Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202209040)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209040

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

20 December 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 concerns about its planned works in her home.
  1. that she needed to be decanted.
  2. that she contracted COVID-19 from the landlord’s contractor.
2. about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her 3-bedroom house since June 2004. The landlord told us that it does not have any known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system. The resident has told us that she has health conditions including respiratory challenges.
In January 2021 under a previous complaint brought to this Service by the resident, we ordered that the landlord carried out works to her home. In February 2021 the landlord and resident discussed the schedule of works. The landlord stated that the resident may be decanted (moved to temporary accommodation) while the works were undertaken. The evidence suggests that the work was agreed to be put on hold by the landlord and resident.
In March 2022 the landlord carried out a pre-inspection of the property and provided the resident with the schedule of works. In April 2022 the works started.
At the end of April 2022 the resident raised concerns. She explained that:
1. an operative had a chest infection while carrying out works to her home. She said that she had caught it and was bedridden. She said that it had affected her “prior breathing ailments” further.
2. her house “looked like a building site”. Building materials had been left inside her house and “trash was sprawled” across her front and back garden.
3. in some rooms the paint on the walls were uneven and bumpy. In others the ceiling paint was peeling, and the plasterboard seam was showing through the paint.
4. the garden paving had been relayed at a slant and it was not sealed in between the slabs.
5. her hallway walls were “riddled with dirt and stains.”
The landlord’s officer (officer B) responded the same day. She:
1. said she could not confirm whether the resident “obtained a cold” from the operative. Therefore, she was unable to comment.
2. asked the resident to provide a list of items that were left in her home.
3. asked the resident to provide pictures of the concerns that she had raised, including, the paintwork, ceiling and paving. She said that she would provide a decoration voucher if the resident was not happy with the standard of the painting.
4. Said she would ask the contractors to make good the scuffs on the walls.
On 16 May 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. She said:
1. work was planned to start on the downstairs area in the first week in April 2022. That plan was not fulfilled. She explained that instead she had 5 builders carrying out work in and outside of her home simultaneously. This meant she was confined to one room for 3 weeks while the work was carried out.
2. the works were not completed to a good standard.
3. there was a lack of health and safety measures in place, which included the stop and starting of the works, which had not been discussed.
4. she had raised concerns about the standard of work to officer B. She said that she felt that officer B was insensitive to her concerns.
5. the initial plan for her to be decanted was not followed through. She considered it to be unacceptable because she had “respiratory challenges”. The ongoing works and the dust in her property was affecting her health and breathing.
6. she had caught COVID–19 in late April 2022 from an operative. The operative had confirmed that he had a chest infection and was on antibiotics. She was still unwell, and her respiratory challenges had not eased.
7. she felt distressed and anxious due to the situation.
Over the following days, the landlord acknowledged internally that it had received a letter from the resident’s GP who recommended that she was decanted. The landlord asked internally whether the resident should be decanted until the works were completed.
On 20 May 2022 the resident added to her complaint that she had received an email from the landlord that included an internal email from officer B. She said that she found that the tone of officer B’s comments to be “disrespectful and offensive”. She said that officer B stated that she was “making demands”.
On the same day an environmental housing surveyor contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. She reiterated the concerns made by the resident and her GP. She added that the operatives that were carrying out works in the resident’s home were:
1. not wearing face coverings or maintaining a distance, nor ventilating the premises by keeping windows open.
2. mixing plaster inside of the resident’s home “without regard to the hazard it produces.” The level of dust created by the works was “so significant” that it had caused a relapse in the resident’s respiratory illness.
On 24 June 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it had visited the resident in March 2022. At the visit it had an “extensive conversation” with her. It agreed the details of the works which included starting the external works first.
2. its contractor confirmed that the delay to the kitchen works was to accommodate the resident’s requests. It confirmed that it stopped work as and when the resident requested and worked around her availability.
