Orbit Group Limited (202222627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222627

Orbit Group Limited

28 June 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. Administration of the resident’s tenancy.
2. Handling of reports of leaks and associated repairs including damp and mould.
3. Handling of the resident’s decant following a leak in October 2022.
4. Handling of repairs to the lift and security gate at the resident’s block.
5. Handling of the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider matters which the resident has the opportunity to raise through legal proceedings.
We have seen evidence that the resident’s solicitor started legal proceedings for disrepair by filing a claim in court on 8 April 2024. This means the resident will have the opportunity to raise the issues of the leaks, associated repairs, and damp and mould as part of those proceedings. The court will be able to provide a binding ruling and consider the resident’s request for damages, including loss of her belongings and the impact on her health.
After carefully considering the evidence, we have decided that the landlord’s handling of the leaks, associated repairs, and damp and mould, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. As such, we have not investigated the issues raised and have only referred to the repair issues in this report where it is necessary for context.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant from 8 August 2020. She moved into the property, a 4 bedroom flat, after mutually exchanging tenancies with another social housing tenant. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s flat and the block it is in.
From the start of the tenancy, the landlord has been aware of the resident’s health conditions including asthma, arthritis, angina, fibromyalgia, behcet’s syndrome and mental health issues. Behcet’s syndrome is a rare condition that causes painful inflammation of the blood vessels and tissues within the body.
The resident moved in with her 3 grandchildren and the landlord was aware that they too had health conditions. One grandson has autism, the other has epilepsy and behcet’s syndrome. Her granddaughter has behcet’s and lynch syndromes.
The resident’s flat is in a block that has a car park for residents underneath it. There is a lift between the car park and the ground floor of the building above and residents pay a service charge for the provision of the lift. There is also a flight of stairs that residents can use to access the car park from the ground floor of the block.

Summary of events

On 18 January 2021, the resident made a claim for universal credit and the department for work and pensions (DWP), asked the landlord to verify her tenancy details. On 15 February 2021, the resident asked the DWP why the housing allowance element of her universal credit did not cover her full rent charge. The DWP told her it could not pay her full housing costs as there were 2 people on her tenancy agreement. The resident attempted to resolve the issue with the DWP.
On 26 March 2021 the resident called the landlord asking it to refund the advance rent payment she had made at the start of her tenancy. The landlord said it could not give a refund as she was in rent arrears. The resident explained that she should not be in arrears but thought her grandson had been included as a joint tenant on her tenancy. The landlord said it would investigate and call her back.
The resident called the landlord again on 1 April 2021. The landlord offered a referral to its tenancy sustainment team which the resident declined. She later spoke to the landlord’s rents team. She called again on 6 April 2021 and the landlord told her she needed to contact the DWP about her benefits.
On 9 April 2021, the landlord served a notice of its intention to seek possession of the resident’s flat due to her rent arrears.
On 14 April 2021 the resident made a formal complaint about her grandson being recorded as a joint tenant. The landlord called the resident on 28 April 2021 and included the matters of her advance rent payment not being refunded and a lift breakdown in her complaint.
The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response later on 28 April 2021 which said:
1. The advance rent payment she had made was to make sure her rent account was a week in credit. Her rent account had not been sufficiently in credit for it to refund the advance payment. It apologised for the inconvenience and upset caused.
2. Her grandson had been incorrectly listed on her tenancy agreement as her partner which caused him to be listed as a joint tenant. It had now rectified the issue.
3. It had raised an order to repair the lift within its 24 hour timescale on 27 April 2021 and its contractor had attended the following day.
4. There had been service failings and it upheld her complaint. It was sorry for the inconvenience and upset caused and offered £200 compensation.
Between 29 June 2021 and 14 June 2022, the landlord and resident communicated about her rent arrears. The landlord served a second notice of its intent to seek possession of her home on 25 July 2022.
Around 28 August 2022 the resident called the landlord’s out of hours service because she said she was stuck in the lift. The landlord’s contractor attended on 28 August 2022 and its report said it found the lift to be in working order and without any faults.
