Warwick District Council (202234620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234620

Warwick District Council

31 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of various repairs, including repairs to the roof and concerns around the location of scaffolding, dust from repair works and standard of works conducted within the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lived in one bedroom flat located on the top floor of the block. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023 after workmen had erected scaffolding at his property to complete roof works. The resident stated he was not made aware the works were to take place and was woken by workmen looking through a bedroom window in his property. The resident said the workmen had caused damage to his gazebo in the garden and his satellite tv equipment. The resident made a further complaint on 29 March 2023 regarding another of the landlord’s contractors causing excessive smoke and dust in the property that affected his pet and damaged items including computer equipment that formed a crypto mining machine.
The landlord’s records show it raised repairs to the resident’s bathroom on 12 April 2024. The repairs raised included renewing bathroom flooring, remove and refix basin and remove wc, remove and refix skirting to the bath.
The resident made further complaints on 4 April 2023 and 8 June 2023 stating the landlord had not responded to his previous complaints. Also, on 8 June 2023 the resident’s complaint included that the landlord’s contractors entered his property without permission and did not provide a minimum notice of 24 hours.
On 11 September 2023 the resident informed the landlord of outstanding issues including that he was unable to watch TV or open his window in the heat due to the scaffolding erected at his property, unable to use his toilet or maintain his hygiene due to the landlord’s bathroom contractor ignoring contact and offering repair dates months into the future. The resident made it clear to the landlord the issues were affecting his mental health.
The resident emailed the landlord titled official complaint on 2 October 2023. The resident stated his complaint was regarding the landlord ignoring his last two complaints and actions of the landlord’s contractors. The resident said the scaffolding in place meant windows couldn’t be opened correctly during a heat wave, disrupted his paid for TV services which it took 3 weeks to correct, and on the day of the complaint the contractor had pulled on the satellite dish cable and pulled it out of the wall causing the satellite box and TV to be pulled onto the floor and damaged. The resident also said the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend a third appointment to install a bathroom sink.
The resident followed this up with an email on 4 October 2023 also titled formal complaint which asked when the outstanding repairs for the bathroom sink, bathroom toilet, bathroom door to be planed, a kitchen window replacement, a front door replacement, a bedroom air vent cover replacement and kitchen wall plastering would be completed.
The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s emails as complaints on 20 October 2023 and informed him it would issue its stage one response by 1 November 2023.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 November 2023. The landlord said that in relation to the outstanding repairs it would supply him with a choice from a minimum of three independent surveyors by 1 December 2023 who would then visit the property to carry out a repairs survey and identify any substandard work. Following a review after the resident believed that a Hate Crime had been perpetrated by the landlord in the form of discrimination due to his autism, it did not believe that there was any intention to discriminate but it would need to look at how it assessed levels of knowledge and expertise around helping residents with autism to ensure that services were available where reasonable adjustments were made for each individual. It would take steps to see how best it could progress that. It apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint and the communication and challenges experienced with the service received and offered compensation of £500.00 for the issues around the roof and £500 for overall distress.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated on 16 November 2023 stating the landlord decided to use his own information against him, the complaint about the contractor who subsequently destroyed a £1000+ crypto mine and receipts were sent with the original complaint to no avail and the landlord had ignored parts of the complaint. The resident said the landlord had offered compensation lower than the damage caused, totally ignored the effects to his mental health, was neglecting repairs and that it was unfeasible for him to remain a tenant as he could not afford to repair the damage the landlord’s contractors did to his property. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage two on 21 November 2023.
The resident made more complaints to the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs and the actions of the landlord’s contractor during November 2023 and December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 December 2023. The landlord provided the resident with the list of independent surveyors it had promised to provide in the stage one response and asked the resident to choose which one to commission to undertake the survey. Following an email dated 16 November 2023, where the resident felt the compensation should be in the region of £5,000, it had asked him to provide evidence of loss and damage for his belongings and he explained in an email dated 17 November 2023, that information had previously been supplied. It had checked with its repairs department and contractor, and could not locate any documentary evidence of damaged items. Therefore, to consider a review of the compensation, could he re-send the photographs of the damaged items along with an estimated value.