3. its contractor had confirmed works started early April externally and moved internally early May.
4. there was a period where there was a high volume of internal work carried out during May when several areas were being plastered and decorated in line with the schedule. It said that each time the resident raised issues its consultant carried out an inspection to ensure the contractors were not inconveniencing her.
5. its consultant visited the resident’s home “numerous times” and was satisfied with the condition of the site and the quality of the works. This included when the resident raised concerns at the end of April.
6. its consultant had confirmed that all the works had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
7. it did not hold a formal request for the resident to be decanted. It said that as the works had been completed a decant was no longer needed.
8. the contractors followed the government COVID-19 guidelines fully. This was also monitored by its consultant.
9. it was sorry that the resident found officer B to be insensitive. She was acting on reports from the contractor about the change to the schedule of works.
10. it “could see that the resident had been distressed and inconvenienced during the internal works”. It offered her:
  1. £50 for inconvenience.
  2. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  3. £50 for inconvenience during internal works.
  4. £50 for stress caused during the works.
On 19 July 2022 the resident escalated her complaint and on 24 August 2022 she added additional concerns to the complaint. While we have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s correspondence, the evidence suggests that she reiterated her previous concerns and added:
1. the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was a “basic, standard and generic” response. Its investigation was “based on hearsay rather than concrete evidence or findings.”
2. it did not address the recommendation from her doctor to be decanted.
3. it did not respond to her concerns about officer B’s comments made in its internal correspondence.
She asked that the landlord restore her home “back to its origins”. She asked that it compensated her for the weeks of usage of her electricity and loss of heating from builders going in and out. She said that her home was uninhabitable, due to “all the dust and chemical mixing” in her home.
On 9 September 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the officer that was overseeing its stage 1 investigation had taken unexpected leave before the response was due. This meant that it did not provide its response by 16 June 2022. It said that it had sent the response by post on 24 June 2022.
2. it had fully investigated all the points the resident had raised in her complaint and based it on its findings.
3. most of the works in the resident’s home had been completed. The outstanding works would be completed before it signed off the programme.
4. its contractor confirmed that works started in April 2022. Its consultant liaised with the resident during this period to explain the timetable of works.
5. it apologised that the resident was unable to use parts of her home.
6. it apologised that the decant was not offered to the resident. It said that, it was a “key shortfall” that it did not offer her a decant while the works were undertaken. It said that it did not deliberately disregard the resident’s GP’s advice.
7. its contractor “reaffirmed” that it followed government’s guidance on COVID-19. At the time its operatives that entered the resident’s home did not have COVID-19. Therefore, it was unable to confirm that the resident contracted COVID-19 from any of the operatives.
8. it was not officer B’s intention to come across insensitive nor harass or be prejudicial in her communication with the resident. It apologised for the statements made in its internal email exchanges. It did not “condone” the statements. It said that officer B had noted the resident’s comments and would show “greater sensitivity under [future] similar circumstances.”
9. the resident’s photos showed various materials and tools in the areas where there were ongoing works. It showed that there may have been a lack of adequate storage.
10. its consultant and contractor confirmed that the materials used and/or mixed in the resident’s home while undertaking works in the resident’s home were non-toxic.
11. only works that were included as part of the original schedule of works and any relevant associated remedial works would be completed.
12. it said that it was “inevitable” that there would be dust, and its contractor confirmed that it had tried the best it could to contain it.
13. it offered the resident £1,500; this replaced its stage 1 compensation offer. It said this was in recognition of:
  1. the delays in responses to the resident’s complaints.
  2. the non-use of some of her rooms.
  3. lack of communication.
  4. any inconvenience and distress caused “as a result of works undertaken while she was in her home.”
The resident told this Service that the work has been completed. However, she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained that the landlord’s decision not to decant her while works were underway at the property affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, assessed whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns that were raised by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the planned works