On 20 October 2022 the resident was decanted to a hotel due to leaks through her ceilings from the balconies of the flat above her. She had reported leaks during wet weather previously but on this occasion, water had leaked onto beds and carpets in 2 bedrooms. The landlord attended to make the property safe and decided to move the resident to a hotel for 3 nights.
The resident remained in hotel accommodation until 23 December 2022 during which time she was moved to different hotels at least twice. The resident contacted the landlord at least 9 times between 27 October 2022 and 14 December 2022 to raise issues with the hotel bookings and chase reimbursement of her expenses for travel and food.
A charity support worker had also emailed the landlord 3 times between 3 November 2022 and 23 November 2022 saying that hotel accommodation was not suitable for the resident and her grandchildren. The emails highlighted the family’s vulnerabilities and the impact on their health and wellbeing.
On 16 December 2022 the resident made another formal complaint. The issues raised which are relevant to this case were:
1. She had been served with an eviction notice because her benefits did not cover her rent. The DWP had warned her against benefit fraud because the landlord had added her grandson as a joint tenant.
2. The landlord had told her she would get her advance rent payment back but had then refused to refund it.
3. The landlord had previously offered her compensation but wanted to offset it against rent arrears that were not her fault.
4. She had reported leaks through her ceilings many times but the repairs done had not resolved them. A contractor had told her the problem had been ongoing for 8 years.
5. Her flat had been broken into after she had been decanted causing further repairs to be needed.
6. She had been put into different hotels and left without food and drink several times including over weekends when she could not contact the landlord to resolve the issues.
7. The security gates on the car park were stuck closed and cars were trapped inside the car park.
8. The lift often broke down. She had been trapped inside it for 2 hours and the fire service had to free her. She had fallen down stairs twice when the lift was out of order and had sustained injuries to her arms and legs. She had moved to her flat because she could not manage the stairs at her previous home.
9. The stress had affected her mental and physical health. The landlord had not listened to her concerns and had not done anything to reduce the stress.
The resident called the landlord on 21 December 2022 saying she was due to move back into her flat but had no beds or carpets in 2 bedrooms, and there were still repairs to be done. The landlord told her that her complaint was still being investigated and being without beds or carpets was not a reason for it to extend her decant.
Also on 21 December 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying that the landlord had not completed repairs and had not responded to her complaint. We wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 3 January 2023.
The resident returned to live in her flat from 23 December 2022.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 9 January 2023 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint. We wrote again on 19 January 2023.
Between 19 January 2023 and 26 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord multiple times about reimbursing her decant expenses and chasing a response to her complaint.
On 19 March 2023 the Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) instructing the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint by 24 March 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint on 21 March 2023. It said it understood her complaint was about damp and mould. It needed to do an inspection and had tried to contact her on 27 January 2023 but she had not been available. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange the inspection.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated but it is not clear when this happened.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord about the disrepair issues on 20 April 2023. Between 9 May 2023 and 11 May 2023, the resident and landlord communicated to arrange an inspection. The inspection was done on 12 May 2023. Around 20 June 2023, there were further leaks through the resident’s ceilings and the landlord attended to disconnect the electricity supply to lights in the affected rooms.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2023 saying her beds and carpets had been ruined again and she had no lights to some rooms. The resident later told us that she went to stay with her daughter due to the disrepair and has not lived in her flat since June 2023.
On 17 July 2023 we asked the landlord if it had given a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. We said it should provide a response by 24 July 2023 if had not already done so. The landlord replied that it had agreed an extension to the response timescale with the resident.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint on 1 August 2023. It said:
1. It acknowledged that it had added her grandson as a joint tenant on its system. It had served her with a notice of intent to seek possession but it had not served an eviction notice.
2. Its policy to was to offset compensation payments against arrears. She should contact DWP if she felt her benefits were incorrect.
3. It had repaired the security gate recently but it had been vandalised again. It was considering installing CCTV to identify the vandals.
4. Its contractor had told it there had been no problems with the lift recently and it had not received a report of her being trapped inside it. The lift had been serviced in April 2023 and it had not raised any orders for breakdowns that year.
