Westminster City Council (202311127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311127

Westminster City Council

30 July 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the property and requests for repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The residents are husband and wife who occupy their home with their adult daughter. They occupy a three-bedroom ground floor maisonette, under a joint secure tenancy which had begun in 1979. The husband was diagnosed with Alzheimers and during the court of the complaint moved to a care home. This report will refer to the resident in the singular but otherwise will be referred to Mr R and Mrs R, if required for clarity. The resident was represented by another daughter who will be referred to in this report as “D”. In 2015, the resident (presumably Mrs R) was identified with a “mobility problem, no wheelchair”. During the course of the complaint, the landlord recognised that Mrs R “meets a number of protected characteristics including age and disability.”

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for keeping the structure, outside of the buildings and services, and equipment that supply water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating, and hot water in good working order.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy notes a 2018 protocol stating that “Where hoarding is identified by Housing Services, the respective officer will flag the case on its case management system in order that the concerns can be recorded and monitored accurately. An updating Household Support Review and Vulnerability Flag may be required. Where hoarding is identified by a repairs contractor, the respective officer will report this through its reporting system to the Health and Safety Team. In line with the above protocol officers should complete the Hoarding Assessment Tool/Clutter Rating Index if hoarding is apparent.

Scope of the investigation.

Part of the resident’s complaint was how the condition of the property affected the resident’s health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them, and may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.