We have not been provided with the landlord’s planned works policy nor its health and safety policy. It is unclear whether the landlord has such policies – or relevant guidance for staff – in place. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.

The schedule of works and commencement

The landlord has advised that it carried out a pre-inspection of the property in March 2022 and provided the resident with a schedule of works. The resident has not disputed this. We have not been provided with the schedule of works, or contemporaneous evidence relating to the pre-inspection. As such, the detail of both is unclear. Therefore, what work was agreed and when it was due to start and be completed is unclear. The evidence available suggests that works started in April 2022 and completed at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
In her May 2022 formal complaint, the resident told the landlord that the work was due to start the first week of April 2022, and that works to the downstairs area was supposed to start first. She said that this was not fulfilled. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it had agreed the details of the work with the resident in March 2022. It said that it had agreed that external works would start first. It also said that its contractor confirmed that works had started in early April 2022.
As we have not been provided with the schedule of works on records relating to the pre-inspection, it has not been possible for us to ascertain what was agreed. However, the resident’s complaint specifically stated that the work did not start in the first week of April 2022 as planned. Therefore, when responding to the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have specified the date the works had started alongside the original planned date and its position on the matter.
The landlord stated that its consultant had liaised with the resident during that period in relation to the timetable of works. While the landlord’s comments are noted, it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of these interactions either. The concerns raised by the resident suggest that she was either not fully informed about how the works would take place, or that there had been some misunderstanding. The landlord should reasonably have explored this further when investigating the resident’s complaint. That it failed to do so was a missed opportunity. We have not been provided with evidence which demonstrates that it had clearly communicated the planned works to the resident and taken appropriate steps to manage her expectations.
The landlord also acknowledged that there was a period of time where there was a high volume of internal work. It said that each time the resident raised concerns, it had carried out an inspection to ensure the contractors were not inconveniencing her. However, we do not have contemporaneous records to corroborate the landlord’s response. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns at the time she had raised them or to her complaint.
The resident explained that works would start and stop. She explained that she was not informed that that would be the case. In response the landlord said that its contractors had stopped works at times at her request. We have not been provided with evidence to support its response. It would have been reasonable for it to have included the dates and requests to demonstrate that its response was based on accurate information.
Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord reasonably investigated the resident’s concerns. For example it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted the resident to establish particular days that she felt that the landlord had stopped work prematurely. It then would have been reasonable for it to have investigated and and provided its response.
The evidence suggests that the landlord took some action to discuss the resident’s concerns with its consultant and contractors. This was appropriate. However, the records contain a lack of detail about what was discussed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recorded this information so that it could be relayed to the resident.
While the landlord responded to the initial concerns that were raised by the resident, its response was lacking in detail. The landlord also set out actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns and to satisfy itself that it had acted appropriately. While the landlord’s comments are noted, it has not provided us with contemporaneous evidence of the steps it took and the discussions that took place. Therefore it has failed to demonstrate that it made the resident reasonably aware of the scope of works and that it responded to her concerns about the commencement of woks appropriately

The standard of the works

At the end of April 2022, the resident raised concerns about the standard of the work to the landlord. Her concerns included:
1. poor internal paintwork.
2. plasterboard seams showing.
3. slanted garden paving.
4. her walls were dirty and stained which was caused by the contractors.
The landlord responded on the same day and asked the resident to provide photos. This was appropriate. It also reassured the resident that it would make good any scuffs to the walls.
The landlord told the resident that it could provide decoration vouchers if she was unhappy with the standard of the paintwork. This was unreasonable. The work was ordered by the landlord. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have reviewed the work and decided whether it met its standards. If it did not, then it would have been reasonable for it to have asked its contractor to reattend to resolve the issues. Offering a decorating voucher to the resident placed the onus onto her to rectify any workmanship errors. This would have caused her undue time, trouble and potential financial inconvenience.
In her formal complaint, the resident reiterated to the landlord that the work carried out was not of a good standard as per her concerns in April. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its consultant inspected the works at the time she had raised her concerns and found that the works were satisfactory. While it was appropriate for the consultant to inspect the works, we have not been provided with evidence relating to this inspection. It would have been reasonable for this to have been documented. Consequently, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that at the time the resident raised her concerns, it reasonably investigated and responded.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she also raised concerns that external slabs were uneven. It is unclear whether this was reported prior to the escalation request. However, at the time that the stage 2 response was issued, this had been resolved. While the landlord appropriately remedied the situation, it would have been reasonable for it to have set out the action it had taken within its formal complaint response given that the matter was raised as part of the escalation request.
The resident also reiterated in her escalation request that her walls were dirty and stained due to the works that had taken place. In its complaint response the landlord said that it would only carry out works that were included in the original schedule of works. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. If the resident’s home had been damaged as a result of the works, it would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to put things right.
As such, in response to the resident’s concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have visited the property to inspect the relevant areas. Had it done so, it would have been provided with an opportunity to identify if any damage was likely to have been caused by the works. That the landlord did not do so meant that it failed to investigate the resident’s concerns. It is also noted that the landlord had previously provided the resident with an assurance that any scuff marks would be made good. Therefore, its complaint response conflicted with the advice the landlord had previously provided and its overall response to the resident’s concerns was inappropriate.