Events after the landlord’s first stage two response.

The resident made further complaints including but not limited to 11 December 2023 regarding works still being completed at the property requiring the scaffolding which was affecting his health including him feeling suicidal and was self-harming. On 18 December 2023 regarding disrepair works being outstanding for five months including work in the bathroom, On 19 December 2023 asking the landlord to secure the front door that was still outstanding. On 24 December 2023 regarding his autism, said he was facing discrimination and provided the landlord with a list of the complaint reference numbers he had made since July 2022. The resident said the landlord had lost all the evidence he had provided regarding the costs of the damage to his belongings. On 27 December 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed some repairs to the kitchen but had caused the sink to leak and caused further damage to his property. On 5 January 2024 the resident informed the landlord he was staying at a mental health facility.
The landlord responded on 5 January 2024 and asked the resident to confirm all the repairs he felt were outstanding so it could ensure it appointed the correct contractor and check them against the ones it understood were outstanding.
The landlord issued a second stage two response on 16 January 2024 the landlord stated that:
1. On the 8 January 2024, the resident confirmed his preferred surveyor and it would arrange for it to contact him to book an appointment. Once the property was surveyed the report would be shared with him. It would then book appointments for its contractors to undertake the works, but different operatives would be used and once all works were completed, it would post inspect the repairs to ensure everything had been completed to the right standard.
2. There had been no intention to cause the resident any distress, regarding his autism however, it would arrange autism awareness training for its housing and repairs staff, so they would have greater awareness and understanding around the matter. The landlord asked for the resident to set out how his autism was affected and what the landlord could do to work around it so that information was held on his housing record.
3. It had asked on several occasions for evidence of loss and damage for the items and this information was not provided. When it spoke on the telephone the resident explained he no longer had the evidence, as he had a new phone and the historical emails had been deleted. Without evidence of loss and damage, it could not consider additional compensation.
4. It had delayed roof repairs to the block of flats following concerns the resident had previously raised. However, the repairs needed to be undertaken to protect the fabric of the building, as delays could cause further damage and costs. The contractors had been instructed to complete the roofing works without any further delay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the reported issues affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs, including repairs to the roof and concerns around the location of scaffolding, dust from repair works and standard of works conducted within the property.

Section 5.2 of the tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for providing sanitation (for example basins, sinks, baths, showers etc.). Is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair and is responsible for maintaining the services allowing water, gas, and electricity to be supplied to the home
From the evidence provided the landlord was undertaking works to remove pipes from the roof structure of the building. This involved the erection of scaffolding for the works to take place. The resident stated to the landlord that he was not provided with any notice of the works and was not therefore prepared for the works taking place.
Under section 6.2 of the tenancy agreement the resident must, after being given 24 hours’ notice in writing, ensure that any person authorised by the landlord is allowed to enter the property and carry out the tasks including :a) Inspection b) Repairs or other works to the property, or any other property, which it is obliged, or entitled to carry out, under a Tenancy Agreement, or other legal duty or power, c) Improving the property, or any other property, or the safety of, or the services or facilities offered to, the occupants of the property, or any other property, d) dealing with any nuisance arising in the property or elsewhere e) Preventing any damage to the property, or any other property.
There was however no evidence provided by the landlord that it provided any notice of the works to the resident as required under the terms of the tenancy. This was a failure by the landlord. Once notified by the resident of this, the landlord did not evidence it acknowledged the failure to issue any notice and failed to explain or apologise to the resident.
The landlord is responsible for the repairs. The landlord can do those repairs itself, or it can subcontract the work out to a contractor. If it chooses to use a contractor, it chooses to take a risk that it is relying on a third party which may not act in a way that’s always consistent with the landlord’s expectations or obligations.
