Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202311096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311096

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken floorboards.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a radiator to be fitted in the kitchen.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations in the bathroom.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the windows to be cleaned.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about accessing the building and his property given his disabilities.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
8. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom second floor flat. There are no vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s records, although he told the landlord he has Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus and a number of other chronic health conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 March 2022 and asked it to install a walk-in shower and arrange for an assessment to be carried out to determine if any other adaptations were required to his home given his disabilities.
The resident’s occupational therapist (OT) contacted the landlord on 12 October 2022 and said the living room floorboards and carpet were loose and a trip hazard. He also asked the landlord to provide a radiator in the kitchen as the room was cold in the winter. The resident told the landlord on 13 October 2022 that he reported the repairs when he moved into the property in 2014, but his requests were ignored. He also said the situation had become increasingly hazardous because of his deteriorating mobility. He asked for an update on 24 October 2022 and told the landlord on 14 November 2022 that the lift was not working.
The resident made a complaint on 14 February 2023. He said the landlord did not turn up to repair the floor at the appointed time on 26 January 2023 and no one contacted him to explain why. He also said the landlord failed to provide him with an update about the radiators following a visit on 11 November 2022. The resident noted he had become a ‘prisoner’’ in his own home because the lift was not working or wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair and the fire door had to be opened manually. He also said he had experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) and asked the landlord to clean the outside of the windows.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. It said an appointment had been booked for 16 March 2023 to inspect the floor and it would clarify the position regarding the carpet. It apologised for the delays in fitting the radiator and noted it would contact the resident within 10 days to arrange an appointment. It agreed to fit a radiator in the room used by the resident as a study as a goodwill gesture. It also said it was waiting for the council to confirm what adjustments were required to the bathroom and it would contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the lift and fire door. The landlord said it was not responsible for the window cleaning and suggested he download the noise app and record any ASB incidents on diary sheets. It offered the resident £70 compensation for the missed appointment on 26 January 2023 and £30 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 18 April 2023.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 May 2023. It said the radiators were fitted on 15 May 2023 and it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the floor on 31 May 2023. The complaint was upheld due to the delays in carrying out the work. It offered the resident an additional £70 compensation for the missed appointment on 26 January 2023 and £30 compensation for its poor complaint handling. The offer was rejected by the resident.

Post complaint events.