Health and safety measures

The resident raised some concerns to the landlord that building materials were left in her home and that trash was “sprawled” across her front and back garden in April 2022. She also told it that her home looked like a building site. In its same day response, the landlord asked the resident to clarify her comment that her home was like a building site. It is unclear whether the resident responded at that time. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that the landlord asked its consultant to visit the resident to investigate her concerns. This was appropriate. However, as set out above, we have not been provided with evidence in relation to this visit.
In her formal complaint, the resident explained that her anxiety levels were high because of what she considered to be the lack of health and safety measures in place. The environmental health surveyor that visited the property echoed some concerns noting that the contractors were mixing plaster in the resident’s home and not covering their faces with masks. She also said that the level of dust was “significant” which caused detriment to the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its consultant was satisfied with the condition of the site. Its response was vague and did not address the specific concerns that had been raised. It would have also have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out more detail relating to the consultant’s visit to demonstrate that it had fully considered the concerns that had been raised.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had received photos from the resident that showed “various” materials and tools were in her home “due to the ongoing works.” However, it is unclear whether the tools were unreasonably and inappropriately left in such a way that may have been a safety risk to the resident. That the landlord did not fully address this in its response was unreasonable.
The landlord also explained that its contractor confirmed that the materials used including mixing the plaster in the resident’s home were non-toxic. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm this.
In relation to the resident’s concerns about the dust in her home, it said that it was “inevitable” that there would be dust. It said that its contractor confirmed that it had tried “the best it could” to contain it. While that may have been the case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out what measures had been taken to contain the dust. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have expressed an opinion on whether it considered these measures to have been appropriate, or whether it had identified any further action that the contractor could take.
While the landlord did respond to the resident’s concerns, its responses were lacking in detail. We consider that overall it failed to engage with the resident in a meaningful way and that it could reasonably have taken further care when investigating and responding to her concerns.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it reasonably followed the schedule of works.
2. demonstrate that it meaningfully investigated the resident’s concerns about the standard of work appropriately and in a timely manner.
3. demonstrate that it had adequate health and safety measures in place while it carried out works to the resident’s home.
4. demonstrate that its responses were based on reliable, timely and evidence-based information.
5. reasonably respond to the resident’s specific health and safety concerns.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the planned works that were carried out in her home.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated that it had learnt lessons. It said that going forward it “should”:
1. ensure new staff members taking over planned works were fully informed of all aspects of the case before the works started.
2. increase the frequency of inspections on ongoing works to ensure standards are met.
This was positive and went some way to put matters right. However, this investigation has highlighted additional failings. We therefore order the landlord to review its handling of this case in light of our investigation. When carrying out its review, the landlord should pay particular attention to its record keeping practices and how information is relayed to residents.
The landlord failed to fully engage with the resident’s concerns about the commencement and scope of the works, the standard of workmanship and its health and safety standards. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the planned works in the resident’s home. An order of £250 compensation has been made in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

The resident’s concerns that she needed to be decanted

We do not have a copy of the landlord’s decant policy. It is unclear whether the landlord has a standalone policy in relation to decants. We have not been provided with any such policy as part of our investigation. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
When the landlord and resident first discussed the works in February 2021, the officer at the time informed the resident that it could decant her while the works were undertaken. The officer left the organisation and officer B was appointed. When the works were due to start in 2022, officer B carried out a pre–inspection of the resident’s property in March 2022. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the visit. However, the evidence available suggests that neither the resident nor the landlord discussed the possibility of a decant at this visit. It is unclear why this was not explored given that it had been discussed previously. Nevertheless, this meant the landlord missed an opportunity to establish whether a decant was still needed. If it had done so it may have mitigated the distress and inconvenience caused later.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it should have updated officer B about its previous discussions about the decant. This was reasonable and demonstrated that lessons were learnt. It also stated that going forward, it “must” always temporarily decant a resident in similar circumstances. This was positive. While we do not doubt that the landlord has learnt from this case, it is important that such lessons are reviewed alongside its practices and policies. This ensures that where relevant, policies and practices are updated to reasonably prevent any future failings that occurred in this case. Therefore, the case review that has been ordered includes a provision for the landlord to review its decant policy and practices.
The evidence suggests that in mid- May 2022 the landlord started works in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. Shortly after, the resident made a formal complaint that staying in the property while the works were undertaken was affecting her health as she had “respiratory challenges”. Around the same time, she provided the landlord with a letter from her GP who “strongly recommended” that she was decanted. They told the landlord the resident had a history or respiratory illnesses and that she was “continually breathing in effluvia was not helping her condition.”
In its internal correspondence between 17 and 19 May 2022, the landlord discussed the GP’s letter and the possibility of a decant. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that shows that it carried out any further meaningful investigations into the situation or followed up on the matter. There is also no evidence that it discussed the possibility of the decant with the resident. Given the resident’s concerns coupled with her GP’s recommendation that she be decanted, that it did not is concerning and a significant failing. The landlord missed a further opportunity to properly address the matter, when the environmental housing surveyor reiterated these concerns to it a day later.
The landlord’s failure to consider a decant further and to communicate a decision to the resident was inappropriate. Its handling of the matter caused the resident further distress and inconvenience as she was concerned about the impact of the works on her health.
It was not until approximately a month later that the landlord responded. In its June 2022 stage 1 complaint response it told the resident that it did not have a “formal” request for a decant on record. It also said that as the works had been completed that there was no longer a need for the decant. The landlord’s response was unreasonable and inappropriate. The resident’s complaint that she had not been decanted would have been reasonably considered as a “formal” request, alongside her GP’s recommendation that she was to be decanted. Furthermore, the evidence has already demonstrated that the request was discussed by the landlord at the time it received the correspondence. It was also discussed with the resident by the previous officer before the works had started. The landlord should have reasonably addressed this in its response. As it did not, it failed to reasonably and fully assess its handling of the resident’s request for a decant.
The resident escalated this element of her complaint because she was dissatisfied that the landlord did not take into consideration that her GP recommended a decant in its response.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it did not deliberately disregard the GP’s advice. It also acknowledged that the resident was not decanted while the works were undertaken, was a “key shortfall”. This went some way to put matters right. However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she needed to be decanted. This is because the landlord failed to:
1. demonstrate that it reasonably considered whether a decant was required before the works started in March 2022.
2. appropriately and proactively act on the resident’s concerns and her GP’s recommendations that she required a decant.
3. appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint at its stage 1 complaint response.
Given the detriment caused to the resident as a result of the failings identified, we have ordered the landlord to pay her £400 compensation. We have also ordered the landlord to review its handling of this matter. As part of the review, the landlord should consider implementing a decant policy if it has not already done so. The implementation of such a policy will help to ensure that decisions around decants are made in a timely, fair and consistent manner.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she contracted COVID-19 from its contractor