The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor who conducted repairs within his property had damaged items due to excessive dust and smoke and that his pet was also affected in March 2023. The resident then made at least six complaints between March and October 2023 regarding the actions of the landlord’s contractors, substandard repairs carried out and the lack of notice provided when works were taking place to communal areas.
When notified of the resident’s concerns about the handling of the repairs the landlord would be expected to contact the resident and establish what element of the repairs the resident was not happy about and if there was anything the landlord would be responsible for to put things right. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident following his reports. Although in the evidence provided there were references to telephone calls and in person meetings, no records or notes of these events were provided and therefore the discussions and outcome of those meetings could not be established.
This was a further failing by the landlord that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and would not have reassured him the landlord was responding to the reports he was making.
The landlord made some attempt to put things right in the stage one response on 14 November 2023. The landlord stated that it would supply the resident with a choice of three independent surveyors by 1 December 2023 to carry out a repairs survey in his property and identify any substandard work. This was a positive step taken by the landlord.
It would therefore be expected that the landlord completed this commitment within the timescales specified. The landlord however failed to do this until it issued the stage two response on 8 December 2023. This was seven days later than it committed to and, in the stage two response failed to acknowledge it had not provided the resident with the contractors within the timescale committed to or why it failed to do so. By not fulfilling the commitment it made in the stage one response the landlord unnecessarily delayed the repairs process and further damaged the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord’s records show that repairs were required in the resident’s property including the front door and kitchen but the majority of those raised were mainly to the bathroom of the property. The landlord’s records however show failings in its repairs processes. Examples of this included the landlord’s repair records showing works were raised on 12 April 2023 to “renew bathroom flooring, remove and refix basin and ped and remove wc, remove and refix skirting to bath” under routine repairs but were not completed until 27 September 2023 which was 169 days later. The records also showed works were raised on 1 September 2023 as intermediate repairs to “replace the basin and ped, toilet cistern and toilet seat” which its records stated were completed 173 days later on 20 February 2024. A sewage leak from the toilet damaging floor and door was reported on 14 September 2023 which the landlord’s records showed as being completed 20 days later on 3 October 2023 despite it being raised as an emergency repair. There was no evidence provided the landlord did attend to the emergency appointment the same day.
The landlord did not provide a specific repairs policy to this Service. Instead, it provided a link to the repairs section of its website. In the repairs section it stated the landlord has two priorities of repairs. An emergency repair, which a contractor will attend the property within 4-6 hours of a resident raising the repair and a general repair which will be started within 30 days of the order being raised with the contractor. The landlord’s repair records showed the landlord exceeded those timescales on more than one occasion and there was no evidence provided of the landlord keeping the resident informed of progress of the repairs or reasons for any delays. There was also no evidence provided by the landlord of reports for the works completed, what was completed or if any follow-on works were still required.
When the resident made his complaint on 4 October 2023 he asked for updates on repairs in the property. This would suggest the works raised in September 2023 were not completed or had follow on works required however the inadequacy of the landlord’s repairs records means this service cannot establish the status of the works at that time.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord regarding the repairs reported, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time which was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining in some repairs whether the alleged time and trouble spent by the resident was extensive and therefore likely to cause some inconvenience to the resident. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure
Ultimately the evidence provided by the landlord has not evidenced that it provided the resident with the required notice for works to the roof taking place in the building or notice scaffolding was to be erected as part of those works. The landlord has also not evidenced it responded to the resident’s requested repairs at his property within the timescales of its repairs policy or provided evidence of the works completed and it had failed to offer the resident any explanation to his complaints about the actions of its contractors in or around his property. The failures identified in this investigation amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
In its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £500 for its handling of the repairs to the roof however the offer did not offer any further explanation for the offer being made or what failures the landlord had identified. The landlord failed to offer any compensation to the resident for his reports of the actions of the contractor inside his property or for the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs at his property.
