The landlord has informed the resident that it would never look to solve overcrowding issues by building extensions, and while it has suitable properties in its housing stock it would look to support him with a move to one of these. This Service understands that following the closure of the complaint, the resident’s housing needs/adaptation case continues to be ongoing, and the landlord has had discussions with partner agencies to discuss support and outcomes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing, property adaptations and support for medical needs.

This Service notes that the resident complains primarily about events between 2017 and 2018 in relation to requests for rehousing for him and his family. This Service notes that while more background to the complaint was provided than is included in this report, this was carefully reviewed, as well as assessed against the landlord’s policies to consider how this might impact the landlord’s handling of the case. This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address historic staff conduct and failures, which has impacted him and his family’s health. This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he reports have affected and caused distress to him and his family.
In cases in relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a tenant should be rehoused or whether a property adaptation should be allowed to occur. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and correctly applied its policy and procedure when reaching decisions.
This Service notes it has not seen specific evidence that some issues complained about occurred within twelve or six months before the complaint was made. While the resident has referred to an incident around August or September 2019, in which he says he and a social worker were turned away from the landlord’s offices, there is no evidence that this was raised in the original complaint in 2019. When assessing a complaint, this Service considers the timeframe of a complaint to be of note, because the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.”
The landlord’s complaints policy similarly sets out that it does not consider incidents that occurred more than twelve months before the complaint was made, or consider complaints about staff conduct.
It will therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this policy when it responded to the complaint about events in 2017 and 2018, and reasonable for it to limit the extent to which it investigated these. This reflects that it is normally considered reasonable for complaints to be made closer to the time of events complained about, because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
This means that this investigation primarily focuses on events from September 2019, when the resident wrote his formal complaint, up until the landlord’s final response on 21 August 2020. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure, have not been fully investigated here and are mainly referenced for contextual purposes only, although limited assessment has been made on some aspects.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord visited the resident to discuss matters, then outlined a plan to move matters forward, which included for the resident to report concerns to the police, and for him to discuss relocation to another area with the landlord after discussing this with his family.
When the resident contacted the landlord to relay dissatisfaction, it provided clarification about its complaints procedure’s approach to historic issues and staff conduct, and commented on these; it confirmed it had agreed to offer support by recommending rehousing priority; and it explained it could not assist with a requested adaptation but that the local authority could consider applications for a grant. Later, it liaised with the local authority to provide clarifications on an application/enquiry the resident referred to.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses to the issues were overall reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
When the resident complained about historic staff conduct and failures, the landlord did not initially explain its approach to these, which was not customer focused, however it later explained that under its complaints policy, it does not consider staff conduct and incidents that occurred more than twelve months previously. This was in accordance with its complaints policy outlined at Paragraph 6 of this report, as well as the Ombudsman’s Scheme as outlined at Paragraph 30 of this report.
The landlord went on to provide some assessment of previous staff conduct/handling, which resulted in its stating that it believed staff had acted appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures. This demonstrates it took steps to exercise some discretion to consider the resident’s concerns, although under its complaints policy it was not necessarily obligated to consider historic events or staff conduct.
The landlord’s conclusion appears reasonable when considering the information provided to this investigation about events between 2017 and 2018.
This Service understands that after an incident in 2017, the landlord offered the resident rehousing in accordance with its discretionary gold priority (detailed at Paragraph 4 of this report), based on the police and its community safety team’s belief there was sufficient basis for a ‘critical’ need to move, due to a risk of serious crime.
The landlord’s allocation policy advises it only made one offer for such a ‘critical’ need to move, and that it has discretion to suspend an housing application for twelve months if it considers an offer was reasonable. The information provided advises that the landlord considered reasons the resident provided for his refusal of the offer, and did not consider these reasonable. There is no evidence that circumstances reoccurred where the police and the landlord agreed there was a ‘critical’ need to move. The landlord will therefore have been reasonably following policy to advise that it would not consider requests for rehousing during the year that followed. This is because it had made one offer and considered this reasonable, which meant the resident’s housing application was suspended for a year in line with its policy.
The landlord appears to have provided timely and reasonable advice in 2018 when it advised the resident to discuss health issues with a GP and to provide medical information to its housing moves team. This Service has not seen specific evidence before this that living in the property impacted on the resident’s health, and when staff became aware of this they appeared reasonable to recommend for information to be provided to the housing moves department.
While this Service understands the resident feels the landlord failed to properly address historic staff conduct and failures, the landlord therefore appears to have been reasonable to focus on how it could assist with current housing circumstances, rather than dedicate focus to matters it may have been unable to effectively investigate. The landlord’s responses clearly considered the resident’s concerns and confirmed location, integration, support and services were factors that it would carefully take into account before a further rehousing offer. The landlord’s responses demonstrate that it was seeking to take into account the feedback the resident provided about the previous property and area offered, and that it was seeking to address the resident’s current housing situation in a customer and resolution focused way.
It is noted that the resident raises dissatisfaction that the landlord has not offered appropriate support for his PTSD or his wife’s cancer.
This Service has not seen any specific evidence that, in the timeframe of the complaint, the level of support offered was unreasonable and the information provided advises the landlord sought to handle the matter sensitively. This Service understands that more recently, the landlord considered referral to its wellbeing team for some additional support and has informed the resident that it is unable to offer the support he requires, and offered to refer him to the adult social care department.
