Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202215261)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215261

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

Amended 12 August 2024

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s requests for communication to be provided in an accessible format.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s use of offensive language and use of the communal areas.
3. Handling of the associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began on 27 November 2017. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which include visual impairment, mental health issues and physical disabilities. The property is a one bedroom flat, sheltered accommodation.
The Ombudsman notes from the evidence seen that the landlord updated its records on 14 December 2017 and stated that all correspondence to the resident should be sent in large font size. It further noted that the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 12 March 2020, and requested that letters should be sent to her in font size 48 print due to her visual impairment. The landlord responded that it was aware of the resident’s preference and it was sorry that it had since sent letters to her in small print. It said it was only able to send letters in font size 16, and assured the MP that it had taken the necessary steps to ensure that any future letters would be sent in large print.

Landlord obligations

Under the Equality Act 2010, a service provider has a duty to take positive and proactive steps to ensure that disabled people can access their services. Section 20(6) of the Equality Act specifically states that where the adjustment concerns the provision of information, reasonable steps would include action to ensure that the information is provided in an accessible format.
The landlord’s diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policy aligns with the above act. It states that:
1. It is committed to delivering fair and equitable services that are accessible to people of any background.
2. It will meet the obligations and duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Duty.
3. It will make reasonable adjustments where necessary to overcome any disadvantages due to disabilities.
4. It will influence others to perform well in this area and only use contractors and partners who have a DEI approach that is broadly consistent with its own aims.
Under the tenancy conditions residents must:
1. not cause a nuisance or annoy anyone in the local area or do anything that interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of other people living in the local area. It may take legal action against a tenant if they make unreasonable amount of noise that can be heard outside of their premises and annoy other neighbours.
2. ensure that pets do not cause any nuisance, annoyance or danger to any other person.
The landlord has a two stage complaint handling process. It will aim to answer stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the request. It will inform the customer if it requires more time to complete the investigation.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows goodwill gestures where a resident has been inconvenienced due to the way it delivered a service.