For the delays in those works the landlord should pay the resident an additional £300 and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor communication regarding the outstanding repairs and actions of the contractors. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £250 for the failures after the stage one response was issued.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.

In his correspondence to this Service, the resident has accused the landlord’s contractor of being negligent in its handling of the repairs which subsequently damaged his possessions. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damage to his personal possessions, including the items that made up a crypto machine. This is because such claims are normally a matter for insurers or the courts to decide. This Service however can consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and consider any inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
Following an inspection of the webpages provided by the landlord for repairs, there was no reference to the landlord’s process for a resident claiming damage to items during the repairs process.
The landlord also provided a link to its insurance webpages. These pages stated that for a resident to make a claim against the landlord an online form was to be completed, or the resident could write to or call the landlord on details provided on the webpage. The webpage also stated the decision on whether the landlord had been negligent would be made by the landlord’s insurers who would decide if the landlord had been at fault. If the claim was for damage to property, insurers would need to know the age of the damaged items, original purchase price (receipts if available) and estimate for replacement, because any payment would take into account wear and tear.
The resident made it clear to the landlord on at least 8 March 2023, 29 March 2023, 8 June 2023, 2 October 2023, 4 October 2023, 6 October 2023, 23 October 2023, 22 November 2023 that he had items damaged by the landlord’s contractor during repairs carried out at his property. The landlord’s records also noted it knew the resident was claiming for damages at least from 30 March 2023 but there is however no evidence that the landlord discussed this with the resident or attempted any investigation including discussing the reports with its contractors. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage one response in November 2023 that the resident had reported damage to his property but failed to then offer a response or any further advice to the resident. This was a further failure by the landlord, and it missed the opportunity to put things right through the complaints process.
The first stage two response stated the landlord did ask the resident to provide evidence of loss and damage for his belongings and that the resident had explained in an email on 17 November 2023 that the information had previously been supplied. The landlord stated it had checked with its repairs department and contractor but could not locate any documentary evidence of damaged items. It stated for it to consider a review of the compensation, could the resident re-send the photographs of the damaged items along with an estimated value.
The evidence provided by the landlord did not support the landlord’s statement. There was no evidence provided by the landlord that showed it requested the resident supply the evidence of damage other than during the complaint responses. Although it is possible the landlord may have requested this over the telephone or in meetings with the resident, the landlord would still be expected to keep accurate records of contact with a resident to ensure a full audit trail exists. There was also no evidence of any contact the landlord had with its contractors as part of any investigations into the resident’s claims.
The landlord repeated the request for evidence on 8 January 2024 and the resident responded the same day stating he had already done so and the landlord had lost the evidence. The landlord in the second stage two response on 16 January 2023 said it had asked on several occasions for evidence of loss and damage for the items and the information had not been provided. After speaking on the telephone, the resident explained he no longer had the evidence, as he had a new phone and the historical emails had been deleted but without evidence of loss and damage, it could not consider additional compensation. At this stage the resident had been requesting to claim for damages to his belongings for at least 9 months and no progress had been made.
This Services guidance in respect to insurance confirms a landlord should initially consider if there is any evidence that it is at fault for claimed damage to property and belongings, rather than refer residents straight to an insurer. If a landlord disputes fault or a complainant is unable to evidence the level of claimed damages, it may be reasonable to refer a complainant to their or the landlord’s own insurer to establish negligence and liability. However, if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask complainants to claim on their own insurance, since this may affect future premiums and require them to pay an excess. If liability is denied, a landlord should still investigate and respond as a formal complaint to reports that its actions or inactions have caused distress and inconvenience, consider if there was any service failure, and consider if any compensation is applicable.
Throughout the period covered in this investigation there was no evidence the landlord offered the resident the opportunity or information to consider making a claim through the landlord’s insurers and instead asked for the evidence directly for it to consider compensation.