5. It had inspected her flat and identified the repairs needed. It had been due to repair the leaks on 24 July 2023 but the leaks had got worse before then and she had been decanted. It had raised new orders for the repairs needed.
6. It upheld her complaint and was sorry for the experience she had. It offered £1,113 compensation and would consider further compensation when the repairs were done.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 3 August 2023 saying that the landlord’s response had not addressed all the issues that she had complained about. She said the landlord had taken too long to deal with her complaint and had not resolved the issues she had raised.

Assessment and findings

Administration of the resident’s tenancy

We have seen the deed of assignment drawn up by the landlord as part of the mutual exchange process. The resident’s grandson was not listed on it as a joint tenant.
We noted that the deed of assignment had not been signed by the resident or the landlord and asked the landlord for the signed copy. The landlord told us it did not have one. This could suggest that either the landlord did not have the deed signed when the exchange took place, or that the landlord has since lost the signed copy. Regardless of the reason, it is an example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
We also saw a mutual exchange report provided by the resident’s former landlord. It listed the resident’s 3 grandchildren as members of her household and gave their dates of birth. A housing application completed by the resident as part of the exchange process also included her 3 grandchildren and their dates of birth. The resident had recorded her grandsons as her dependents.
In its evidence submission to us, the landlord told us that it had recorded the resident’s grandson as a joint tenant on 8 December 2020 when correcting a “data error”. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen what error the landlord was correcting or why that led to the grandson being added as a joint tenant. However, the mistake could have been avoided if the landlord had checked its tenancy records which would have shown the grandson’s date of birth and that he was 14 years old at the time.
We have seen a statement of the resident’s rent account from the start of her tenancy until 24 May 2024. It shows that all her rent was covered by housing benefit paid directly to the landlord until 11 January 2021. We have also seen the resident’s universal credit journal for the period from 18 January 2021 to 10 May 2021.
The landlord told us that it had given the DWP information about the resident’s tenancy on 21 January 2021 and had told the DWP that the resident was a joint tenant. This was confirmed by the resident’s universal credit journal which shows that she had claimed as a sole tenant and that the DWP decided to only pay half of her housing costs because the landlord told it that the resident was a joint tenant.
The DWP had agreed to pay the resident’s housing allowance directly to the landlord from 15 February 2021. The resident’s rent account was in credit at the time because the landlord had applied a substantial housing benefit payment to her account on 8 February 2021.
The resident’s rent account fell into arrears when the landlord transferred that housing benefit payment to the correct account around 20 March 2021. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen why that payment was applied to the resident’s account or what caused the landlord to transfer it. However, the landlord’s arrears records suggest that the credit on the resident’s rent account due to that payment had masked the fact that the rent payments being made did not cover her full rent charge. This was another example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
The landlord became aware that it had incorrectly added the resident’s grandson as a joint tenant on 26 March 2021. Although the landlord corrected its records on the same day, significant arrears had built up on the resident’s rent account by that time. By this point, the landlord was also aware that the housing allowance payments did not cover the resident’s full rent charge.
The landlord’s arrears records show that it also added the resident’s granddaughter as a member of the household on 26 March 2021. This suggests that it had not recorded the granddaughter as a member of the household from the start despite her being listed on the resident’s housing application and the former landlord’s mutual exchange report. This was a further example of inadequate information management by the landlord at the time of the exchange.
Given it had made the mistake in adding the resident’s grandson as a joint tenant, we would have expected the landlord to have been active in helping the resident to resolve the shortfall in her housing allowance payments. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the DWP that it had given it incorrect information about the resident’s tenancy and to have given the correct information. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
The evidence shows that the landlord failed to call the resident after saying it would do so on multiple occasions. For example, when she called on 26 March 2021, the officer said they would call back after taking a manager’s advice. We have seen no evidence that they did so. Similarly, after speaking with her on 1 April 2021, the landlord had promised to call her again before the end of that day. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
When the resident called about her arrears again on 6 April 2021, the landlord told her she needed to inform the DWP of the change in her circumstances. This was an inadequate response given that the resident’s circumstances had not changed and the problem with her benefit payments had been caused by the landlord’s mistake.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a referral to its tenancy sustainment team on 1 April 2021. However, it is not clear from the evidence we have seen whether the landlord had explained what the service was or how it may be able to help the resident.