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the resident contracted COVID-19 from the landlord’s contractor. Rather, our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided this Service with a website link to its approach on dealing with COVID-19 matters. However, the page is no longer available and therefore its approach at the time is unclear. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
At the end of April 2022, the resident told the landlord that she had contracted a chest infection from an operative that was working in her home. She said that it had affected her “prior breathing ailments” further. In response the landlord said that it could not be “confirmed that [the resident] obtained “a cold” from the contractor.” Its response was not entirely appropriate.
It would have been reasonable for it to have undertaken some investigation into the resident’s concerns. This could have included speaking with the operative or contractor and trying to establish whether reasonable precautions were taken to limit the spread of any infection. This may not have determined whether the resident contracted the infection from the operative. However, this would have demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
In addition, at this time the resident told the landlord that she had pre-existing health conditions. Upon receiving such information, it would have been reasonable for it to have ensured, with the resident’s permission, that its records reflected her vulnerability and that its contractors were also aware. Taking such action would have mitigated future risk to the resident.
In the resident’s May 2022 formal complaint, she explained that an operative had told her in April that he had a chest infection. She said that she contracted it from him and later found out that it was COVID-19. She also raised concerns that operatives did not wear masks while carrying out the works in her home. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that its contractors followed the government guidelines which was also monitored by its consultant. While it was reasonable to explain this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have gone further with its response. For example, it could have detailed the steps it had taken to demonstrate that it had followed the guidelines and further explained how its consultant monitored the matter.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that none of the operatives had COVID–19. It is unclear when the landlord investigated this and whether tests were conducted at the time to rule this out. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided any evidence to support its statement. While it does not necessarily follow that the resident did indeed contract COVID-19 from an operative, the landlord’s response to her concerns overall was inappropriate.
Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that she contracted COVID-19 from an operative. A series of orders have been made in relation to these matters.