Chronology

In June 2019, a heating engineer attended to carry out a Gas Safe check and noted that “meter Capped by previous engineer. Boiler off has been for years. Tenant don’t want new boiler. None. No survey required”.
The health and disability needs of the household were assessed in 2015.
According to its 2024 case review, the landlord became aware that the needs of the household had changed when, in January 2020, Mrs R was to be discharged from hospital. The landlord was asked to carry out aids and adaptations to facilitate her return home. The property was rewired, a new boiler installed, and a level–access shower fitted. There were access issues. Mr R had been diagnosed with Alzheimers. The contractor removed goods into storage so that the rewire could be completed. The issue of the condition of the kitchen remained outstanding. This was to have been reviewed. This was at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. On a date, which is not clear, according to a 2024 internal email, the landlord tried to install a new kitchen and bathroom. However, the resident did not co-operate and failed to clear the property to enable out contractors to carry out the works.
On 31 January 2022, a Care Act assessment was carried out. It recommended rehousing. Kitchen works were to be arranged.
On 14 February 2022, 22 April 2022 and 18 May 2022, specialist companies carried out assessments for the landlord who each concluded that the property was unsuitable for a wheelchair platform lift.
On 25 March 2022, the resident, through D, declined a move for the resident. She felt that would be too much for her elderly mother with her serious health issues.
In April 2022, concerns about the condition of the property were raised internally by the landlord. It was considered that the works to the kitchen could not be carried out with the residents in situ. The landlord noted internally that it tried to arrange an inspection. The resident gave access only to the kitchen. The landlord concluded that works were needed in the kitchen as it was in a “poor state”.
The kitchen works were due to begin on 3 May 2022 but were cancelled. The reasons were not clear, however, it was noted that the entire property required repairs.
On 10 July 2022, the resident made a complaint through D as follows:
1. This had been the resident’s home of 43 years. Mr R was 80 years old and suffered from asthma and Alzheimers. Her mother was 73 and physically disabled and suffered from several debilitating health issues, including COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) which had become progressively worse over the years, due to the state of the property.
2. The disrepair dated back to 2008:
  1. The kitchen was “dilapidated”. There was no usable kitchen, no kitchen base unit, no worktops, no wall units, no laundry facilities. There was no adequate space to prepare food as the kitchen worktop and the sink were collapsing. Works due to be carried out on the kitchen in 2021 were cancelled.
  2. There had been no hot water in the property for 12 years. The only way they were able to have hot water was by boiling kettles and pans and on one occasion, Mr R’s foot was scalded. There were “numerous requests” for a new boiler which was only changed in 2020/21.
  3. The worktop had been broken by workmen who stood on the worktop to install the new pipes and boiler.
  4. Water was leaking from pipes under the kitchen sink.
  5. There were damp patches in the upstairs bedroom.
  6. A leak in the hallway had been ongoing for at least 10 years which has caused extensive damp to the whole of the ground floor which had resulted in respiratory problems for the residents. It was then ascertained that the leak was a heating pipe which also caused the boiler to fail constantly due to lack of pressure.
  7. No smoke alarms or heat detectors had been installed in the property until 2020.
  8. The front of property steps down to front door were only repaired after numerous requests.
3. Despite requests, the landlord did not contact D until 2020, when Mrs R was admitted to hospital. She requested a move and an early response, given the impact on Mrs R, including considerable pain, stress, and ill–health.
4. A new bathroom was installed in 2020.
5. The resident had lived for over 40 years while there had been with dangerous wiring in the property until 2021.
6. In 2021, the contractors removed most of the parents’ belongings and some furniture and put these into storage. Only a few boxes have been returned. She had requested their return on several occasions, but “to no avail”.
7. A kitchen installation was arranged in May 2022. Her sister cleared the kitchen in anticipation of having a new one fitted, only to have someone visit on the day of installation and put it on hold due to the vast amount of works required to the entire property.
8. A decant was not an option due to the resident’s age health and stress levels.
9. The resident had not heard from the landlord since May 2022.
10. The lack of repairs and disrepair had caused considerable stress, anxiety, and depression.
11. Due to her disability, Mrs R could not climb the stairs outside of the property to access street level or be taken out in a wheelchair. A lift or stair lift was not feasible. Not being able to leave the flat and being confined to one room in the property, had impacted on her mother’s mental health considerably. It was also a health and safety issue, if there were a fire.
12. D had made a number of phone calls, there had been missed appointments, and promises, which were never kept. She had had to watch her parents living their old age in conditions that were totally “non-livable”.
13. She attached photos which showed the kitchen was as described.
Internally, the landlord made enquiries. It noted that D had raised historical issues which it would not investigate or respond to.
On 19 August 2022, the landlord responded at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure as follows:
1. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s housing and repairs services and delays to repairs. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. There was no record of the issues having been reported in the last twelve months.
3. It had arranged for a Senior Property Surveyor and Housing Manager to visit the property on 21 June 2022. There was no answer, and the inspection did not go ahead. Another appointment was arranged for 25 July 2022. The landlord was asked to leave. A further appointment was arranged for 17 August 2022. On 16 August 2022, the rep asked that the appointment be cancelled.