The landlord’s decision to serve a notice of its intent to seek possession on 9 April 2021 was not reasonable. Although there were rent arrears, the landlord knew that the DWP was not paying the resident’s full housing costs and it knew it had incorrectly told the DWP that the resident was a joint tenant.
We have not seen a copy of the notice served on 9 April 2021. However, the landlord’s arrears records show that it was not validly served as it had not been signed by the landlord. This was a further example of inadequate administration by the landlord.
The evidence we have seen shows that the DWP did accept that the resident was not a joint tenant and backdated her entitlement to full housing costs to the start of her claim on 18 January 2021. However, the resident’s rent account remained in arrears due to her rent being charged weekly and universal credit being calculated, and paid, by calendar month.
The landlord made avoidable mistakes in administering the resident’s tenancy and has not evidenced that it took reasonable steps to put things right. Its failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and amount to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s decant following a leak in October 2022

It was reasonable that the landlord decanted the resident into a hotel on 20 October 2022. The landlord had decided that her home was not habitable after attending her report of a leak outside of its usual working hours. Hotel accommodation was a reasonable short term solution under the circumstances.
The landlord’s decant policy says that the landlord will have an “honest conversation” with a resident about the temporary accommodation options available. It says it will consider the household circumstances, including any medical needs or vulnerabilities, and the expected length of the decant.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord had such a conversation with the resident in this case at any point. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s needs or vulnerabilities, or those of her grandchildren.
The landlord’s policy says it aims to limit hotel stays to 14 nights. It says that longer stays may be necessary if alternative accommodation is not available.
We would have expected to see coordination between the landlord’s repair and decant activities to minimise the period of temporary accommodation. We would have expected to see that the landlord had reviewed the decant arrangements against its anticipated timescale for completing repairs, and that it had considered the suitability of the accommodation for the period that it would be needed.
In this case, the evidence we have seen suggests there was no coordination between the landlord’s repair and decant activities. For example, the landlord’s repair records show that an electrician had been unable to gain access to the resident’s flat on 24 October 2022 because she had been decanted. The landlord should have been organising access to avoid delays in carrying out the repairs that would enable the resident to return home.
Similarly, we have seen no evidence of effective communication about the likely timescale of the work needed to make the resident’s home habitable. The evidence suggests that, at times, it was the resident passing information between the contractor and the landlord. For example, on 8 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that the contractor was not starting work on her flat until after Christmas and asked the decant team to extend her hotel booking. The landlord should have been communicating with its contractor and keeping the resident updated as its policy says it will do.
The evidence shows that the landlord extended the resident’s hotel stay on an ad hoc basis for 7 or 14 nights at a time. In total, the resident stayed in hotels for 64 nights and moved between different hotels at least twice.
The landlord’s uncoordinated approach meant that the resident had no certainty about how long she and her grandchildren would be staying at a particular hotel. It caused the resident to check room availability herself and pass information on to the landlord with the hope of extending her stay in the same hotel. For example, on 27 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying it had told her the hotel she was staying in was fully booked but the hotel had told her otherwise.
The situation was further complicated by the landlord working through a booking agent. This meant that when the resident had a problem such as a hotel not having a record of meal bookings or booking extensions, the landlord contacted its agent to resolve them. This caused delays and distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord and hotels for updates.
The evidence suggests that on several occasions, the hotels had refused to provide meals for some members of the resident’s family. The landlord did contact its booking agent to resolve the issues when the resident reported them. However, this was often after a refusal had happened. For example, the resident emailed the landlord on 21 November 2022 saying that the hotel had not given her grandson breakfast that morning. It was unreasonable that the resident found herself in a position of being denied meals that should have been provided.