Staff Conduct

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Rather our role is to determine whether the landlord considered the concerns that had been raised in a fair and proportionate manner. The landlord has not confirmed whether it has a policy in relation to staff conduct, and how concerns about conduct will be dealt with. In the absence of such information, we have assessed the landlord’s actions on the basis of reasonableness.
In the resident’s formal complaint, she raised concerns that officer B was insensitive when she had explained her concerns to her about the contractor’s standard of work. A few days later she added that she had received emails from the landlord which included internal correspondence between officers, which included officer B. She explained that she felt that the tone of officer B’s emails were disrespectful and offensive towards her. We have not been provided a copy of the correspondence. However, the resident said that officer B commented that she was making “demands”.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident that she felt that officer B was being insensitive towards her. It explained that officer B was acting on reports from the contractor. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence that the landlord meaningfully investigated whether officer B’s interactions with the resident could have reasonably been considered as insensitive. In the circumstances, it should reasonably have reviewed officer B’s correspondence with the resident during that period. That it did not do so was a failing.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it did not condone the statements made in its internal correspondence. It stated that it was not officer B’s intention to be insensitive nor harass or be prejudicial in her communication with the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide some comment in relation to the internal communication. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out an impartial and fair investigation into the resident’s complaint. It is also unclear whether it spoke to officer B about the matter. It is noted that it would not be appropriate for the landlord to provide this Service with details that may relate to an individual’s employment. However, we would expect it to provide a reasonable and proportionate level of detail about its investigations. For example, this could have included minutes of meetings, call notes, details of any agreed actions, and confirmation once actions had been undertaken. Based on the evidence we have been provided with, the landlord has failed to adequately demonstrate that it carried out an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord extended its response deadline from 31 May 2022 to 16 June 2022. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that when landlords require extensions, they should not be more than an extra 10 days without good reason. Given that the extension was no more than 10 working days, the landlord’s update on the matter was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The evidence suggests that the landlord sent the complaint response by post around 24 June 2022 which was after it was due. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to send the communication via post. However, given that its response was already delayed it is unclear why the communication was not sent via email, or hand delivered. This would have ensured that it reached the resident as soon as possible, mitigating any further delay. The evidence suggests that the resident chased the landlord for its response on 28 June 2022. In response the landlord sent this to her via email on 19 July 2022. It is unclear why this was not sent sooner. However, there was a failure by the landlord here to mitigate further delays.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord explained that the overseeing the complaint took unexpected leave before the response was due. This went some way to explain the delay. However, the landlord was aware that the response was outstanding and that the response deadline had already been extended. It should therefore have been proactive an contacted the resident via phone or email to advise that it would not meet the revised deadline. As the landlord did not do so, the resident was left to chase the matter.
The landlord responded to the resident’s July escalated complaint on 9 September which was within approximately 39 working days from the resident’s request. That was a deviation from its policy that stated that it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The evidence suggests that the landlord advised the resident that it would extend its response deadline a few times during that period. Given that the evidence shows that the landlord’s extensions exceeded more than 10 working days, it would have been reasonable for it to have agreed a response date with the resident. This would have been in accordance with the Code. There is no evidence that it did so.
In her escalated complaint, the resident raised concerns that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was “generic and basic”. She said that the complaint response was not based on any “concrete evidence nor findings”. In response the landlord said that it fully investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and its response was based on its findings. While the landlord’s comments are acknowledged, our assessment of the substantive issues as set out above demonstrates that this was not the case. We have found that the landlord failed to identify several failings and that its responses lacked clear and informed explanation.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its delayed responses and offered the resident proportionate compensation for this. However, we have identified additional failings in its complaint handling and given the nature of these, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling:
1. of the planned works.
2. of the resident’s concerns that she needed to be decanted.
3. of the resident’s concerns that she contracted COVID-19 from an operative.
4. of the resident’s reports of staff misconduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we have also found maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £1,250 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the planned works in the resident’s home.
  2. £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.
  3. £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns that she contracted COVID-19 from its operative.
  4. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of staff misconduct.
  5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
In accordance with paragraphs 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its policies and practices in relation to the failings identified in this determination. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. a review of its record keeping practices in line with our May 2023 ‘Knowledge and Information’ spotlight report. In particular, ensuring that all contact with its residents, such as visits and calls are logged on its system, in relation to all cases.
3. whether its health and safety policies (where relevant) and practices in relation to planned works are adequate and provide staff and contractors sufficient information to follow. In particular it should ensure it has robust systems in place to monitor and review its consultants and contractors’ performance in any given case.
4. whether its policy and practices sufficiently address when it should offer residents decants when carrying out planned works. It should consider implementing a decant policy if it has not already done so This should include specific steps it should take when a resident requests a decant.
5. whether its policies and procedures about staff conduct are adequate and provide staff members with sufficient information and steps to follow if such an issue arises. A clear and accurate record of the investigation and any follow-on actions should be created and maintained. This should include, but not be limited to, minutes of meetings, call notes, details of any agreed actions, and confirmation once actions have been undertaken.
6. a reasonable process is followed when residents disclose health conditions, this should include updating its system, where relevant.
7. a self-assessment of its complaint handling against this Service’s April 2024 complaint handling code, if it has not done so already.
8. consideration made that staff are trained/retrained in the above policies and procedures once they have been reviewed.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learning from the review.
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
4. the steps it will take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.