Access Homes Housing Association Limited (202326268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326268

Newlon Housing Trust

26 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. A faulty boiler at the property.
2. A gas safety inspection.
3. Her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat which was custom built for wheelchair use. The resident suffers with a number of medical conditions including multiple sclerosis, and chronic depression and anxiety, which the landlord was aware of.
On 6 July 2023, the landlord’s contractor rang the doorbell of the resident’s property, so they could carry out the annual gas service inspection. The resident raised a complaint about this the same day. The resident said:
1. She was a vulnerable resident and lived in an area where cold ‘calling” was not permitted.
2. She did not trust the contractor because she said it had carried out an illegal installation of her boiler in 2020.
3. The member of staff who attended on behalf of the landlord’s contractor had harassed her in 2021.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023. The landlord said it had a legal duty to carry out its annual gas safety inspection at the property. It said its contractor had written to the resident on 22 June 2023, to confirm the original appointment. The landlord advised the letter also gave the resident the option to contact the contractor to amend or change this appointment. The landlord agreed to arrange for an alternative contractor to carry out the annual gas service inspection. The landlord said it would not consider the other points raised as they had occurred over 6 months previously.
On 28 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said her preferences for all contact had been by email which she had previously told the landlord. The resident said the landlord and its contractor had behaved in a condescending manner and had been disrespectful in its communication with her.
In August 2023 the landlord arranged for a different contractor to carry out the annual gas safety inspection and arranged the appointment with the resident by email.
On 4 September 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised if the resident had felt its members of staff, or its contractor had been disrespectful or condescending towards her. The landlord said it recognised its contractor had not contacted the resident by her preferred means of contact. The landlord apologised for this and awarded her £150 compensation. It then arranged for its repairs team, and its contractor to update its records in respect of the resident’s preferred method of contact.
Between November 2023 and December 2023, the landlord asked the resident to update it with her medical information including by submitting supporting evidence.
Between 8 December 2023 and 13 December 2023, the resident provided the information requested by the landlord. She also raised a complaint about its handling of her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities.
The resident said:
1. Why had she been asked to provide medical information for her conditions that she had previously submitted on 26 November 2018?
2. Did the landlord’s members of staff have access to her medical information?
3. Why did she have to tell the landlord what type of property she lived in?
4. Why did its members of staff not know that her property had been specifically designed for wheelchair users, and had other adaptations within the property?
The resident also said that members of the landlord’s staff had been ‘belittling’ towards her, and lacked the knowledge she would expect in respect of her medical conditions and the type of property she lived in. The resident said this had caused her to feel confused, stressed and anxious.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. The landlord said it had recorded the resident as vulnerable at the start of her tenancy in 2007. The landlord said it asked for her medical information more recently so it could keep its records updated.
The landlord apologised that the resident was negatively impacted after her communication with its staff. The landlord said as the resident’s medical information was classed as sensitive information this would not be available to all of its staff to view. Instead, staff would see a flag on the resident’s profile indicating she had a vulnerability.
The landlord accepted the medical information provided by the resident in 2018 had not been saved on its computer system. It said the information provided at that time would have only been used for the reason it requested it in 2018.