Summary

In an internal email dated 17 September 2021, the landlord’s information technology (IT) department noted that measures had been put in place to ensure that large print letters could be generated for residents if they had a specific code against their records.
In its internal communications on 20 September 2021, it discussed whether alternative options could be explored for communicating with its residents and any adjustments that could be made on its systems to remind staff of the importance of checking contact preferences.
The resident’s advocate wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 24 September 2021 that it had sent two letters in June and September 2021 in small print. They said the landlord should take the necessary and urgent steps to ensure that its contractors provide all future correspondence to the resident in her accessible format in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord had internal discussions on 27 September 2021 regarding processes for its staff and contractors to ensure they identify customers communication preference. It said that a note had been placed in its post room with the resident’s address so this is not missed again.
In its internal communications between 28 September 2021 and 30 September 2021, the landlord said:
1. The resident had called twice and asked for letters to be re-sent to her in the requested format, because two letters were sent to her in small print on 16 June 2021 and 7 July 2021.
2. It had notified the relevant staff to always check the portal, but it would ensure any important notes like these were put on its tracker to prevent a reoccurrence.
3. The letters were sent in the wrong format due to a system error which it was currently working on and enhancements were needed to ensure that customer requirements were highlighted in all circumstances when sending out communications.
In an internal email on 7 October 2021 the landlord provided guidance to staff on how to update the system, to ensure that future communication were sent in the resident’s requested format.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint. It said its systems had been updated to reflect the resident’s request to ensure letters were sent in large print. It said:
1. Its contractors had been advised to ensure that the resident’s communication preference, flagged on the system, is taken into account at all times.
2. Its contractors advised that letters were sent in the wrong font due to an IT error and they were discussing an enhancement with their teams to rectify the issue.
3. It had requested weekly updates from them to ensure that the matter was resolved.
4. It would promote using the correct communication format to all employees through internal publications and user guides and advise them of the importance of getting things right for all its customers.
5. It would be conducting a wider review to ensure that its systems were correctly set up for communications with customers with similar preferences.
6. It would review how it could better consider equality and diversity requirements of its customers within its procurement process so that this is always prioritised.
7. It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October and reported that a letter had been dropped off at the property but it was in an inaccessible format. The landlord apologised for the frustration caused and assured her that the member of staff had been spoken to.
The advocate informed the landlord on 29 October 2021 that it needed to prioritise relevant training and information needed to be given to all members of staff so they were aware of their responsibilities. It also said the measures detailed in its letter did not appear to go far enough.
The following events occurred between 2 December 2021 and 17 December 2021:
1. The resident informed the landlord on 10 December 2021 that she had received another letter in small print. She said it had not kept to its promise and she had not been able to read the contents of the letter.
2. The landlord apologised and assured her that it would investigate what went wrong and re-issue the letter in the requested format.
3. The landlord noted in its internal communications that the letter was sent out by error.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 January 2022 regarding a proposed panel meeting to discuss another complaint. It said it had collated a pack of information to provide a background of the case to be discussed and it had included a copy of the letter she had received in small print in December 2021 as evidence to the panel. It said it had since sent another copy of the letter in the requested format, spoken to the relevant managers and completed training with the team to emphasise the importance of checking flags and notes against a customer records.
In its internal email dated 21 March 2022, the landlord said the resident had raised several issues at a meeting held to discuss a previous stage 2 complaint. She reported that another resident was taking their dog to the laundry room and kitchen. It said these issues were not part of the complaint it had investigated.
The landlord noted in an internal email discussion on 23 March 2022 that dogs should be kept on their leads within the corridors or communal lounge. It said it would not be appropriate for them to be in the laundry room and kitchen for hygiene purposes. It said it would arrange for the appropriate officer to inform the neighbour and be clear of its expectations.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord noted in its internal communications that the resident reported that:
1. One of her neighbours used inappropriate language when she was on the phone. The landlord noted that it had previously spoken to the neighbour regarding similar concerns in the past.
2. She was not happy that dogs were still being allowed in the kitchen and other communal areas. The landlord said it had spoken to the neighbour and clarified where dogs are allowed within the communal areas.
The resident and the landlord communicated between April and June 2022 about other issues within the neighbourhood. In an email dated 10 June 2022, she reported that a letter sent to her in an inaccessible format. The landlord discussed this in an internal email and said one of the pages of the letter was printed upside down, rather than the same format as the other page.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 July 2022 and said:
1. Enforcement is used for the most serious and impactful breaches of tenancy. If residents break the rules, it would rather work with them to find solutions to issues.
2. The issues brought up during their discussion about the neighbour’s dog and the neighbour upstairs using offensive language were not the sort of problems that it could realistically resolve through enforcement.
3. Her report did not suggest that the dog was being aggressive and a danger to others, or that the use of offensive language was angrily directed at other residents. For that reason, it would continue to talk to her neighbours and explain the impact of their behaviour and why it would like to see that behaviour change.
On the 25 July 2022, the resident advised her advocate that she wanted to raise a complaint because the landlord had directly discriminated against her by refusing to take enforcement action against her neighbour for using offensive language. The landlord was not included in the correspondence and only learned of the resident’s intention raise a complaint on 28 July 2022. Once received the landlord stated that it undertook the resident request to pass her correspondence to the relevant departments.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2022 regarding the following:
1. She had received another letter in small print on 25 July 2022.
2. The neighbour’s dog was still being taken into the communal lounge.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 August 2022. It said it had also noted her concerns about the neighbour’s dog being let into the lounge.
In a telephone conversation with the landlord on 8 August 2022, she asked it to clarify where the dog was allowed within the communal areas. The landlord noted that it needed to be clear with the neighbour and the resident about its position on this. It noted that the resident said she had evidence of her neighbour using offensive language again and she wanted action taken that would reflect the agreement they had that swearing should not be clearly overheard by others.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2022 in response to her complaint received on 4 August 2022. A summary of the response is outlined below:
1. It failed to uphold its commitment to ensure that letters were sent in her requested format and it apologised for the error. Following the previous stage 2 complaint, it had updated its system to reflect her communication preference but a new member of staff had overridden the alert by mistake which led to the letter being sent in small print. It had spoken to its contractor and emphasised the importance of reading all alerts linked to customer records and they had received additional training on how to do so. It would reiterate this at the next meeting.
2. Regarding her concerns about her neighbour it said it had asked the neighbour to be mindful of other residents when making telephone calls. It said it would not be taking any further action.
3. In reference to her concerns about the neighbour bringing their dog into communal areas, it said if the dog is on a lead they are allowed to access communal areas such as the lounge and hallways. It would not permit the dog in sterile communal areas such as the communal kitchen or washing area. It asked her to report any future concerns.
4. It apologised for the service failure in providing correspondence in an accessible format and offered £250 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2022. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the conflicting advice received regarding the neighbour’s dog. The dog barked at people coming in and out of the communal areas which she found alarming.
2. She wanted to discuss the use of offensive language within the sheltered scheme as she did not agree with the landlord’s decision. The landlord should have imposed a behaviour agreement on the neighbour as she overheard them swearing from their flat.
3. She was not happy that it had not learned from its previous mistakes as it had continued to send correspondence in small print.
The landlord noted in its internal communications on 22 August 2022 that the new concern about the dog barking should be discussed with the neighbour.
The landlord noted in its internal communications dated 1 September 2022, that the resident reported that she had received another letter from the contractors in small print.
A director within the landlord’s organisation communicated with the contractors in September 2022 in several emails. The key points from the discussions are outlined below:
1. They said they had just visited the resident and confirmed that a copy of her gas certificate was sent to her in small print. It queried why the contractors continued to send communication to the resident in small print despite previous communication on her preference. It asked the contractor to provide assurances that it had the necessary measures in place to issue all letters in large print in the future.
2. The contractors responded that they previously had an issue but the property was definitely set up to notify its staff at the point of letter production to send letters in large print. It said the only issue was its landlord gas safety record (LGSR) that gets issued annually following a service. It explained that this was an automated process and far more involved, so its first plan for preventing the letter being sent in standard format had failed. It said it had found another solution which had successfully demonstrated that the standard letters were not automatically created.
3. It asked the landlord if there was anything it could do to apologise for any distress that may have been caused.
The contractors wrote to the resident (undated letter) and apologised to her for the service failure. It assured her that it had since resolved the problem so she would no longer receive correspondence in the wrong format.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 September 2022 and confirmed the date for the panel review would be 3 October 2022.
The landlord held an appeal panel meeting with the resident on 3 October 2022. She expressed that she remained unhappy about her neighbour being allowed to take her dog in communal areas and that it barked at people walking by.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 10 October 2022. It said:
1. She confirmed during the meeting that the issue with the neighbour using offensive language had stopped.
2. It was aware that since the stage 1 response was sent, it had sent another letter to her in small print. It explained that this was because its neighbourhood team had not used the central system and checked for any special circumstances for any amendments required. It apologised for this error and advised that training would be arranged with the team to reiterate the importance of not only checking customer records, but ensuring all communication sent is in an appropriate or accessible format, in line with customer preferences and requirements.
3. Regarding communal misuse, it clarified that the neighbour was not allowed to take the dog into any communal “clean area” such as the communal kitchen or laundry room. It said as long as the dog is on a lead, under control and always supervised, it would permit the neighbour to take the dog into the communal lounge or through the hallways. It would ask the relevant teams to ensure that this was made clear to the neighbour.
4. Regarding concerns shared during the meeting about neighbours using items to wedge the fire door open, it would arrange the installation of a door guard so that the door will automatically shut in the event the fire alarm goes off. It would also consider a more general provision of information to the residents about fire safety.
5. It concluded that its stage 1 response was appropriate, and it had arranged to hand deliver the vouchers offered to her as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident informed this Service on 20 October 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint for the following reasons:
1. she felt ignored and discriminated against.
2. issue with the neighbour’s dog.
3. fire doors being wedged open.
4. landlord was sending small print letters.
The landlord noted in its internal email dated 18 January 2023 that its contractors had sent out two letters to the resident in small print. It said:
1. This had happened despite communications had with the contractors to be mindful of the resident’s request.
2. It had written a letter to the resident with a new appointment date for the electrical test and inspection and included an acknowledgement and apology in the letter to be hand delivered to her.
3. It had advised the contractors to hold off any communication with the resident without its consent.
On 19 January 2023 the contractors advised the landlord that it had put processes into place on the gas contract, to ensure every correspondence was sent in large print. However, it had not recognised that the property was on its electrical contract which it ran separately within its system. It had since put the same restrictions and alerts in place on the electrical contract to ensure the error did not occur again. It said the address would be dealt with as an individual property outside of all other properties it managed and offered apologies for its oversight and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord informed this Service on 18 September 2023 that it installed a door guard (fire safety door stops) on 27 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Handling of the resident’s requests for communication to be provided in an accessible format.