The evidence shows that the landlord failed throughout to consider the resident’s needs and preferences. For example, when she emailed on 27 October 2022 saying that the current hotel had availability, she asked the landlord to extend the booking. The landlord’s response was that the hotel did not have availability for 14 nights so it had booked her into another. Its response lacked empathy and showed no consideration for her preference to stay where she was.
Similarly, the charity caseworker’s emails of 3 November 2022 and 16 November 2022 should have caused the landlord to consider the resident’s needs. We have not seen the earlier email, but the email of 16 November 2022 told the landlord that the resident was unable to refrigerate her medication and that her health was declining. It also told the landlord that her grandson was struggling due to his autism. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the caseworker or took any steps to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation. This was a significant failing.
The landlord did respond to a further email from the charity caseworker on 23 November 2022 but its response suggested it had not considered alternative options to hotels. The landlord’s response said it had no control over the accommodation as it “comes down to availability”. It also said it could “only consider hotels” for short term decants.
There is no such limitation within the landlord’s policy which says it may offer a hotel, another of its properties, a property from another provider or a holiday let. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had considered other options at any point.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord understood or acknowledged the impact the decant was having on the resident and her grandchildren. For example, the resident emailed on 5 December 2022 saying that she was so ill she could not move. She said the landlord had not extended the hotel booking and the hotel wanted the family to check out. The landlord’s response was that it had booked different rooms in the same hotel for a further 7 nights. This lacked empathy and suggested that the landlord had not considered what the impact of living in hotels for so long was having on the resident.
Similarly, the landlord lacked empathy or understanding when it spoke with the resident spoke on 21 December 2022. She was due to return to her home on 23 December 2022 but was concerned that the repairs had not finished and that she had no beds or carpets in the affected bedrooms. The landlord’s response was to say that beds and carpets were her responsibility and not a reason for it to extend the decant. This was an inappropriate and uncaring response given the landlord knew of the family’s vulnerabilities and that the belongings had been damaged by a leak that the resident had reported on 3 previous occasions.
The evidence suggests that the landlord may have later ordered new beds to be delivered for her return home. It had emailed her on 21 December 2022 saying it had ordered them. However, it is not clear whether any beds were actually delivered to the resident as the resident had emailed the landlord on 26 February 2023 saying she still had no beds.
The landlord’s decant policy says it will reimburse the cost of food where temporary accommodation does not provide meals or have cooking facilities. It will also reimburse the costs of extra travel. Its policy says it will reimburse expenses within 14 days of receiving receipts.
We understand that the landlord needs to administer refund payments and to protect itself from fraudulent claims. However, it is not reasonable for a resident to have to wait to be refunded for out of pocket expenses over a protracted period.
In this case the resident had additional spending on food, drink and travel costs for 64 days while she was decanted. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s refunds of her expenses were often delayed because of the need for her to complete claim forms and send receipts. The evidence also suggests that the landlord disputed some of the items that she claimed for.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 23 January 2023 which said that it had made some payments which had “bounced back” from the resident’s account. It is not clear from the evidence seen when those payments were made or whether the landlord took any action at the time to ensure the payments were sent again and received by the resident.
The email shows that on 23 January 2023, a month after her decant had ended, the resident was still out of pocket by at least £461.64. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen when the landlord finally refunded the resident’s out of pocked expenses. However, the delay in payment even to this point was not reasonable. It caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had a low income and had to chase the landlord for payments multiple times.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s decant.

Handling of repairs to the lift and security gate at the resident’s block.

The Ombudsman expects landlords to have oversight of services that they charge residents for. We also expect landlords to have assurance that they are fulfilling their repair and contractual obligations in respect of communal areas.
The resident told us that she had become trapped in the lift on at least 3 occasions, and that the lift was “often” out of order.
The evidence shows that she had complained to the landlord about 2 occasions of being stuck in the lift in her complaints of 19 April 2021 and 16 December 2022. In the second complaint, she had referred to an occasion when she had been trapped and also other occasions when she had fallen on the stairs when the lift had been out of order.
