Learning from severe maladministration – May 2024

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for Lewisham Council’s (202217650) knowledge and information management as part of a repairs case.

The landlord’s repair records did not fully record what repairs occurred at the property which led to substantial confusion as the landlord was subsequently not able to appreciate what steps it had taken to address repair issues up to the date of this investigation. This led to significant anxiety for the resident, who has nearly waited 2 years for a resolution to their roof repair.

It was also unable to say when the third-party repairs were carried out which caused the initial invalidation of the guarantee and potentially other issues with the roof.

Even after the issues that occurred, which invalidated the guarantee, it still failed to adjust its record system appropriately until it was too late.

This failing weakened the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s abilities to perform its repair obligations sufficiently.

The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out when they were completed or if they took place at all. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving any outstanding issues.

There were 2 other severe maladministration findings in this case, for the repairs to the roof and the communications and complaint handling at different stages.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £2,200 in compensation, apologise and conduct a full inspection of the condition of the property roof.

A key part of the Spotlight report on knowledge and information management looked at repairs record keeping. A lack of effective record keeping on repairs can see repairs getting delayed, not actioned, or simply never being logged in the first instance. This will cause increased distress and inconvenience for residents, as well as further erosion of trust between landlord and resident.

We made several other recommendations around repairs in the report such as on missed appointments and automated reminders.

In this case, 202216297, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration in PA Housing’s record keeping in a domestic abuse complaint.

The landlord was unable to locate any of the complaints reported by the resident, as they had been given to the incorrect team and could not be identified by all personnel.

This led to 4 complaints being raised over a year with no action being taken. There was no record of the resident’s vulnerabilities stored on the landlord’s systems.

Additionally, after the resident had informed the landlord she had fled the house due to domestic abuse, the ex-partner called the landlord to get the tenancy changed into his name.

The landlord was not able to establish that the resident had contacted it first. Because of this, a fraud case was raised as it was believed that the resident had abandoned the property without updating the landlord. This was not appropriate as it created additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.

There were also 2 other severe maladministration findings in this case, for the way the domestic abuse complaint was handled as a whole and the associated complaint handling.

The Ombudsman ordered the Chief Executive to apologise, pay £1,500 in compensation and contact the local authority to ensure it has all the relevant information regarding the resident’s reason for homelessness. Incorporating its own errors in dealing with the matter in the first instance.

Our Spotlight report on KIM found that residents’ vulnerabilities are often not appropriately recorded. Even when landlords have been advised multiple times and their procedures explicitly state that vulnerabilities will form part of the decision-making process. It also found that in the absence of that information:

• wrong decisions were made
• those most in need were not prioritised
• residents were treated insensitively

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for Gateshead Council’s (202217072) record keeping in a case involving damp and mould.

The landlord said it no longer had surveyor reports because of a change in contractor. Due to no longer having these reports and despite knowing the extent of the problem, it had to repeat the survey to see what is required. This prolonged the detriment for the resident.

During the handling of the resident’s case the landlord changed the member of staff dealing with the matter but did not have processes in place to make sure information was passed over. At times the landlord did not demonstrate knowledge of the history of the case. Placing the onus on the resident to repeat previous events and share previous email conversations/agreements with it.

This demonstrated a lack of appropriate processes to prevent the loss of information when contractors or staff change. The landlord missed opportunities to rebuild the resident’s trust in its handling of his matter or demonstrate an understanding of the longstanding issue.

The investigation also found severe maladministration in the overall handling of the damp and mould, as well as the associated complaint handling.

We ordered the landlord to pay £8,800 in compensation, for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person and complete an inspection of the property to assess its condition and the works required.

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

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for Metropolitan Thames Valley (202017341) after record keeping compounded poor repairs on a home.

The landlord showed a pattern of failings around its record keeping in different aspects of its interactions with the resident and their representative. A lack of detail around the resident’s vulnerabilities meant that reasonable adjustments were not considered in managing the repair visits. Potentially delaying the completion of them.