The Ombudsman has seen from the evidence that the landlord updated its records in 2017, to reflect the resident’s preference for communication. This step is in line with both the Equality Act and its own diversity, equality and inclusion policy, when made aware of the resident’s need for reasonable adjustments. It accepted that written communication would be sent in font size 16 due to the resident’s disability. This said, the resident’s complaint was specifically about the landlord’s failure to consistently adhere to this agreed adjustment request.
We have seen from the history of this case, that the resident was left with no choice but to repeatedly remind the landlord to comply with her request. As a result of a formal complaint in September 2021, it assured the resident that general awareness would be promoted through internal publications to highlight the importance of adhering to customer preferences or any reasonable adjustments in place for them. It is noted from the evidence that the resident reported the same issue in October 2021 after it issued this promise and the landlord apologised for the error again.
It is not disputed that the landlord recognised its errors and the impact of its repeated mistakes on the resident, which occurred again in December 2021, June 2022 and July 2022. It acknowledged in its stage 1 response on 18 August 2022, that a new member of staff was responsible for sending out a letter she received in July 2022. This explanation was unreasonable as training should have been provided to the member of staff about the importance of reading and adhering to all alerts on residents’ accounts. This said it offered £250 to the resident for the inconvenience caused and assured her that additional training would be provided to staff.
Despite its previous assurances, the resident reported in August 2022 she had received another letter in the wrong format. The evidence shows that a senior member of staff, within the landlord’s organisation, investigated this matter and found that its contractors had sent the resident a gas certificate in small print. It is unclear from the evidence if any communications were sent to the contractors, reiterating its previous advice about the resident’s communication preference even though the landlord assured the resident that it would do so in its stage 1 response. This Service notes that the manager investigated what went wrong in September 2022, and demanded an explanation from its contractors to find out why it continued to disregard its previous advice.
Whilst this is noted as a reasonable approach, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have taken a proactive approach and worked with the contractors to prevent this error from reoccurring in the first place. We have seen from the contractors’ response that they did not anticipate any further letters would be automatically generated in small print (such as the gas certificate as noted in this case) but this occurred, nonetheless. It is noted from the evidence that the contractors explained that they had since found a solution to the issue, but the error could have been prevented if the landlord had given consideration to this issue reoccurring and worked with them to prevent it. However, it was appropriate that the contractors apologised to the resident, and offered an explanation and its assurance that the issue would not happen again.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that apart from the letter sent by its contractor, its neighbourhood team had also sent her a letter in small print after the stage 1 response. Whilst it offered apologies it is clear from the evidence that the landlord had not learned from its earlier mistakes as it continued to give the same explanations, that its staff did not check the system before printing the letter. This is not acceptable and would have caused the resident further distress and frustration. This indicates that it had not emphasised the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Equality Act to all its staff as previously stated. This does not show that it had committed to ensuring the error would not occur again. It did not offer any additional compensation for any additional distress caused and concluded that the amount offered at stage 1 and the apology offered by its contractors would suffice.
Despite the assurances provided by the landlord and its contractors, the evidence shows that further correspondence was sent to the resident, that were not in her requested format, after the complaints process had been exhausted. This Service notes that the landlord had since instructed the contractors to await its consent before further communication and the contractors have again provided reasons for this error.
Overall, there is evidence of significant failings on the part of the landlord. It did not do enough to put things right for the resident, or to learn from outcomes in this case. The resident made a complaint in September 2021 and two other complaints in 2022 as a result of its continued mistakes. Whilst it updated the resident’s preference for receiving communication on its records, the measures put in place were not sufficient and this caused the resident distress, inconvenience and time and trouble in repeatedly contacting it to provide information in the requested format. She highlighted the importance of learning from feedback and stated that simply recognising the mistake was not enough. Whilst the resident’s vulnerability and communication preference was duly recorded on the landlord’s system, there is evidence of a failure to consistently adhere to it when providing the service. For this reason, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for communication to be provided in an accessible format.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour and use of the communal areas.