The council completed the works to the bathroom in July 2023. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £250 on 29 September 2023 for the delays in completing the repairs and arranged a further appointment to assess the floor on 12 October 2023. It also said the work to the lift was due to be completed during week commencing 9 October 2023, subject to testing. The landlord agreed to undertake the identified remedial works to the floor and replace the carpet on 16 October 2023. It increased its offer of compensation by a further £250 on 24 October 2023 bringing the total compensation offered to £600. It also said it would schedule in the work to the floor and replace the carpet.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 14 March 2024. He said the lift was repaired on 16 October 2023, but broke down again on the following day. He also said the ASB had stopped because his neighbour had moved out but the work to the floor was outstanding. The landlord told this Service it had not reached an agreement with the resident regarding the floor but was still committed to repairing it and replacing the carpet. It also said the lift was replaced in November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Whilst it is noted the resident said he reported repairs soon after moving into the property in 2014, this investigation focuses on the period leading up to and after he made a formal complaint to the landlord in February 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken floorboards.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The housing records confirm the resident’s OT contacted the landlord on 12 October 2022 and noted the living room floorboards and carpet were loose. He said the floor needed repairing as soon as possible as it was a trip hazard.
The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had a duty to carry out the repairs to the floor in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including floors. The landlord also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Falling on uneven surfaces is considered a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete repairs promptly. Urgent repairs are carried out within 5 working days and non-urgent repairs completed within 28 calendar days.
There is no evidence the landlord ordered the repairs following receipt of the OT’s request. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This says it will accept repairs from residents and other individuals authorised to act on their behalf. Neither did it undertake a risk assessment to establish if it needed to prioritise repairs for him. The landlord’s vulnerable customer policy says it will. The landlord’s failure to order the work also meant it did not give due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s email of 24 October 2022 and confirm it could order the repairs, there is no evidence it did this or confirmed when the work would be carried out. This was despite the resident’s specific request for it to do so. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to arrange an appointment to inspect the floor on 7 November 2022, although no appointment date was given to the resident. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This says it will make every effort to offer residents a suitable appointment for repairs within timescale.
The housing records confirm the landlord inspected the floor on 14 November 2022, although it did not provide this Service with a copy of the repair log or inspection report. Neither did it confirm the outcome of the inspection or respond to the resident’s concerns about the proposed solution, which involved laying the carpet in stages. The resident suggested the whole room was emptied before the carpet was laid.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 4 January 2023 and 18 January 2023 in which he noted the floor was a health and safety issue. This was not in accordance with its repairs policy which says it will comply with all relevant statutory and regulatory health and safety requirements. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to visit the resident on 26 January 2023 to schedule the works in a way that suited him. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him.
The housing records confirm the inspection planned for 26 January 2023 did not take place, although the landlord did not provide a copy of the repair log confirming this. There is also no evidence it told the resident the visit would not take place or arranged a further appointment at this point. This meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
It was appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident on 9 March 2023 and to confirm the floorboards were cut too short or had snapped, causing it to dip. It also said the carpet would need to be replaced. There is no evidence any repairs were ordered following the inspection. Further appointments were booked for 16 March 2023 and 31 May 2023, although it is unclear from the housing records what the purpose of these visits was or what the outcome was.
Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged the delays in repairing the floor or the distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident, who clearly noted it was a trip hazard and his disabilities meant he was prone to falling. This should have prompted the landlord to carry out the work urgently and showed a lack of understanding of the resident’s needs and its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord’s failure to do this meant the floor was left in a dangerous condition and has still not been repaired, some 19 months after he raised concerns.
The landlord’s offer of £70 compensation in its final complaint response did not reflect the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Neither was it in accordance with its compensation policy which says it will compensate resident’s who are unable to use an essential room. Living rooms are classified as an essential room and the landlord says it will reduce the rent by 20% for every week the room is unavailable. It has not been possible to undertake a calculation for the loss of the amenity given the landlord did not provide this Service with information on the resident’s weekly rent.
This Service recognises that the landlord made an improved offer of £500 compensation in October 2023. Whilst this demonstrated learning, it did not make the offer until after the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure and he had contacted this Service. Given this, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. Further financial compensation is warranted for the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to repair the floor. It is clear the situation caused him distress and inconvenience and he was concerned about falling.
In summary, the landlord failed to repair the floorboards in a timely manner and the work remains outstanding. It is evident the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and the risk of falling associated with his chronic health issues. It was also aware the floorboards were a trip hazard, but it did not prioritise the work or give regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It also failed to meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s offer of compensation did not put things right for the resident. The situation caused him significant inconvenience and distress and it was evident he was concerned about falling over. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord for which it is ordered to pay the resident £800 compensation for theloss reduction in use of his living room. This has been calculated as approximately 10% of the resident’s rent for 19 months during which time his enjoyment of his living room was significantly impacted by the delayed repair. This is on top of the £570 offered by the landlord for the delays in repairing the floor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a radiator to be fitted in the kitchen.

In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The housing records confirm the resident’s OT asked the landlord on 12 October 2022 to fit a radiator in the kitchen. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 13 October 2022 and to confirm it would check if this was possible and to note it would provide him with an update. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The housing records confirm the landlord visited the resident on 11 November 2022, although it has not provided this Service with a copy of the inspection report or details on what works were agreed. Neither is there any evidence it updated the resident following the visit. This was not in accordance with its customer standards which says the landlord will keep residents informed.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in fitting the radiator in the kitchen on 9 March 2023 and to also agree to fit a radiator in the room used by the resident as a study. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for him. It also said it would arrange an appointment to carry out the work within 10 days, although there is no evidence it did this. The housing records state the radiators were fitted on 15 May 2023, although the landlord did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this. This was some 7 months after the request was made by the resident’s OT. The landlord’s website says it will undertake non-urgent repairs within 28 working days.
In summary, the landlord failed to fit the radiators in accordance with its repair targets. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out the work, its communication with the resident was poor at times. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as he was unclear when the work was going to be done and said the cold affected his health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord for which it is ordered to pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This has been calculated at £50 per month for the 7-month delay.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations in the bathroom.