It is unclear whether the landlord specifically considered referral to its wellbeing team after the resident made his complaint in September 2019, which it should have considering his vulnerabilities, however it did confirm that the resident was being visited by the local authority’s adult social care department and offered to work collectively with social workers, which showed it established the resident was in the course of obtaining specialist support. This report does not comment on level of support offered for historic events for the reasons outlined from Paragraph 30 to 33 (i.e. because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted).
The landlord’s approach and level of support in relation to adaptations also appears to have been reasonably in line with its adaptations policy. This advises that for larger adaptations, the landlord works in partnership with the local authority to progress authorisation and funding of works. The landlord does not consent to all adaptations, and when considering an adaptation request, it considers a range of information/factors and assesses if an adaptation meets individual and family needs; if it is practical and cost effective; if it is suitable for the property structure; if it appears to be to reduce an overcrowding situation; and if it offers a long term solution.
When the resident raised requests for adaptations such as a ‘panic room,’ the landlord provided information about the local authority’s grant scheme, and when raised in the complaint, the landlord considered the issue; liaised with the local authority; and provided clarification to the resident about a grant application referred to. It also sought to invite discussions and understand how the adaptation would support the resident and provide a solution to his concerns.
This demonstrates that, in the timeframe of the complaint, the landlord provided timely guidance about the local authority grant, took timely action, and provided support in respect of adaptations within limits of its adaptations policy. It also sought to better understand the resident’s desire for the adaptation, towards providing further support and towards its own decision making, which can require assessment of an adaptation against a range of factors before reaching a decision (as set out at Paragraphs 5 and 47 of this report).
The above demonstrates that the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were appropriate. After considering the resident’s concerns and circumstances, it responded in accordance with policies; it engaged with the resident in different ways; and it took a reasonable approach to try to address and resolve the resident’s concerns within the limits of its complaints policy and obligations. While events after the complaint are unable to be fully assessed, these appear to demonstrate that the landlord is taking positive steps to try to work with appropriate partner agencies to reach an outcome for the resident, that balances its obligation as landlord to meet his specific needs and its responsibility to act in accordance with its wider policies and procedures.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Following the resident’s complaint in September 2019, this was internally misdirected and not progressed until the resident contacted the landlord in October 2019. This was not appropriate, however in its acknowledgement the landlord provided explanation, apologised, and set out steps to avoid the issue occurring again. This demonstrates that the landlord recognised service issues in respect of its initial complaint handling and took appropriate steps to correct this and apologise to the resident.
The landlord’s stage one response on 20 November 2019 was outside of timeframes set out by the landlord’s procedure. However, the landlord acknowledged this and effectively communicated with the resident about a visit, which it explained it aimed to issue a response after, managing his expectations.
It is not disputed that following the stage one response, the resident requested escalation of his complaint in a letter dated 10 December 2019, which the landlord did not progress as it understood the resident would contact it when he felt his health allowed. It was positive the landlord was being mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities, however this was not in accordance with policy and it may have been helpful to continue to follow procedure and to provide an acknowledgement to the escalation request, which communicated the intention not to take any action until he got in contact. This would have clearly set out the landlord’s approach, providing reassurance to the resident if this was what he intended, or allowing him to clarify any confusion earlier if it was not. A recommendation is therefore being made to the landlord in relation to this aspect.
Once progressed, the landlord’s further stage one response appears to have been provided within a reasonable timeframe. This Service can see that this was to clarify its approach to focus on the resident’s current circumstances, rather than issues outside the scope of the complaints policy, which it did not fully explain in the stage one response.
The landlord should not decline escalation requests where elements of a complaint have not been investigated, however the follow up stage one response appears to have been to correct a lack of explanation in the stage one response, rather than to correct a lack of investigation of issues. It therefore appears reasonable for the landlord to have issued a follow up response rather than a stage two response or escalation refusal. This is because explanation about a landlord’s approach and how it is trying to help may be beneficial to a complainant, and help manage expectations about what resolutions can be achieved.
Whilst this is the case, the landlord should have explained its policy/approach in its stage one response, and it is understandable that the resident may have felt he was not being treated fairly and in accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure, which is not appropriate. A recommendation is therefore being made to the landlord in relation to this aspect.
The landlord’s further responses appear to have been provided in a timely manner and these provided reasonable explanation about its approaches, while the final response also acknowledged and apologised for earlier responses where it could have been clearer.
Overall, while some of the landlord’s complaint handling and delays were not appropriate, the landlord’s subsequent responses were in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which includes learning from outcomes and ‘putting things right’ in a reasonable way. Considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has responded reasonably to issues identified with its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for rehousing, property adaptations and support for medical needs.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about rehousing, property adaptations and support for medical needs were appropriate. After considering the resident’s concerns and circumstances, it responded in accordance with policies and it took a reasonable approach to try to address and resolve the resident’s concerns.
While some of the landlord’s complaint handling and delays were not appropriate, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord responded reasonably to issues identified with its complaint handling, as it provided appropriate acknowledgement and apology for service issues at different stages.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident and, for clarity, confirm to him:
1. The position on his current rehousing status and band/priority.
2. The position/status on adaptations he is currently seeking, including a wet room.
The landlord to review complaint handling in this case and takes steps to ensure that:
1. Where a complaint is not being considered under its policy, it provides clear explanation in its stage one response or at the earliest opportunity.
2. Where a complaint or escalation request is being handled any differently to advertised procedure, it clearly communicates this to residents.