We asked the landlord for its records of repairs and servicing of the lift from 14 April 2021 to 31 August 2023. It sent us its repair history for the resident’s block and a report of its contractor attending a reported breakdown on 26 August 2022.
The only reference to the lift in the landlord’s repair history was an order raised for the lift to be inspected on 8 May 2021. There were no other records of when the lift had been serviced or repaired on the landlord’s repair history. This suggests that the landlord does not hold complete and accurate records of when its contractor attends to service or repair the lift in the resident’s block.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s first complaint on 28 April 2021 said that its contractor had repaired the lift within its required timescale. In the absence of any evidence relating to the lift breakdown around this time, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord’s response was accurate.
The evidence shows that the landlord had asked its contractor for its record of attendance when investigating the resident’s second complaint of 16 December 2022. The landlord had only asked its contractor to report on a specific incident of 26 August 2022 when, the landlord said, the resident had been trapped inside. Given the resident had also complained about other occasions when the lift had been out of order, the landlord’s request for information was not sufficient to properly investigate her complaint.
However, we are satisfied that the contractor’s report evidences that the lift was left in working order when the contractor attended on 26 August 2022.
The landlord’s enquiries to its contractor and the absence of repair records suggest that the landlord does not have sufficient oversight of its lift service provision or its contractor’s response to breakdowns.
In her second complaint of 16 December 2022, the resident complained that the security gates in the car park would not open, trapping cars inside.
The landlord’s repair history for the resident’s block shows that it had instructed specialist contractors to carry out servicing of the security gate each year. It had also raised 5 orders for faults with the security gate between 16 June 2021 and 15 December 2022.
The landlord’s records suggest that its contractor attended within its repair policy timescale on each occasion. For example, its records show that its contractor attended the same day that the gates were reported to be not opening on 15 December 2022.
However, it is not clear from the landlord’s records what work was done on any of its contractor’s visits. Nor is it clear whether the gates were fully repaired on the dates that the orders were recorded as being completed.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 1 August 2023, the landlord had said that the gates were being vandalised. It said it was considering installing CCTV cameras but we have seen no evidence that the landlord did provide them.
The landlord has not evidenced that it has fulfilled its repair and contractual obligations in its handling of repairs to the lift and security gate. Its failings amount to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s complaints.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which provides for compensation to be paid when there has been service failure. Its policy says that payments for “redress” will be made directly to residents but other compensation payments may be offset against rent arrears.
There is no explanation of what payments the landlord would consider to be “redress” rather than “other compensation” in either its policy or procedure. The landlord should consider clarifying this point.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s first complaint of 14 April 2021 within its policy timescales. However, the evidence shows that the landlord’s investigation and information management was inadequate.
It is not clear from the evidence how the landlord came to add the issues of its refusal to refund her advance rent payment and lift breakdowns to the complaint. The evidence shows that it had spoken to the resident on 28 April 2021 but its record of the call made no reference to those matters. This was an example of inadequate information management by the landlord.
The resident had initially complained about her grandson being added as joint tenant. The landlord should have investigated the cause and impact of its mistake. Its incorrect statement that her grandson had been listed as her partner on the tenancy agreement suggests it had not referred to the mutual exchange documents before giving this response.
Similarly, the landlord’s response that it could not refund her advance rent payment suggests it had not investigated the cause of the resident’s arrears.
The landlord’s letter of 28 April 2021 did not clearly say that it was a response to the resident’s complaint. This was contrary to the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. Nor did it explain that the landlord intended to offset the compensation it had offered against her rent arrears. It is not clear from the evidence seen when the resident became aware of the landlord’s intention to offset the compensation.
The landlord did not send us any evidence relating to the resident’s first complaint after its response of 28 April 2021. However, it told us that the resident had rejected its offer of £200 compensation. This suggests that there was some communication between it and the resident after the stage 1 response and that the resident was not satisfied with the outcome. However, it is not clear whether the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord’s failure to send us all the information relating to the resident’s first complaint is another example of inadequate information management.
