Learning from severe maladministration report – April 2024

In case 202204372, we made a finding of severe maladministration and ordered £6,400 in compensation after Plus Dane Housing left a resident and his young children in damp and mould for 5 years due to failure in dealing with a leak.

The landlord was aware of the leaks prior to the resident moving in, who also raised it when he visited the property a year later, but it was not recorded. He reported that the walls were “wet to touch” just 2 days after moving in and that water was dripping onto the floor.

It took 33 months for the landlord to take real ownership of the issue and find out the landlord of the neighbouring property to resolve the issue, leaving the resident with a leak to the front bedroom and no plan of how to resolve it.

Various health professionals notified the landlord regarding serious concerns over exposure to mould and the health and safety of the resident’s young children. There was significant concern given the respiratory condition of the resident’s son in particular. Having seen the news about Awaab Ishak, the concern from the resident only heightened.

The resident believed he was being “treated differently” due to a lack of action and no temporary decant and raised a concern about discrimination. The landlord said the family’s religious beliefs played a part in the delays; however, the Ombudsman believes this is not reasonable. The resident had been clear and reasonable in his requests around appointments and notice periods for them, and it was unreasonable that the landlord commented that delays in completing remedial works were in some
way linked to the resident’s religious beliefs.

The Ombudsman made an order for an independent team to investigate any claims of discrimination and to report this back to the governing body.

In our Spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect, we found investigating claims of discrimination when they are reported and explaining what has been found is an effective response. A reluctance to investigate these claims only adds to the feelings of discrimination. We recommend in the report that landlords should establish and enforce a clear process for how complaints about discrimination should be handled. Failure to do so can erode trust or faith in the landlord and therefore lead to a breakdown in relationship.

Another key theme from the Spotlight report was staff conduct. That is what the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for in case 202222635 involving North West Leicestershire Council.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to instruct a senior member of staff to investigate and seek to address any potential workplace culture that could have led
the repairs operative to believe that his behaviour was acceptable.

In this case the repairs operative was sending inappropriate messages to a resident living in a warden-controlled accommodation with a traumatic personal history, which she had disclosed to the landlord. The operative attempted to misuse the resident’s personal information to establish a relationship. This was not only against safeguarding policies and employee code of conduct, but also not in keeping with protecting personal data.

After reporting the issue, the landlord set up a meeting with HR and, subsequently, the operative wrote a letter that the landlord felt was reasonable for the resident to
accept and to move on.

However, on 2 occasions in the letter, the repairs operative described the inappropriate messages he had sent as “banter”. He stated that he had “good professional relationships” with many residents, and he often used this sort of “friendly banter” with them. The letter referred to a “misunderstanding” and said the messages had “come across wrong”. The wording in the letter suggested the problem did not lie with the repairs operative’s behaviour but instead with the resident’s perception of his behaviour. In a following meeting, the landlord admitted it took a “firm and assertive” approach to ensure it had control of the meeting. This was inappropriate in these circumstances and left the resident so distressed she had to leave multiple times due to the upsetting nature. She also said she felt bullied into accepting the apology. Before one of the meetings, the repairs operative greeted her in the office which the landlord said he did out of “respect”.

The landlord also said it did not appreciate how much of an impact this had on the resident due to her history. This was unreasonable, as they were fully aware. As soon as the resident reported the issue, the landlord should have ensured no further contact could be allowed to happen until the resident was fully satisfied with the outcome, especially as there were known vulnerabilities and history of personal trauma. If the landlord had taken this robust approach on first reporting, it would have saved its resident significant distress.

One of the key recommendations from our Spotlight report was for landlords to accept complaints about staff conduct.

In the third case in this group, case 202013105 involved severe maladministration for how Trident Housing responded to an anti-social behaviour complaint in which a resident was physically assaulted and their home vandalised, and how it handled that complaint.

After the resident reported the assault, the landlord spoke to the resident the next day but failed to carry out any form of risk assessment, action plan or vulnerability assessment. The police had made an arrest due to the assault.

A few days later, the resident reported that someone came to the house and smashed the windows. The matter was recorded as criminal damage by the police but once again in the interaction with the landlord there was no evidence of any action plan, risk assessment or vulnerability assessment.