4. If the resident wanted the inspection to go ahead, they should contact the landlord. The repair works could not be raised until the planned joint inspection.
5. The property was included in the forthcoming bathroom and kitchen renewal project.
6. Regarding the boiler, on 28 November 2021 the heating engineer attended and reported that the boiler was in good working order.
7. The complaint was not upheld.
On 11 September 2022, the resident’s daughter wrote as follows:
1. The first visit from housing officer (HO) was on 21 July 2022, not 21 June 2022, and was made without prior arrangement. Mrs R’s carer had just arrived so the visit was not convenient. The HO stated that she arrived unannounced as she was doing a “welfare check”. The HO attended, again without a pre-arranged appointment, on 25 July 2022. The resident was elderly and sick and had been discharged from hospital only a few days before. She wanted her daughter to be present. D had emailed the landlord the day before to cancel the appointment. However, the HO attended with the surveyor and entered the property again behind the resident’s nurse when the nurse let herself in. The resident informed the HO that she was not well enough to meet with her. She informed the HO she wanted D at any meeting.
2. A new boiler was installed in November 2021 because then boiler was not working. There had been no visits or inspections of the old boiler for “12 or so” years.
3. The resident had been living in “rundown, dilapidated and dangerous conditions”.
4. It made no sense to return the belongings to the resident at this stage given there were to be further repairs.
5. There had been several visits from surveyors and various workmen and promises from the council to have disrepair made good. The landlord was starting the whole process from the beginning.
6. She did not want her mother to undergo repairs due to her poor health. She asked for an alternative solution.
7. The resident could not be decanted as she was not physically able to move to another property while disrepair works were being carried out and then move back to the current property.
8. The resident was prepared to downsize to a two–bedroom ground floor property, with a garden accessible for wheelchair use and in close proximity to where they lived currently. She cited the downsizing incentive.
9. She wanted financial compensation for the “years of hardship and turmoil” her parents and sister had had to “endure”.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint as according to an internal note, it did not think its Stage 2 response would be different to the initial response though it did not write to D.
On 23 September 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property with the HO. It noted its poor state of repair. internally and externally. The resident was a wheelchair user and unable to use her home or garden. He suggested a decant or permanent move.
On 8 November 2022, an Occupational Therapist had identified difficulties with access, however Major Adaptations were identified as not feasible. The resident did not wish to consider rehousing as a ground floor flat could not be assured.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord in relation to the resident’s complaint.
On 26 April 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to its inspection on 22 September 2022. The HO and surveyor subsequently left their employment and there were no records of the matter being progressed. It apologised.
2. Its Housing Team Manager and (current) surveyor attended the property on 18 April 2023. It would assess the household’s needs on 9 May 2023 in order to arrange a permanent move to a suitable property.
3. The resident held a joint tenancy, and “this will need to be resolved”. It would also assess which repairs works could be completed pending a move.
4. It would continue to hold the resident’s possessions in storage pending any move. The resident could request the return of any of the items.
5. It apologised for the delay in not responding within its published timescales, and not keeping the resident updated.
6. It apologised that it had not adequately addressed the complaint in its previous response.
7. It offered £520 consisting of £500 for the delay in progressing repairs following the inspection of the property on 22 September 2022 and £20 for the delay in its complaint response.
On 6 May 2023, D replied that the property was due to have been renovated in 2006. She declined the offer of compensation.
According to D, the resident was in hospital in June and July 2023. A housing assessment was completed in June 2023 in order to support a move. A property was offered to the resident in August 2023 but it was deemed not to be suitable. There followed discussions about the legalities in relation to a transfer of tenancy involving powers of attorney. Internally, there were concerns about the resident’s safety, given she was a wheelchair user and there had been a discussion about giving the resident priority for rehousing.
A further property was offered, a first–floor, two-bedroom, “fully adapted” property which the resident accepted on 2 November 2023. The landlord would carry out further minor adaptations. Adult Social Care was to put in additional support to address that the resident would be getting less care from D, given the distance of the new property from where D lived. It would pay the downsizing incentive, and either arrange removals or pay £500 in costs contribution. The landlord kept this offer open and the property available while D considered the offer. This transpired to take a number of months.
On 19 December 2023, D wrote with her request of the review of the compensation consisting of cost of takeaways and readymeals since early 2021: £27,040 (£130 per week), use of laundrette from early 2021 £4,784 (£23 per month), cost of electric heaters between 2005 and 2021: £66,560 (£80 per week) and calculated in total at £110,000.
On 7 February 2024, D wrote to the landlord that “until the financial compensation is agreed, (Mrs R and D’s sister) cannot move into the new flat”.
On a date in late 2023/early 2024, the landlord undertook a review with the lessons learnt including:
1. Regarding the capped meter and refusal of new boiler: it would develop a clear process and procedure for all contractors for referring capped gas, and other issues, to housing.
2. Regarding Mrs R’s discharge from hospital in May 2020: Housing, Adult Social Care, and discharge teams needed to work more closely together. The opportunity to identify a need to move to more suitable accommodation was missed. A new complex case panel had been introduced.