However, given the poor record keeping by the landlord this Service is unable to determine when the landlord requested the evidence from the resident apart from the complaint responses. This is particularly important as the landlord issued the stage one response eight months after the resident first informed the landlord of damage to his belongings and made the landlord frequently aware until the stage one response was issued. However, during this time there is no evidence the landlord considered or offered the resident the opportunity for him to claim through the landlord insurers or evidenced it had discussed the claims with its contractors. This was maladministration by the landlord, and it should pay the resident £300 for those failings.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.

The resident has said the landlord treated him unfairly on several occasions due to his personal characteristics. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to a court to decide. However, this report has considered whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equalities legislation.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord 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.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had responded to those needs in the way it provided its services in line with its obligations under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord also had a legal duty to consider making reasonable adjustments.
The landlord missed several opportunities an early stage when contacted by the resident following his reports of issues with the contractors and works being carried out. The resident informed the landlord on several occasions how the works were affecting his autism including the symptoms and triggers. There is no evidence the landlord gave any further consideration to the resident’s autism despite him making it clear the effects of the landlord’s actions, and its contractors was having on him.
There was also no evidence that the landlord confirmed to the resident it had the resident’s autism noted on its systems or that it would record it if not, it did not evidence that it discussed with the resident any requirements for adjustments he may require while repairs to the roof or within his property were carried out, that it communicated any requirements to its contractors or it made any reasonable adjustments when carrying out the works. The landlord’s response was inadequate.
In the landlord’s stage one response it stated following a review of the case it did not believe there was any intention to discriminate. The landlord did not provide any evidence of any reviews it completed into the resident’s case and how it came to the conclusions it made.
The stage two response also stated the resident’s emails had mentioned the landlord needed to be aware of his disability and how it affected him. The landlord stated it would be helpful if the resident could set that out so that it could ensure that information was held on his housing record. Given that throughout the complaint, the correspondence the resident had with the landlord consistently mentioned the effects on his autism it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was aware of the resident’s autism and therefore would have been expected to begin the process of recording that and any reasonable adjustments required when first becoming aware. For the resident to go through at least nine months of making reports which included the effects the issues were having on his autism and the landlord in its final complaint response to only begin the process of discussing this with the resident was unacceptable and a significant failing for the landlord.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments was unreasonable and inadequate and shows a significant lack of understanding of both its legal obligations and its own equality and diversity policy. The landlord’s overall approach as to how it responded to the needs of the resident and its duties under the Equality Act 2010, was inadequate and unreasonable. The landlord failed to recognise this through its complaints process and provide any reasonable redress. This was maladministration by the landlord and it should pay the resident £200.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states it encourages all complaints to be made in writing (e.g. letter, email, fax or complaint form (in paper or electronically) to the Head of Service. A standard complaint form will be available at all front-line offices and via the website. The resident used email and the online form to make his complaints therefore satisfising this criterion.
The resident made complaints via the landlord’s online complaint form as required on 8 March 2023 and 29 March 2023. Following no response from the landlord he chased the landlord via the online form on 20 April 2023. There was no record of any response by the landlord. The resident made a further two complaints on 8 June 2023. Again, there was no record of a response being issued by the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2023 and twice on 4 October 2023 stating he was making official complaints. In his emails he noted that he had no response to the complaints he had made since March 2023 and asked for the landlord to respond. It is acknowledged that it can be difficult for a landlord to handle complaints that are being received on a frequent basis but none the less each request to make a complaint must be considered in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the landlord has not evidenced it has done that for all the complaints it had received.
When the landlord stated on 4 October 2023 that it would log his complaint this was the landlord first formal acknowledgement that the resident was making his complaint and came six months after the residents first complaint was made.
The landlord’s complaint policy states a complaint will be acknowledged in writing within 3 working days, from receipt of the complaint. The letter will also include details of what the complaint is understood to be, providing the complainant with the opportunity to confirm this.