There was also no evidence the landlord considered the impact it would have on the children in the household, or its safeguarding responsibilities.

The landlord said it worked with the police to get a priority move for the resident, but records show it was the resident who had to put the effort in to get this. There was also no evidence of any meetings with the perpetrator and when presented with Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) footage on the resident’s phone, the landlord did not seem to take any steps to record it as evidence.

A lack of communication throughout the complaint’s handling left the resident feeling anxious, unsupported, and undermined his confidence in the landlord to the extent that he told the landlord that he would be contacting a solicitor to seek advice.

Eventually, the Ombudsman had to issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order to force the landlord to respond to the complaint appropriately.

Our Spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect outlines very clearly what landlords should be expected to do around sensitive cases and with residents’ that may be considered as vulnerable. At the heart of the report is taking a “human centric” approach to provision and that should have been the case here, as well as following the correct policy and procedure.

In case 202117288, the Ombudsman ordered Peabody to undertake a wider asbestos review into a sample of homes to ensure that issues uncovered in this case
did not impact other residents.

The landlord failed to ensure the asbestos was managed properly, failed to engage appropriately with the resident’s concerns and mismanaged the situation. It also
failed to offer appropriate compensation, with the Ombudsman awarding the resident £10,650.

The independent review the landlord commissioned into the management of asbestos confirmed there were no areas of high risk, significant failures, or breach of legislation. In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has developed an action plan around the specifics of the issue, as well as making improvements to its complaint handling including forming a specialist, centralised complaints handling team and introducing a new centralised system for improved record keeping.

In this case 202017334, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how Two Rivers Housing handled its record keeping throughout an Anti-Social
Behaviour (ASB) case. The original investigation could not find any evidence of ASB logs and it was only at review stage that the landlord was able to provide them, which shows a lack of strong record keeping.

This delay in evidence added further distress to the resident and delayed redress.

In its learning from this case, the landlord said it accepts that its delays in providing this information impacted the resident.

In terms of its ASB, the landlord has also delivered additional training to all frontline staff, reviewed how ASB cases are recorded, introduced a triage system for incident reporting and strengthening the link between the manager overseeing ASB and the safeguarding lead.

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how Metropolitan Thames Valley 202208487 failed to replace a back door for 2 years.

The landlord told the residents that it would have to wait until the planned works cycle, which was incorrect. It also did not respond to requests for a side gate to be fitted.

The residents therefore fitted a security gate and alarm system themselves.

The landlord acted appropriately by reimbursing the residents for this gate, but by the time of the determination, the landlord still had not replaced the back door,
requiring the Ombudsman to order its replacement.

In its learning from this case, the landlord said it has reviewed its processes so that when an incident occurs like this, it can override a major works plan to be fixed before that planned works is being undertaken. The landlord has also enrolled its staff on complaint handling training including how to take, log or escalate a complaint.

In case 202202552, For Housing left a resident in long term detriment after failing to deal with damp and mould, as well as pests, for a significant period of time. The age and vulnerability of the resident should have seen the works completed with more urgency.

After an initial survey on the damp and mould, works were identified but those did not adequately deal with the pest infestation problem. It took nearly 2 years after the first report of this issue for the final repair to be carried out.

This is despite the residents being decanted for a period of time.

In its learning from this case, the landlord said it has made changes to improve the customer focus of its repairs contracts and introduced processes for identifying and dealing with damp and mould cases. The landlord says it has also invested more resources to support pest control and is working with the local authority on this.

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration in case 202113581 involving Hastoe Housing. The landlord unreasonably refused a management move due to lack of medical evidence, despite the previous overwhelming evidence.

The landlord had previously provided written commitments of the move and did not manage expectations in this regard. The landlord did not organise an Occupational Therapist (OT) until it was too late, and others had already taken the priority homes, not giving the resident a fair chance of a move. The resident ended up paying for his own private OT assessment.

The resident’s doctor and immediate family wrote to the landlord, explaining that the resident was at risk of taking their own life, partially because of the current living situation. This lack of move also meant 4 children of different sexes were sharing the same bedroom. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord ever investigated these concerns.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has since made good on its promise to move the resident and has learned from this experience and made improvements, updated policies and procedures and paid compensation to the resident.