There were more serious failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s second complaint of 16 December 2022. It took 4 interventions by the Ombudsman including us having to issue a CHFO before the landlord gave its stage 1 response to that complaint.
It is not clear whether the landlord acknowledged the resident’s second complaint. Its complaint records suggest that it had logged the complaint when it was received on 16 December 2022 and may have sent an acknowledgement on 19 December 2022. However, we have not seen a copy of the landlord’s acknowledgement.
The landlord’s mishandling of the complaint meant its stage 1 response of 21 March 2023 was given over 3 months after the resident had complained. That timescale was inappropriate and contrary to the Code at the time and the landlord’s complaint policy.
Further, the landlord’s response did not address any of the 10 issues that the resident had complained about. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen why the landlord had failed to address the issues. It had emailed the resident on 7 February 2023 acknowledging there were “various” issues she had complained about. This shows it understood at that time that there were multiple issues to address.
Its stage 1 response of 21 March 2023 related only to the issue of damp and mould which the landlord had added to the resident’s complaint in January 2023. Its response said that the resident should contact it to arrange an inspection. Given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s health conditions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken proactive approach by giving an appointment date for the inspection.
The landlord’s complaint records did not record when it had received the resident’s escalation request. The resident told us she had emailed the landlord shortly after receiving its stage 1 response but we have not seen a copy of her email. The landlord’s records referred to it having received a “rude” email from the resident on 13 April 2023 but again we have not seen a copy of it.
The same note on the landlord’s complaint record said that the complaint had been closed on 23 March 2023 after no further contact from the resident. If this were accurate, it would mean the landlord had closed the complaint 2 days after sending its stage 1 response.
It took another intervention by the Ombudsman before the landlord gave its stage 2 response and it did not do so within the timescale we had set (by 24 July 2023). The landlord told us on 24 July 2023 that it had agreed an extension to the timescale with the resident.
It sent us a copy of its letter to the resident extending the timescale to 1 August 2023. The letter referred to an earlier email it had sent to her on 21 July 2023 and a call with her on 24 July 2023. However, we have not seen a copy of the email or a record of the call it referred to. As such the landlord has not evidenced that the extension was agreed with the resident as required by the Code at the time.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 August 2023 was given over 4 months after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated. Again, this timescale was inappropriate and contrary to the Code at the time and the landlord’s policy.
Again, the landlord’s response failed to address many of the points the resident had raised in her complaint. The points it failed to address were:
1. Why she had been told that she would get her advance rent payment back and why it had later refused to refund it.
2. That she had fallen down the stairs twice when the lift had been out of order.
3. That she had reported leaks through her ceilings before and a contractor had told her that the problem had been ongoing for 8 years.
4. That her flat had been broken into while she was decanted causing further repairs to be needed.
5. That she had been left without food and drink several times while decanted in hotels.
6. That the stress had affected her physical and mental health and the landlord had not listened to her concerns.
Further, in an email dated 23 January 2023, the landlord had told the resident that it had added her request to be reimbursed for cleaning her flat after repair work to her complaint. The landlord did not address this issue in either of its complaint responses.
The landlord’s failure to address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint was contrary to the Code at the time.
Where the landlord did address the points she had raised, its responses were inadequate. For example, it did not explain why it had added her grandson as a joint tenant or acknowledge that this had caused her housing allowance payments to be reduced. Nor did it explain the implications of the notice of seeking possession that it had issued for her rent arrears.
Similarly, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the repair issues was inadequate. It noted that the resident had made a disrepair claim and said it had raised orders to repair her flat following the leak it had inspected on 28 July 2023. However, it did not say what repairs it planned to do or give any timescale for the work.
The Ombudsman has concerns about the landlord’s investigation of, and response to, the part of the resident’s complaint about frequent lift breakdowns and that she had been trapped inside it.
During its complaint investigation, the landlord had asked its contractor (on 29 December 2022) for its report of the incident when the resident had said she had been trapped inside. It said the incident had happened on 26 August 2022 but it is not clear from the evidence we have seen how the landlord had arrived at that date. The date of the incident was not specified in the resident’s complaint, and there is no reference in the landlord’s complaint records to suggest that it had spoken to her to get further details before asking its contractor about attending on that date. Nor was there any record of a report or attendance on that day in the landlord’s repair records.