The Equality Act, 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord is required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act and has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The social housing regulator’s tenant involvement and empowerment standard also requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and demonstrate that they understand the different needs of residents in relation to the equality strands and those with additional support needs.
The limited information provided by the landlord has made it difficult to determine if its actions were fair in the circumstances. This indicates poor record keeping and information management practices by the landlord.
Major adaptations such as fitting a level access shower are usually funded by local authorities through disabled facility grants (DFGs) following an application by the resident and an OT assessment. Where reasonable, landlords offer assistance in making the application and work with the local authority to achieve the best solution for the resident. In this case, the resident asked the landlord on 30 March 2022 to instal a walk-in shower and to arrange an assessment to determine if any other adaptations were required to his home given his disabilities. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the request on 1 April 2022 and to note a member of the team would be in contact the following week, there is no evidence it did this. It is also unclear when the referral was made to the council’s home improvement agency (HIA) and what help the landlord provided the resident with the application.
This Service is unable to ascertain whether any delays occurred due to the local authority’s handling of the adaptations request, as it has no jurisdiction to investigate the process. The housing records, however, confirm, the council told the landlord on 12 December 2022 that an assessment had been completed by an OT and it was recommended that a level access shower was fitted. It also noted the works would be funded through its DFG and it asked the landlord for permission to carry out the work. It is unclear from the housing records when permission was granted by the landlord, but there is no evidence it withheld its consent for the works to be completed. The resident told the landlord on 14 February 2023 that the works would be completed in the 2023/24 financial year. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm with the resident on 9 March 2023 that the council would appoint an approved contractor to undertake the required work. The walk-in shower was installed in July 2023.
In summary, the limited records have made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures. Whilst there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s initial request, it is evident it did liaise with the council, which was responsible for progressing the matter and keeping the resident updated. In this case there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations in the bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the windows to be cleaned.

The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 14 February 2022 that his windows had not been cleaned on the outside for over 10 years. He said he was unable to clean them himself given his flat was on the second floor and because they did not fully open. He also noted he found the situation depressing.
The landlord confirmed on 9 March 2022 that it did not offer a window cleaning service and recommended the resident contact a window cleaning company. It did not, however, confirm whether window cleaning was included in the resident’s service charge. Whilst the resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord may make a service charge for window cleaning, it has not been possible to confirm whether this is the case given a copy of the service charge schedule for the property was not provided to this Service. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the windows to be cleaned.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about accessing the building and his property given his disabilities.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping common areas in a reasonable state of repair. Following reports of lift breakdowns, the landlord has a responsibility to address the issue within a reasonable timescale and to keep residents updated in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend to emergencies within 3 hours, although no specific timescales are included for carrying out repairs to lifts. It is not clear from the housing records whether there is more than 1 lift in the building.
The housing records confirm the resident reported the lift was still not working on 14 November 2022. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this report or provided the resident with an update. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. It is unclear from the housing records how long the lift was out of action or whether the landlord considered offering the resident temporary accommodation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this if there was only 1 lift in the building and it was out of use for a significant period of time.
It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 26 January 2023 and to confirm it had checked the lift given his concerns about whether it could accommodate a wheelchair which he would need after his operation. This inspection confirmed that a wheelchair would fit into the lift, but it would be difficult to manoeuvre once inside. It was appropriate for the landlord to note that a referral would need to be made to the council’s OT to undertake an assessment of the resident’s property following the concerns he raised. This was in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy.
However, there is no evidence it did this or acted on his concerns about the manual fire door which he said he struggled to open. This meant it did not take account of the resident’s needs or meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It confirmed again on 9 March 2023 that it would need to undertake an assessment to establish if his home was suitable for him given the issues he raised about accessing the building. It also provided him information about rehousing and a medical form so it could assess his medical needs. This was in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy. There is no evidence the landlord followed this up.
In summary, the limited records have made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policies and procedures. It is unclear how long the lift was out of action and whether the landlord repaired it in a reasonable timescale. There is no evidence it acted on his concerns regarding the fire door, made a referral to the council’s OT or followed up on its suggestion of rehousing with the resident. This meant it failed to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages related to a person’s protected characteristics, including disability.
The situation caused the resident evident inconvenience and distress. He told the landlord he struggled with day-to-day living and had difficulty walking. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about accessing the building and his property given his disabilities. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 14 February 2023 that his neighbour was playing loud music and had ignored his request to turn the volume down. He also said another neighbour allowed their dogs to continually bark and the walls needed insulating to soundproof the property. There is no evidence the landlord triaged the report or opened an ASB case. Neither did it assess the level of risk or provide the resident with help and advice on what it could do. Had the landlord done so it would have been in a better position to offer and signpost the resident to appropriate support. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will do this. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for soundproofing to reduce the noise. This meant it did not manage his expectations.
The resident made further reports of loud music on 16 February 2023 and 20 February 2023. He said he was keeping diary sheets and would apply for a noise abatement order given the landlord was not doing anything. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these reports. This meant it failed to gather evidence and gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. As a result, the landlord did not use the early intervention tools available to it, including mediation and referrals to other agencies. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will do this. Again, there is no evidence the landlord opened an ASB case or assessed the risks in accordance with its ASB policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident download the noise app on 9 March 2023 and to ask him to keep diary sheets. It also advised him to contact the council if the noise disturbed him over the weekend and to contact the RSPCA if he was concerned about the dogs’ welfare. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to write to his neighbour about the barking dogs if he could identify which property the noise was coming from. This was in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states nuisance relating to animals could be considered ASB.
There is, however, no evidence it replied to the numerous emails the resident sent to the landlord in April 2023 and May 2023 regarding noise nuisance from his neighbour. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm with the resident that it was working with the police and other agencies on 11 May 2023 in accordance with its ASB policy.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB or follow its ASB policy. This caused the resident inconvenience and led to him considering taking legal action himself. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.