3. On its complaint responses: training was to be introduced and a review to ensure proper processing of complaints. It would take account of vulnerability in deciding compensation.
4. An advocacy team was to be introduced in March 2024 to address complex cases.
5. The review set out an action timetable.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord reviewed the offer of compensation in response to the resident’s email of 19 December 2023.
1. It noted the resident’s health issues and restrictions in exiting the property.
2. It noted D’s reports regarding the storage items, the state of the kitchen, damp, lack of laundry facilities, a “considerable amount of time” with no hot water prior to 2020/21.
3. The Stage 1 response “inferred” that the resident was to blame for the visit not taking place which was not correct. It provided inaccurate information that the visit on 21 July 2022 had been pre-arranged.
4. It failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and need for support at the visit, and D’s request that this should be arranged with her led to two further visits, on 25 July 2022 and 17 August 2022 being cancelled. It failed to note the misinformation about the visits and D’s concerns that staff had accessed the property inappropriately.
5. Whilst it in September 2022 it identified a number of repairs, including the need for a new kitchen and a decant, which had not been progressed. It was not proactive in the next steps.
6. It failed to recognise that, due to her mother’s health, the property “was becoming” unsuitable and missed the opportunity to discuss her housing situation and long-term requirements.
7. It failed to recognise that the complaint about hot water referred to the period before the new boiler was fitted and provided irrelevant information about it working in October 2021.
8. It should have explained that that element of the complaint was outside the timescales.
9. It did not escalate the complaint to Stage 2 until the further contact in March 2023.
10. In its Stage 2 response, it failed to address all the issues. It acknowledged that the complaint response was late, but not the length of the delay of over 6 months.
11. It failed to recognise the contribution that its poor record keeping had played.
12. It became aware of the need for repairs in May 2020. The property was subsequently rewired, the boiler was replaced, and an accessible, level access shower fitted. However, it did not take this opportunity to fully identify the resident’s needs.
13. To date only the external stairs have been repaired. The kitchen and other internal works could not be completed whilst the resident was living in the property.
14. It failed to take the opportunity to fully review Mrs R’s needs and the suitability of the property once works had taken place.
15. The compensation offered in the Stage 2 response did not reflect the state of repair of the property, or the impact of this, on Mrs R due to her health conditions.
16. It offered £16,407 to compensate for the delays to carrying out repairs being 50% of the rent for the property since May 2020 when it first became aware of repair issues at the property.
17. It had made arrangements to replace the boiler in the property in May 2020. Prior to this, the resident had informed its heating engineers that they did not want the boiler replaced. It did not find service failure.
18. It failed to respond at Stage 1 in time, to address the specific issues, it failed to escalate the complaint or respond for over 6 months, or recognise the length of the delay, and to address the specific issues raised. It offered £1,000 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
19. It offered £4,000 being £1,000 for each year since May 2020 for distress and inconvenience consisting of the need to contact the landlord repeatedly, Mrs R’s care was interrupted by unannounced visits and some of her possessions remained in storage. It recognised the “considerable distress and inconvenience” to D, Mrs R and D’s sister.
20. Any direct impact on Mr R’s health. was not in the remit of issues it could investigate. It referred D to legal advice about making a “public liability insurance” claim.
21. Its Divisional Head of Housing had requested a meeting with D to hear directly about her experiences and to reassure her it took this seriously. She had indicated that she would not consider this to be helpful but the offer remained open.
On 22 March 2024, D refused the compensation for the reasons as follows:
1. The landlord was aware of the condition of the property in 2006, when workmen were carrying out works to all the landlord’s properties in the same road. The workmen reported to the council about the conditions of the property and that they could not carry out the works due to health and safety reasons and due to the significant hoarding within the property. This was never followed up. The landlord did not inspect and assess the housing conditions and whether or not there were hazards or health and safety issues within their properties.
2. The compensation was only offered to Mrs R.
3. The landlord did not take action until it received her complaint.
4. July 2022 was not the first time D had complained. She had reported her concerns in November and December of 2018 about the fire hazards within the property due to excessive hoarding and the fact that there was no smoke alarm, no hot water, and no heating in the property. No one had followed this up. Hoarding is a mental disorder. Only one housing officer had ever attended the property once in the 1980s.
5. She referred to the visits of July 2022.
6. While the boiler had since been addressed, the resident had not made a complaint about the boiler due to her mental health disorder. The resident telling professionals they did not need a boiler “should have been a red flag to housing officers and other professionals”. The landlord’s staff were trained in working with families with hoarding disorders, yet several “red flags” were missed over the years by professionals and the situation was left “undiscovered” and left to get worse.
7. There had been no running hot water since 2008 and no yearly checks.
8. They should not be charged 50% of the rent until the resident had moved out.
In June 2024, the arrangements to move were continuing, including discussions between the landlord and a removal company as to the best approach. The landlord would pay the removal costs.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property