The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2023, 13 working days after the complaint made by email on 4 October 2023. The acknowledgement made no mention of the complaint made on 2 October 2023 or the complaints made previously from March 2023. There were also no details of what the landlord understood the complaint to be about.
The landlord’s complaint defines a complaint as an expression as an expression of dissatisfaction about an aspect of the landlord, be it a service provided, the officer delivering the service, a policy of the landlord, allegations of discrimination, or breaches of data protection or freedom of information. This also includes the work of contractors or partners delivering a service on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord internally stated on 20 October 2023 that it dealt with the previous complaints by the resident as service complaints. There is no evidence provided by the landlord of it dealing with those as service complaints or why it determined them to be service requests. However, it is clear from the complaint forms completed from March 2023 that the resident was making formal complaints and was not making a request for service. This meant the resident did not receive responses to his complaints as required under the landlord’s complaint policy.
The landlord’s complaint policy states if a complaint is likely to lead to an insurance claim, the Head of Service should notify the Insurance Officer. Although the resident made it clear to the landlord that he felt items in his property and garden had been damaged by the landlord’s contractor there was no evidence if the landlord considered if a referral to its insurers should be made.
The stage one response was issued on 14 November 2023. This was 13 days longer than the resident was informed to expect the response by and there was no evidence the landlord informed the resident there would be a delay in issuing the stage one response. The response was also issued 30 working days after the landlords acknowledged receipt date which was 10 working days longer than the timescales for a stage one response stated in its complaints policy. There was no evidence it kept the resident informed of those delays.
The stage one response acknowledged the resident had made complaints in March 2023 and that it had tried to resolve those informally but failed to explain why they were not formally logged as a complaint. The landlord failed to offer any explanation for why it had then included the issues raised since March 2023 in the stage one response. The stage one response did offer compensation for the issues the resident had with the roof repairs first complained about in March 2023 of £500 and a further £500 for the inconvenience that had caused. The response though failed to offer the resident an explanation of its findings for the complaints the resident had made regarding the outstanding repairs, substandard works or the actions of its contractors or offer any redress. It also failed to offer any redress for the delays the resident incurred in receiving the stage one response.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 8 December 2023 and within the timescales of the landlord complaints policy. The response informed the resident that if dissatisfied with the response he could progress the complaint to the Ombudsman indicating the completion of the landlord’s formal complaints process.
Although the landlord has a two stage complaints process and provided the resident a response both stages, the landlord then provided a second stage two response to the resident on 16 January 2024. The landlord stated it had spoken to the resident on 8 January 2024, but it failed to explain why it was issuing a second stage two response.
The second stage two confirmed the resident’s choice of independent contractor. It also confirmed to the resident its position on the resident’s request for compensation stating it had not received any further evidence for the resident for any loss or damage. No further offer of redress was made to the resident.
There were significant failures throughout the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to correctly identify the resident was making formal complaints for a seven-month period between March 2023 and October 2023. Once a formal complaint was logged the landlord failed to issue the acknowledgment or stage one response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It then issued two separate stage two response over a five week period with both responses responding to different subjects. The landlord’s inadequate handling of the resident’s complaints would have caused him significant distress and inconvenience and was maladministration by the landlord for which it should pay the resident £500.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of various repairs, including repairs to the roof and concerns around the location of scaffolding, dust from repair works and standard of works conducted within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of various repairs, including repairs to the roof and concerns around the location of scaffolding and dust from repair works and standard of works conducted within the property. This payment is in addition to the landlord’s offer of £1000 made in its stage one response.
3. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings.
4. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
5. Pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
6. The landlord reviews its understanding of reasonable adjustments and its implementation in the processes it undertakes as a landlord.

Recommendations

The landlord should read this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and assess itself against this report to ensure it keeps accurate records included records of disabilities of residents and any reasonable adjustments required.
The landlord should review its complaint handling practices to ensure it promptly handles complaints and escalation requests.