With regards to the resident’s reports about her neighbours’ behaviour, the evidence indicates that it had discussions with them regarding the reports made against them. It noted on 23 March 2022 that the neighbours would be advised on the areas they were allowed to take their dog. It also noted on 13 April 2022 that it had spoken to them about their use of offensive language and clarified where they were allowed to take their dogs within the communal areas of the scheme.
Although the landlord advised the resident in its email dated 5 July 2022 that it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour, this Service would expect it to send a written warning to the neighbour if it had evidence or reports that they continued to disregard their warnings. In this case, there is not sufficient evidence to determine if the resident made any further reports until July 2022 (when the landlord wrote to her) and August 2022. It is also noted from the evidence that it informed the resident in its stage 1 response, dated 18 August 2022, that it would reiterate its advice to the neighbour. The landlord noted that following the stage 2 panel meeting, the resident advised that the issue regarding the neighbour using offensive language had been resolved. This suggests that the measures taken by the landlord successfully resolved the issue.
With regards to the resident’s concern about dogs being allowed in the communal lounge, the landlord clarified in its stage 1 response that dogs are allowed in the communal lounge and hallways as long as they were under control and supervised but not in the kitchen or laundry room. It reiterated this advice in its stage 2 response on 10 October 2022 in response to the resident’s report that the dog barked at people and further assured her that this would be made clear to the neighbour. In view of the evidence there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s use of offensive language and use of the communal areas.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord did not receive the complaint until 28 July 2022, however, the complaint was not acknowledged until 5 August 2022, which was five working days after it was received, meaning the landlord failed to act in line with its complaint procedure which states it would contact a resident within three working days to acknowledge a complaint. Although, its noted that the time in which the landlord responded was acceptable under the previous complaint handling code (April 2022).
With regards to the stage 2 response, the escalation request was received and acknowledged on 23 August 2022. The landlords policy states that the appeal panel (stage 2) will take place within 15 working days of the original stage 2 stage request and following the panel it will send details of the outcome within five working days. However, the evidence reflects that the landlord first contacted the resident regarding the appeal panel meeting on 8 September 2022, which was 11 working days after the escalation request was submitted.
Given the stage 2 panel should be completed within 15 days of an escalation request, it was poor practice for the landlord to have only made contact after 11 working days had passed and arguably meant at this stage it was already unlikely that the landlord would issue a formal stage 2 response within its 20 working day timeframe. Had the landlord contacted the resident sooner a stage 2 panel might have been arranged and completed within the timeframes set out in its relevant policy.
Once the landlord did contact the resident, the landlord explained that the stage 2 panel was delayed because she wanted her friend to attend with her. The landlord’s policy allows residents to bring or family to a panel meeting for moral support, thus the Ombudsman accepts this to be a mitigating factor. The internal notes show that the landlord and the resident agreed to meet on 3 October 2022, however, it is not clear if early dates were offered to the resident.
Both the landlord’s policy and CHC allow extensions to the stage 2 process so long as an explanation is provided, the resident is given reasonable notice and agrees to the extension. There were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints procedure, which the landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise for, or offer compensation for any inconvenience. Further, the landlord failed to communicate effectively around the need for an extension or set out that it would not be able to issue a stage 2 response within the stipulated timeframe causing unnecessary confusion; because of this, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for communication to be provided in an accessible format.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s use of offensive language and use of the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