There was no dispute that the condition of the property was poor and had been poor for a number of years. Evidence showed there were some attempts to ameliorate the situation in 2020. Some works had been carried out in 2020. It investigated the possibility of a lift from the basement steps so that Mrs R could access outside but proved not to be possible.
It was concerning that it took the resident’s complaint and the MP writing to the landlord for the landlord to take action. However, the landlord accepted that there was a number of service failures in relation to the situation which it chose to date back to May 2020. It accepted that it should have done more when Mrs R was about to be discharged from hospital, and the issue of the kitchen should have been followed up. It was not clear why the works to replace the kitchen were raised in early 2022 and then cancelled, except that the entire property needed improvements. It accepted that there had been insufficient joint-working between Adult Social Care and Housing. While there were issues with the status of the tenancy as it was a joint tenancy, the issues were complex, given it involved one party (Mr R) who lacked mental capacity and there was no evidence that this delayed the move.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord noted its failures, including that it did not take any action even though the boiler had been capped for a number of years. The Ombudsman is also satisfied that the landlord worked with the resident to identity a suitable property. The Ombudsman recognises the scarcity of social housing. Once a property was found, it was a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion to retain the property until Mrs R felt ready to accept it. The decision to delay the move from November to June 2024 was that of the resident. The resident’s reasons and hesitation for not moving are understandable. In addition, D did not want the move to take place until compensation had been resolved. In the circumstances, fault is not attributed to the landlord for the delay in the move, therefore the Ombudsman finds that the decision to limit the period of compensation to March 2024, rather than the moving date, was fair.
This was a serious and concerning case which, but for the landlord’s eventual responses, would have constituted severe maladministration. The Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s review, its draft policy for vulnerable residents, and its current Housing and Adult Social Care Joint Working Protocol. “The Protocol is an operational level arrangement for joint working and information sharing between the two services. This includes promoting the welfare of residents and engaging with each service to ensure the best outcomes are achieved for them. It is recognised that there are strong and well-developed joint working arrangements between Housing and Adult Services and that staff work closely in relation to individual households. This Protocol aims to further enhance these relationships and support escalation when necessary. The Protocol would apply to concerns including hoarding and applies to the repairs team”.
The Ombudsman considers that the offer of 50% of rent for 4 years and an added amount for distress and inconvenience, together with the steps that the landlord took in relation to moving the resident and its internal review constituted reasonable redress in that the resolution demonstrated fairness, it put things right and it that it had learnt from outcomes.