Further to this, it has no evidence of its engagement around the requests for adaptations to the property or to show that it followed the correct steps before forcing entry to the property. The landlord made claims around no access visits and the resident’s representative refusing access but was unable to provide any evidence of such issues.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £2,750 in compensation, for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident in person, and to self-assess against the Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has updated policies about forced entries, introduced new and additional questions on property inspection forms to make an early and effective assessment of resident vulnerability, and when there is a vulnerability present having a dedicated caseworker for that individual.

In case 202209837, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for A2Dominion in an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) case. From the limited information provided by the landlord, significant information was incorrect or missing. The landlord failed to keep adequate and up to date records and was therefore unable to provide evidence as to how it had used its discretion in applying relevant procedures.

Without the key complaint evidence, it proved challenging for the Ombudsman to understand the full details of events. Therefore, assessing the case in these circumstances was unreasonably difficult for caseworkers.

The lack of evidence provided by the landlord hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation as it was unable to clarify timelines, or what was reported or discussed. It delayed the start of the investigation and therefore the decision to the resident. This would have caused additional distress and inconvenience.

The landlord advised that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or family. The resident requested a management transfer from her property due to her medical needs based on mental health and physical disabilities. Her child was also diagnosed with ADHD of which the landlord was made aware of. The timeline shows the resident signposted the landlord to her vulnerabilities within her transfer request and the impact the ASB was having on her mental health. She also submitted at least 4 medical letters to support this.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to write an apology to the resident, pay £1,050 in compensation, and review its allocations policy.

In its learning from the case, the landlord says it has created a new dedicated ASB team to ensure more effective record keeping, and oversight of actions and information for residents. The landlord says it has also updated its allocations policy and procedure, making sure that customers who are pregnant receive correct identification as potentially vulnerable.

In case 202118379, the Ombudsman ordered Anchor Hanover to review its data retention policy and identify where its policy did not conform to the recommendations in the Spotlight report KIM.

This was after poor record keeping hampered a damp and mould complaint. With the landlord’s handling of historic data regarding the home not supporting an effective and timely resolution. It also showed poor knowledge and information management in its complaint handling, where conversations included in complaint responses referenced but never provided to the resident in writing.

It also issued two stage 2 responses and failed to have a record on which jobs were completed or what the outcome was of different repairs raised.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord pay £3,900 in compensation and provide a permanent and lasting resolution to the issues of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has ensured internal processes are as effective as possible and implemented new procedures to stop the service failings happening again, as well as complying with all the orders and recommendations on the case.

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration in Harlow Council’s (202222305) record keeping in a damp and mould case, after it was unable to demonstrate it had kept contemporaneous notes of its interactions with the resident.

There were also details missing around communication and discussions with contractors, which had an impact on its ability to investigate and put things right. When the Ombudsman requested call and repair logs, none were provided.

The lack of evidence also limited the landlord’s ability to demonstrate it had complied with its HHSRS obligations.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £2,655 in compensation, schedule in the relevant roof placement needed and inspect the home for damp and mould, completing any works that come from this inspection.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has met with its contractor and implemented significant changes to the business processes of both organisations, which will now be reviewed quarterly by the Council’s Scrutiny Committee. On top of this, £3.4m was allocated to clear the backlog of works – which has been completed.

In case 202228343, L&Q failed to maintain adequate records, which impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to the severe maladministration finding on repairs.

This case was determined after the release of our special investigation report into the landlord.

Due to the lack of adequate records, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of the repairs was reasonable in the first instance and then in any subsequent work carried out.

From reports made by the resident and in complaint responses by the landlord, there were references to works raised or taken place, but it was not possible to verify these due to the poor records.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £1,000 in compensation, inspect the property to see what repairs need to be done, and then to complete those repairs.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has strengthened, accelerated, and embedded several positive changes to ensure it addresses operational challenges and delivers quality services every time. It also notes that it is currently in the second year of a 15-year home improvement and investment programme to help improve resident safety and decent homes.