Although it updated its records with the resident’s communication preference in accordance with its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, it failed to ensure that the reasonable adjustments put in place were effective. This resulted in letters being sent to her in an inaccessible format causing the resident distress and time and trouble in repeatedly asking it to send letters in the right format.
The landlord took proportionate and reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the neighbours’ use of offensive language and dogs accessing the communal areas. It had discussions with the relevant neighbours of its expectations. It also cleared up any misunderstanding with the resident about the areas that dogs were allowed in within the communal areas of the building.
There were delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints response. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in both responses, apologise to the resident or offer compensation for any inconvenience caused. Further, the landlord failed to contact the resident in order to arranged a stage 2 panel within a reasonable timeframe, which affecting its ability to draw in line under the complaint within the deadlines stipulated in its relevant policy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £1050 broken down as:
  1. £400 for the distress, frustration and time and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of her request for correspondence in an accessible format.
  2. £400 for the inconvenience to the resident for the failures identified in the handling of the associated complaint.
  3. £250 previously offered if it has not already been paid to her.
3. Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, with a view to providing timely responses and address all points raised in complaints.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report,
1. the landlord should provide evidence of the training it said it would arrange with the team as stated in its stage 2 response.
2. It should also provide evidence of the wider review to ensure that its systems were correctly set up for communications with customers with similar preferences as referenced in its letter dated 8 October 2021.