Complaint Handling

The resident’s complaint was about the condition of the property over a number of decades. She said that the property should have been renovated in 2006, the disrepair went back to 2008, there had been no hot water in the property for 12 years, until the boiler was replaced and dangerous wiring for the entire tenancy, until the property was rewired in 2021. D’s point was that the landlord should have known about the condition of the property but there were no inspections, D raised her concerns about her parents’ hoarding in 2018, and there were pointers such as the resident declining gas safety inspections and that the boiler had been capped.
There are circumstances where a landlord or the Ombudsman may consider the period of a complaint in excess of 12 months prior to the complaint. In this case, the landlord calculated compensation back to May 2020, some 2 years prior to the complaint. The Ombudsman appreciates that the condition of the property was poor and had been poor for many years prior to May 2020, from when the landlord dated the compensation. The Ombudsman also appreciates that there were markers that could have alerted the landlord, such as D’s reports in 2018, the gas being capped, and the landlord should have made arrangements to inspect the property in any event. He also understands why the residents themselves were unlikely to raise a complaint themselves, because of their mental health arising out of what D refers to as their hoarding disorder.
The landlord set out in its review letter of 5 March 2024 that it failed to explain the reasons it would not look at the historical issues because they were “outside their timescales”. It is the Ombudsman’s views that that explanation was not sufficiently clear. However, while the landlord should have been clearer about its reasons, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be proportionate to investigate the events prior to May 2020. There would be difficulties with identifying all the records. The landlord will have a retention policy that will limit the records still available. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord and/or Ombudsman would be unable to fairly investigate the events prior to May 2020. This is a complex matter, involving vulnerable residents, difficulties with access, and social services.
D was also unhappy with the offer of compensation as the landlord appeared to exclude Mr R from its compensation payment. The compensation the landlord offered represented 50% of the rent therefore the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation was to address the household. While referring to distress and inconvenience to D, the Ombudsman would only consider the impact on a resident/occupants. In any event, it is understood that the compensation was paid into a joint account of both residents. The landlord explained that it was unable to consider the effect on the resident’s health and referred D to legal advice. While, again, the landlord did not explain this decision, this was a reasonable position, as consideration of the resident’s health issues would have entailed an examination of the legal principles of negligence and would require medical expertise. This is the Ombudsman’s own approach to complaints about the impact of a service failure on a resident’s health.
In its complaint response of 5 March 2024, the landlord has recognised the inadequacies of the Stage 1 complaint, including that its staff intruded on the resident’s care, its staff accessed the property inappropriately and that its narrative about access in its complaint response of 19 August 2022 was inaccurate. In addition, it did not consider the overall circumstances. It did not identify the history of the property including that works had been planned only a few months before. The review recognised that progress of works identified in September 2022 was not monitored or followed up either by its repairs or complaints team. It also recognised that it had failed to escalate the complaint and the role of poor-record-keeping in its failures. It further recognised the failures in the Stage 2 response, including the inadequacy of the compensation offered. These were the points that the Ombudsman also noted.
The complaint handling prior to the final review was extremely poor. However, the Ombudsman considers that the offer of £1,000 for its failures was reasonable and sufficiently recognises the landlord’s failures. In addition, its review was thorough. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was also motivated by the prospect of our investigation, which would be concerning, but is satisfied that the review was sincere, given its detailed analysis and the changes it proposed making. If the landlord had not recognised its failures and offered sufficient compensation, the Ombudsman would have found severe maladministration. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress.

Summary

As the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress, he is not making any orders but is making a recommendation. While not mandatory, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to respond to the recommendation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the property and requests for repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was no dispute that the condition of the residents’ property was very poor, had been neglected for a long period of time, and was in need of renovation. There was also no dispute that the residents were very vulnerable and disabled. The property itself was unsuitable as the resident was confined to the property, presenting both risks and impact on her well-being. There were initial delays to the landlord addressing the issues. However, the landlord offered and arranged a permanent move to the resident. It also offered an amount equivalent to 50% of the rent over a period of 4 years, as well as an additional sum for distress and inconvenience. The landlord also conducted a thorough review of its own performance, with plans for improvement.
The landlord recognised that its initial responses to the resident’s complaints were significantly poor, they were delays, they failed to recognise the issues, they purported to lay blame on the vulnerable resident for the initial lack of access. However, again, the landlord conducted a review, it recognised its failings, and it made an offer of compensation that the Ombudsman considers was reasonable.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. Within 4 weeks, a member of management at Director level should write to the Ombudsman as follows:
  1. To confirm that the “desktop review” and “Lessons Learnt” action plan had been implemented and if not, any reasons why not and a revised timetable.
  2. To set out a plan, or a plan the landlord has in place, to review its stock with similar issues.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within 4 weeks of this report.