The landlord said it had uploaded the resident’s medical information, which she had submitted more recently to its computer system, for its staff to be able to access. It awarded the resident £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
On 31 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said this was because the landlord had not investigated or responded to her complaint in full.
On 6 March 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged it had not responded to all of the resident’s complaints in its stage 1 written complaint response.
The landlord said:
1. Its computer system, and the resident’s vulnerability flag was accessible to all of its staff. However, her medical information was classed as sensitive. Therefore, this information would only be available if a member of staff explicitly requested a need to see this sensitive information about her.
2. It acknowledged its different members of staff had provided inconsistent information and showed different levels of knowledge when communicating with the resident. It acknowledged this had then impacted the resident.
3. Details of the resident’s property was recorded on its computer system which members of its staff were able to view. It accepted some of its staff may have needed further training around this, and it was not the resident’s responsibility to provide information to the landlord which it was able to view within its own records.
The landlord said that after reviewing the resident’s concerns, it would aim to offer 3 days advance notice in raising any appointments other than its emergency repairs. The landlord said it would communicate to all its operatives and contractors that there may be a delay in the resident answering the door, and they would be asked to wear masks when attending the property. The landlord increased its award of compensation to £375.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaints. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating the landlord should have had her medical information and its staff should be able to demonstrate a sufficient knowledge of its own property stock and knowledge which ever member of staff she speaks to. She also said she had been left with a faulty boiler during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The landlord has updated the Ombudsman that following a review of the resident’s complaint:
1. It has improved its flags within its computer system, so it is clearer for its members of staff to recognise a resident’s vulnerability and property type.
2. Carried out a review of the resident’s information held on its computer system, to ensure it reflects the service needs of the resident.
3. Changed the contractor who carries out the gas safety inspection at the resident’s property.
4. Carried out a review and updated its reasonable adjustments policy.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

Paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure.
We have taken into consideration the resident has said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of a faulty boiler in 2020. The resident has also provided evidence that she exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in 2020 about this issue. We understand this issue will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, this was raised to us over 3 years later, and it would not be reasonable for us to investigate this issue given the length of time between the end of the landlord’s complaints process and it being brought to the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint in line with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s vulnerability policy states it is essential that information about a resident’s vulnerability is easily accessible for its staff. The information should be stored on its computer system as a flag (UDC) with any supporting information stored within the vulnerability section of the case. All details of a resident’s vulnerability such as a medical condition will be stored in the notes attached to the flag (UDC). The landlord should review vulnerability flags on an annual basis.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will provide its written response at stage 1 within 10 working days of it logging a complaint. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days.

The gas safety inspection.

On 22 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor said it sent a letter to the resident stating it would attend the property on 6 July 2023, to carry out the annual gas safety inspection. The contractor said the letter provided contact details for the resident to change the date if it was not suitable. We acknowledge the resident has said she did not receive this letter. It is also accepted the resident had previously told the landlord her preferred means of contact from the landlord and its contractors was by email. Therefore, the landlord should have advised its contractor to arrange the appointment by email.
We understand the resident was distressed as she was not expecting the contractor, whom she said had harassed her 2 years earlier, to attend her property on 6 July 2023. We are not commenting on the allegation of harassment from 2021 against the contractor because it took place several years ago and is therefore outside the scope of our investigation. However, the landlord responded appropriately in its stage 1 complaint response when it said it would arrange for an alternative contractor to carry out the gas safety inspection at her property. This is because it is important residents feel safe when the landlord’s operatives and contractors visit their property.
It was also reasonable the landlord said it would not comment on the allegation of harassment by its contractor dating back to 2021, in its stage 1 complaint response. This was because this was raised 2 years after the alleged incident. The landlord’s response was in line with its complaints policy which states it will not consider complaints which were not raised within 6 months of the matter arising.
In August 2023 the landlord arranged for its alternative contractor to carry out a gas safety inspection at the resident’s property. We have seen evidence the landlord communicated with the resident by email to arrange this appointment. This was an appropriate response, as this was the resident’s preferred means of contact.

There is evidence of a failing by the landlord not using the resident’s preferred means of contact to arrange the appointment to carry out the annual gas safety inspection. The landlord apologised for this error and confirmed it had updated its records for arranging any future appointments. The landlord also apologised the resident felt its communication towards her had been disrespectful. We have not seen any evidence where the landlord’s communication was inappropriate. The landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation.
We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused an adverse effect to the resident but there may not have been a permanent impact as the landlord took steps to resolve the issue.
Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s error in respect of the landlord’s handling of a gas safety inspection.

The resident’s concerns about her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities.