It is evident the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and the chronic health issues that affected his daily living. The landlord would, therefore, be expected under the Equality Act, 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard to have demonstrated it had taken steps to ensure it understood his needs and it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with him.
In this case, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any steps to seek to understand the resident’s vulnerabilities or what reasonable adjustments it may need to take in response. This was despite the resident telling the landlord on numerous occasions that he was frightened of falling on the uneven floor, struggled to climb the stairs and felt trapped in his home. The landlord’s vulnerable customer policy says it will undertake individual risk assessments to identify any specific repairs and maintenance needs of vulnerable customers. It also says it will prioritise repairs required for the health, safety and well-being of vulnerable customers.
Further, the landlord’s records do not capture the specific nature of the resident’s disabilities and there is no evidence of any additional support being offered to him. The landlord’s vulnerable customer policy says it will proactively identify vulnerable customers who may require additional support to access its services. This raises significant concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and its ability to handle future interactions with the resident with appropriate sensitivity.
It was noted the resident said the landlord failed to acknowledge he was vulnerable or act accordingly. The above information supports this assessment. It is evident the situation caused the resident severe inconvenience and distress. He told the landlord on a number of occasions he felt ‘trapped like a prisoner’ due to issues with the lift and was fearful of falling in the living room given the condition of the floor.
In this case, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its failures in relation to this element of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, it did not do this until 23 February 2023. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy which says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would provide a response within 10 working days and to ask the resident what outcomes he was seeking. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. Whilst it addressed all of the concerns raised by the resident, it did not apologise for the mistakes it made or identify any learning from the complaint. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. The landlord’s offer of £30 compensation was not fair in the circumstances.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 18 March 2023. Neither did it respond to his follow up letter sent on 18 May 2023 in which he asked for an update. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This says landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. There is also no evidence the landlord told the resident there would be a delay in responding to his complaint or agreed a new deadline date with him. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 25 May 2023. It did not apologise for the delay in responding or address all of the concerns raised by the resident. In particular, it did not address his complaints about the lift and fire door, ASB or the improvement works to his bathroom. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The offer of £30 compensation for its poor complaints handling was not appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord’s compensation policy says awards between £50 and £100 can be awarded where there has been a service failure. Examples of service failures include failing to keep residents informed with action and information.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure at times and there was a delay in issuing its final complaint response. It also failed to identify any learning from the complaint and the offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of broken floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about accessing the building and his property given his disabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for a radiator to be fitted in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for the windows to be cleaned.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s chief executive is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology must be shared with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £3,300 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £750 for the for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its response to his vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of broken floorboards.
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his concerns about accessing the building and his property given his disabilities.
3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his request for a radiator to be fitted in the kitchen.
4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his reports of ASB.
5. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of his complaint.
6. £600 previously offered to the resident by the landlord, if not already paid.

Within four weeks the landlord should contact the resident to discuss his health conditions and ensure its records to accurately reflect the residents’ vulnerabilities.

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and agree a plan of action to resolve the issues with the floor and arrange for the work to be completed within 6 weeks. A copy of the action plan must be shared with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to clarify whether the resident’s service charge includes provision for window cleaning, and if so arrange for the windows to be cleaned.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm with the resident the timescales for completing lift repairs and ensure this information is accessible to other residents.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should conduct a senior management review of this case. The review should be presented to the senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The review must include (but not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
1. A review of its working practices and staff training arrangements in relation to the failings set out in this report to ensure it better responds to its vulnerable residents and meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
2. A review of its record keeping processes, in light of the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.