Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202346196)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346196

Hastoe Housing Association Limited

8 April 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of being locked out of the property.
    2. Requests for repairs to her front door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom bungalow, owned by the landlord. The landlord has mobility and mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 23 December 2023, stating that she was unhappy with how the landlord’s staff responded to her reports of being locked out of the property. She said the emergency call handlers and customer service staff were rude and unhelpful. She asked the landlord to introduce staff training to ensure better service in future.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 January 2024. It stated that although it responded to the resident’s reports of being locked out of her property within its emergency response time of 24 hours, there were some failures with how its staff responded to her reports. It apologised and offered her £50 compensation for this service failure.
  4. The resident informed the landlord on 27 January 2024 that she was still experiencing issues with the front door. She requested for it to repair or replace her front door. It escalated her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 15 March 2024.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 28 March 2024. It reiterated what it said in its stage 1 response regarding the resident’s contact with its out of hours team and its customer services team. It apologised that the front door repairs were still outstanding. It offered £200 compensation as follows:

£50 deficient performance of its staff.

£50 delay in responding to the resident’s email.

£100 delay in repairing the front door lock.

  1. The landlord issued a revised stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. It said it contractors attended the resident’s property on 4 April 2024. It offered additional £200 compensation bringing the total compensation to £400.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She reported that she was still having ongoing issues with the front door not locking properly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that she considers that the landlord’s actions and omissions had an impact on her mental health. This Service cannot say whether a person was injured or a health condition made worse by a landlord’s actions or omissions. This would be better suited to the court. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she should seek legal advice. We have considered whether the landlord’s award of compensation was appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Reports of being locked out of the property.

  1. The landlord repairs policy states it is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the property which includes doors. It states it would respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It would conduct a full repair, if required, at a follow up appointment.
  2. The resident reported that she contacted the landlord around 7:00am on 22 December 2023, stating that her door had locked itself when she went to take out the bins. She called the out of hours emergency number and the staff informed her that she should call a locksmith at her expense. She called the number again and a different staff member told her that they would send someone out to her as soon as possible. The customer service team rang the resident around 9:30am and she had to explain the situation to them a third time. She said its contractors attended around 15 minutes after the call, they gained access through the back door. They could not find any fault with the front door, but they confirmed that the front door had a key in the lock on the inside when they entered the property.
  3. In its complaint responses the landlord stated that it attended the property within its emergency response time limit of 24 hours. It stated that the handling of the first call was poor, and although the second call was better, the call handler did not pass on the correct information. This meant the resident had to explain the issue with the lock multiple times. It apologised for the poor service and said it has raised the issue with its out of hours team. It offered £50 for its service failure in relation to how its staff communicated with her.
  4. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident would have experienced some distress and inconvenience due to being locked out of the property. However, this situation was not the fault of the landlord. The landlord acted promptly to her reports of being locked out of the property and it attended within its emergency response time limit. It accepted that its communication with her could have been better, and it took steps to learn what went wrong. Its offer of £50 compensation was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance for service failure. The landlord’s efforts to put things right, including apologising and offering compensation, were proportionate redress for its service failing in this case.

Requests for door repairs

  1. As stated above, the landlord is responsible for completing repairs to the structure of the property including doors. Its repairs policy states it would complete routine repairs within 28 days. This applies to repairs where the problem does not cause immediate inconvenience or present a danger to occupants or the public and cannot wait to be done as part of its planned works programme.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 27 January 2024 that it had failed to fix the front door when it attended previously. She said she still had problems with the door locking and that the door blew open sometimes. The landlord responded on 16 February 2024, apologising for not responding sooner. It stated that its operatives could not find any faults with the door when they responded to her emergency request previously which is why it had not taken any further action. It raised a new job for the front door and said its contractors would contact the resident to arrange a date to attend.
  3. It was reasonable of the landlord to raise a new repair request to investigate the resident’s report. However, although the resident did not raise an urgent door repair request on 27 January 2024, she said the door was blowing open by itself. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to have attended within 10 calendar days (in accordance with the repairs policy for urgent repairs) to ensure the property was secure and to complete any urgent works to make the door safe.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 March 2024, stating that the front door lock was still faulty, and it should repair or replace the door. She was worried about the door opening while she was asleep and said the situation left her feeling vulnerable. The landlord responded the same day and asked her to confirm if its contractors attended for the job it raised. The resident advised that the contractor attended on 13 March 2024 and replaced the back door lock but they said they did not have any instruction to fix the front door lock. Its records show that it booked another appointment for 21 March 2024, however the contactors did not attend due to illness, it rebooked this appointment for 28 March 2024.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it made some attempts to complete the door repairs. However, considering the resident’s reported vulnerabilities it should have been more proactive in terms of confirming with its contractors that they had completed the repair, instead of relying on her to inform it of the status of the repair. She had to chase the landlord for updates which would have caused further distress. Furthermore, the landlord failed to complete an initial inspection to check if the front door was secure before it completed the routine door repair. It stated it would complete the front door repairs by 28 March 2024. This was 34 days outside its repairs policy timescale and 61 days from when she made her initial request for front door repairs.
  6. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. In its updated stage 2 complaint response of 12 April 2024, the landlord stated that its contractors should have advised the resident that they could not attend on 21 March 2024 due to illness. It apologised for this oversight and said it would raise the issue with its contractors in their next meeting. It said it had booked a further appointment for 4 April 2024 following its visit on 28 March 2024, but its contractors had not informed it if they had completed the job. It asked the resident if its contractors successfully resolved the issue during that visit. It had considered her personal circumstances and the ongoing distress the situation had caused her and was offering an increased total compensation of £400.
  8. Under the circumstances, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation were reasonable when considering the nature of the failings identified above. This is also considering the fact that the landlord completed the repairs it said it would on 4 April 2024 to fix the front door.
  9. It is our understanding the resident remained dissatisfied due to the ongoing issues with the door following the complaints process and repairs. It is important to highlight that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the works from 4 April 2024 would constitute a new issue; therefore, a new complaint will need to be raised with the landlord regarding the new matters. Since the landlord completed the repairs as confirmed in the revised stage two response and awarded suitable compensation due to the failings identified, it is our view there was reasonable redress. To assist in progressing the new matters, a recommendation has been included below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s reports of being locked out of the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her front door.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £400 it offered in the revised stage two response. The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that this payment is made to the resident.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm whether she wants to raise the ongoing issues from April 2024 as a new complaint. Should the resident confirm this to the landlord, it must open a new stage one complaint and progress this issue through its internal complaints procedure.