The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for Clarion (202202489) after it failed to demonstrate that it had effective recording keeping practices to support its repair obligations.

Throughout the case, there were multiple instances of failure by the landlord to capture, record, or use held data. This case was determined after the release of our special investigation report into the landlord.

It was unreasonable that it took 14 months to establish if the roof was under warranty and the absence of contemporaneous records of investigations, surveys and inspections contributed to the unreasonable length of time it took the landlord to address repairs issues. Surveys or inspections appear to have taken place on 5 separate occasions, but the landlord could only provide 1 report.

Because of the landlord’s record-keeping failures, the resident incurred distress and the inconvenience of an unresolved leak in the property.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £2,150 in compensation, apologise to the resident and review its record keeping in line with the Spotlight report on KIM.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has established 2 new specialist teams: one responsible for building defects that require investigation and another for urgent major repairs, such as repairs to roofs. It has also invested in more resources for its complaints handling team and have a new policy in place that re-emphasises the commitment to keeping residents updated throughout the complaints process.

Although the severe maladministration in this case (202207559) is not for knowledge and information management, the impacts of the poor record keeping was one of the reasons Leeds City Council had a severe maladministration finding for its repairs, which led to the Ombudsman awarding £6,000 in compensation.

There was evidence that the landlord’s repair records were unclear and/or incomplete. Because of this there were duplicate visits from the landlord and inspections completed multiple times.

And although the landlord should have adhered to its repair process and communicated with the resident in advance of appointments, unannounced visits continued, which has caused the resident anxiety which could have been avoided were records accurate and acted upon.

On top of the compensation, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to review its internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, provide a schedule of the repairs works needed and determine if the property is safe.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has introduced improved procedures for managing this type of repair and has also established a dedicated team to deal with reports of damp and mould. It has also reviewed its procedures for capturing vulnerability information and tailoring services, so they meet vulnerability needs as effectively as possible.

In this case 202217276, Sanctuary were ordered to review steps it can take to make sure that when it uses contractors any works raised are attended within reasonable timeframes, that post-inspections are arranged and recorded and what systems it has in place where there are repeated reports that work is not completed or attended too.

Whilst the record keeping side of things was just maladministration, the record keeping failures meant there was a severe maladministration finding for how the landlord dealt with window repairs, damp and mould, and complaint handling.

On top of the earlier order, the Ombudsman also ordered the landlord to pay £5,200 in compensation and to provide an apology from the Chief Executive.
In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has launched a dedicated damp and mould taskforce and increased the size of its complaints team to be able to provide better service. It has also given staff more training and publicises the learning from Ombudsman reports on its website.

We have included this severe maladministration finding (202201555) for Notting Hill Genesis due to a recommendation we made for the landlord to inform the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of its suspected data breaches in connection with this case, and for it to take any action subsequently required or recommended by that authority.

This links to a key finding from the original Spotlight report on KIM and speaks to the importance of data management.

The severe maladministration was for Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and associated safeguarding concerns, in which the landlord unduly delayed in tackling ASB reported by the resident. When it did act, its approach was inconsistent, over-reliant on other agencies, and ineffective in resolving the issues.

In terms of the data, the Ombudsman was concerned about the level of information shared by the landlord with the resident regarding her neighbour’s mental health and personal circumstances. It was inappropriate of the landlord to discuss the neighbour’s vulnerability and support arrangements with others.

Though some information may have been shared with the intention of being open and honest, the role of a landlord includes maintaining appropriate boundaries and fulfilling its legal duty of confidentiality towards all its residents. The fact that multiple officers shared excessive amounts of information may indicate a cultural issue that requires training to address.

Landlords should be mindful of the GDPR regulations in place. Regular knowledge tests in these areas can lead to improved knowledge for officers and staff that are dealing with personal data.

In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has taken on lots of learning throughout the organisation on this topic, including oversight on ASB cases and training for staff. As part of its Better Together strategy, the landlord is investing over £1m into overhauling its complaint framework and support systems to streamline the process, ensuring more satisfactory responses to resident concerns.