Between November 2023 and December 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of her up to date medical information. We acknowledge the resident said this request caused her distress, pain, and anxiety. She said this was because she had previously submitted this information to the landlord on 26 November 2018. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to make this request so its records for the resident’s vulnerabilities were up to date on its computer systems. This is so the landlord can provide the appropriate services to the resident. The landlord’s request was also in line with its vulnerability policy which states it should review a resident’s vulnerability flag annually.

The resident said the landlord’s staff had communicated with her in a way in which she felt they had behaved in a ‘belittling’ manner towards her, which we understand had a negative impact on her. The landlord acted appropriately in its stage 1 complaint response when it said it was sorry the resident felt its communication had negatively impacted her. However, the landlord could have gone further in these circumstances by asking the resident to be more specific about particular incidents or language which had left her feeling like this. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it was listening to her and would have also been an opportunity to seek learning in its communication style with the resident.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 6 March 2024, the landlord accepted it had not uploaded the resident’s medical information to its computer system in 2018. The landlord said it had been unable to investigate this further or provide a reason why this did not happen, as the member of staff who received the resident’s information was no longer working for the landlord. This was a reasonable response because as events become historic it can be more difficult for the landlord or the Ombudsman to assess what happened. It was also appropriate the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had uploaded the most recent medical information she had provided in 2023 to its computer system.
The landlord explained to the resident that details relating to her medical information were classed as sensitive information. The landlord said the information was only accessible by its members of staff who needed to know this information about the resident. The landlord’s explanation was appropriate because landlords have a duty to manage and protect the information they hold about a resident, including medical information in line with data protection law.
It is accepted that different members of the landlord’s staff had been able to access different levels of information on its computer system about the resident’s property, and vulnerabilities whilst communicating with the resident. We understand this has caused the resident to be frustrated, distressed and confused.
We would expect all members of the landlord’s staff to be appropriately trained in using its computer system, so its staff are able to provide a consistent, clear, and professional approach. This is evidence of poor communication. Therefore, it was appropriate the landlord apologised for its inconsistency in its communication with the resident and confirmed it would provide staff training to help prevent similar issues in future.
It is positive the landlord has since carried out a review of the resident’s information held on its computer system. It has also adapted its flagging system to make this easier for its members of staff to understand. This demonstrates the landlord has sort to improve its services for all its residents through learning, which we encourage.
In the landlord’s final response, it was also appropriate it said it would aim to provide the resdient with 3 days advance notice when raising any appointments other than its emergency repairs. This is because landlords need to be able to respond to emergency repairs quickly in order to minimise risks to the health and safety, and security of all of its residents.
Overall, the landlord apologised and awarded the resident £350 compensation within its final response for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. We have considered our own remedies guidance in respect of compensation. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer.
Therefore the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities.

The resident’s associated complaint.

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints about the gas inspection in line with its published timescales. This was reasonable.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s complaint about handling her medical information was 18 working days late. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord had told the resident it needed more time to respond. Overall, this delay was not excessive.
We have seen evidence the landlord opened multiple complaints for the resident during this period in response to her emails between 8 December 2023 and 8 January 2023. It was reasonable the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s communication, and then closed the multiple complaints it had opened, and then provided a single stage 1 complaint response.
However, it is accepted in doing so, the landlord failed to respond in full to all of the points the resident had raised as part of her complaint. The landlord was right to provide a single response in these circumstances. However, it should have been clearer in responding to all of the information requested by the resident. It was proportionate the landlord apologised for this in its final response to the resident’s complaint on 6 March 2024, during which it did respond to all of the concerns the resident raised. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint in line with its published timescales.
There were minor delays as referred to above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for these and awarded the resident £25 compensation. This was reasonable. Therefore the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a faulty boiler at the property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. A gas safety inspection.
2. Her medical information which was related to her vulnerabilities.
3. The associated complaints.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £525 it awarded her for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in the handling of the gas inspection, medical evidence and associated complaints unless this has already been paid.