When the contractor’s report of its attendance differed from the resident’s account, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made further enquiries with both parties to resolve the apparent discrepancy. We have seen no evidence that it investigated further.
Further, the landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 August 2023 did not refer to the information that had been provided by its lift contractor. Its reply said that there had not been any problems recently and that it was not aware of the incident that the resident was referring to. This response appears inaccurate compared with the information that the lift contractor had given the landlord.
Similarly, the landlord’s statement that the lift had been serviced on 20 April 2023 appears inaccurate compared with its block repair records which do not show that a service was done on that date.
Further, the landlord should have investigated whether there were other occasions when the lift had been out of order as the resident had claimed. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
The resident had told the landlord she had been injured falling down the communal stairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have told her how she could make a personal injury claim. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
Overall, it took the landlord over 7 months to complete its process for the resident’s second complaint despite multiple interventions by the Ombudsman. Its complaint process did not put things right for the resident as the landlord failed to address many of the points she had raised and its responses to other points were inadequate.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for its “poor” complaint handling in its stage 2 response of 1 August 2023. The Ombudsman does not consider this to sufficient redress in the circumstances. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay compensation.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found significant failures in complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this report when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management.
Although most of the events in this case took place before we published our report, the landlord’s failings in information management were a significant contributing factor to our determination. The evidence we saw showed the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report.
We understand that the landlord has recently reviewed its approach to information management following similar findings we made in other cases. However, the landlord should consider our findings in this case and consider whether it needs to make further changes to its approach.

The Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s decant following a leak in October 2022.
2. Handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Administration of the resident’s tenancy.
2. Handling of repairs to the lift and security gate at the resident’s block.
In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its decant policy in this case. It failed to consider the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities and failed to consider alternative temporary accommodation options. There were also unreasonable delays in the landlord refunding the resident’s expenses.
There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of both of the resident’s complaints. The Ombudsman had to intervene multiple times in respect of the resident’s second complaint.
The landlord made avoidable mistakes in administering the resident’s tenancy and has not evidenced that it took reasonable steps to put things right.
The landlord has not evidenced that it has fulfilled its repair and contractual obligations in its handling of repairs to the lift and security gate at the resident’s block.
The court proceedings will provide a binding ruling relating to the leaks, associated repairs, and damp and mould. The court will be able to consider the resident’s request for damages including loss of belongings and impact on her health.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The chief executive must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings identified in this report and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,500. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in administering the resident’s tenancy.
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s decant following a leak in October 2022
  3. £250 for failings in its handling of repairs to the lift and security gate.
  4. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to review its handling of this case within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The case review must be led by a senior manager and must include, but does not need to be limited to:
1. Identifying the exact cause of it adding the resident’s grandson as a joint tenant and considering how this could have been avoided or identified sooner.
2. Considering how it can make sure that documents such as deeds of assignment and notices are correctly signed and retained.
3. Considering how it can make sure that information it passes to the DWP is accurate.
4. Considering how it can coordinate its repair and decant activities, and make sure that its decant policy is applied in future cases.
5. Considering the information that it holds in respect of lift servicing and repairs. The landlord should decide if this gives it sufficient oversight and assurance of its lift service provision.
6. Considering the complaint handling failings identified in this report. The landlord should identify any changes it needs to make in its practices to comply with the statutory Complaint Handling Code.
7. Considering the information management failings identified in this report and whether its new approach will prevent them from happening in future. The landlord should specifically consider how it will make sure that all relevant information is supplied for Ombudsman investigations.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide us with a report that sets out:
1. Its findings and learning from each part of the case review set out in paragraph 142 above.
2. Its plan for implementing changes to its practices in response to the findings it has identified. The plan should include the specific actions it will take and the timescales for completing them.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord explains its definition of redress payments in its compensation policy when it is next reviewed.