Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Acis Group Limited (202331973)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331973

Acis Group Limited

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
  2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved to the property, a 2-bedroom bungalow, in October 2021. The resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.
  2. On 7 November 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
    1. Her complaint was about “disability discrimination”.
    2. She had previously provided the landlord with supporting evidence of her medical conditions.
    3. The outstanding repairs (in relation to damp and mould) in the property were affecting her physical and mental health. She also felt it was “unsafe” for her to remain at the property while remedial work was undertaken.
    4. She had previously requested a rent rebate so that she could move out of the property while the required repairs were undertaken. She had also “attempted to compromise” and requested a management transfer. She was unhappy that she did not receive a response from the landlord about her request for these reasonable adjustments.
    5. She had been made aware that the landlord had “deliberately misled” the local council to believe that she had denied it access to the property to undertake repairs. She said this was incorrect as she had provided the landlord with “repeated access, to the point where it was preventing [her] from having peaceful enjoyment of [her] home”.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023. It said the outstanding repair work was scheduled to commence from 2 December 2023. It said it had arranged for the resident to move into alternative accommodation while the works were undertaken. It also offered to arrange a discussion between the resident and its area service manager. It said this was so it could support her with any reasonable adjustment requests.
  4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 23 November 2023. She said:
    1. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address her complaint about disability discrimination.
    2. She had concerns that the landlord’s position had changed from the property being safe for her to inhabit, to being “a building site, which [she] could not access during the works”. As such, she asked the landlord to confirm if it had made an insurance claim to cover the costs of decanting her.
    3. She requested the landlord to confirm if the area service manager who it had offered to call her (in its stage 1 response) was the same person she had dealt with in relation to a previous complaint.
    4. She asked the landlord to confirm if its customer services email address was working.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023 and said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said this was because it had reviewed its records and could not find any evidence of disability discrimination. It also said it had put adjustments in place to ensure that, wherever possible, the resident’s specific requirements for appointments had been accommodated.
  6. The resident ended her tenancy with the landlord in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported issues of discrimination. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. This is in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
  2. The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue has negatively impacted on her physical and mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights (published in January 2024) explains why it is important for landlords to consider allegations of bias and investigate them accordingly. It says failure to do this can compound a resident’s existing view that they are being treated unfavourably. It also says that investigating this type of allegation will help landlords ensure they are providing a fair, equitable and lawful service. Ultimately, we expect landlords to investigate this type of allegation through their formal complaints procedure.
  2. On 15 June 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a copy of a medical letter to “support her request for reasonable adjustments”. The letter contained a list of 9 medical diagnoses, which included physical and mental health vulnerabilities. Throughout the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, she also disclosed her medical conditions on several occasions. However, within the landlord’s evidence submission (in October 2024), it told us that it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its internal systems. This is concerning, and we find that the landlord should have captured this information to ensure it was providing the resident with consistent and necessary support. As the resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord, no orders have been made in relation to this.
  3. The resident first made the landlord aware of her discrimination concerns in her initial complaint on 7 November 2023. These were significant concerns that warranted a proper response from the landlord. However, within its stage 1 response (on 22 November 2023), it did not make any attempt to address the resident’s concerns. We find the landlord’s lack of response inadequate and shows that it failed to take the matter seriously. This caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience, as she felt she had to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because the landlord “did not address her complaint of disability discrimination”.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 7 December 2023, it made some attempt to address the resident’s concerns. It said it had it reviewed its records and could not find any evidence of disability discrimination. It explained that its investigation had found it had made “additional adjustments to ensure [the resident’s] specific time requirements for visitors had been made”. While this is a positive example of making a reasonable adjustment, we find the landlord’s response lacking. This is because it failed to address the resident’s specific concerns and examples of the alleged discrimination. This was not appropriate and calls into question how thoroughly the landlord considered the resident’s allegations before it concluded that there was no case to answer.
  5. The landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 (‘the Act’) not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. In July 2025, we asked the landlord to confirm its decision-making process in how it had determined that no discrimination had occurred. It said that its complaint handler “used their knowledge, experience and expertise looking at the Act to determine the right outcome”. While we do not dispute the assessment of its qualified staff, the landlord has failed to appropriately evidence its decision making in its handling of the resident’s concerns. In this instance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to:
    1. Discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with her and ask her to explain how she had been affected by its actions.
    2. Review its contact with the resident to identify any potential issues in how it had responded to her. Specifically, it should have addressed the allegations she had raised in relation to:
      1. The property being unsafe for her to occupy due to her medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
      2. It “deliberately misleading” the local council to believe that she had denied it access to the property to undertake repairs.
      3. It failing to respond to her request for a management move or rent rebate.
    3. Provide the resident with a detailed timeline of events and explain how it had responded to her concerns in line with its legal and policy obligations.
    4. Provide the resident with appropriate advice on services available to her if she wished to pursue the legal matter further.
  6. We find that the landlord missed an opportunity to show it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, attempted to understand the way she felt, and given full consideration to whether she had been treated differently to other residents in any way. Had it done so, this would also have potentially gone some way to repairing the fractured tenant/landlord relationship. The resident could have perceived its lack of due regard to minimise or undermine what she no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
  7. As mentioned earlier, it is not our role to determine if the landlord discriminated against the resident. However, as it has failed to evidence that it properly considered its obligations under the Act, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
  8. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation guidance (outlined in its 2024 complaints policy). It is considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at the time of the complaint said landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It also stated that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of an escalation request. The Code did not become statutory until April 2024.
  2. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints at both stages (1 and 2) were to be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy stated that at both stages, if it needed longer to investigate a complaint, it would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  3. On 7 November 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day (on 8 November 2023). This was appropriate and in line within the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
  4. Within the landlord’s acknowledgement email, it told the resident it was investigating her complaint and would “be in contact in due course”. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not contact the resident about her complaint again until it issued its stage 1 response (on 22 November 2023). This was inappropriate, as the Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement (22 November 2023). This was again in accordance with the timescales outlined in its complaints policy.
  6. While there were multiple failings in how the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about discrimination, we will not be making any further assessment on this as it was addressed earlier in the report.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it failed to provide the resident with a decision on the complaint (ie that it had upheld or not upheld it), and therefore did not provide any details of any remedy to put things right. This was at odds with our dispute resolution principles outlined in the Code.
  8. On 23 November 2023, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the same day, which was appropriate.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. This was a response time of 10 working days, which was compliant with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  10. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its complaint handling. This meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation and subsequently award the resident an appropriate amount of compensation.
  11. As mentioned earlier in the report, within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she asked the landlord to answer 3 questions. We accept that some of these matters did not directly relate to her original complaint. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to her questions, which was unreasonable. In this instance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to include an “other matters” section within its complaint response or provide her with an update within a separate response.
  12. From 1 October 2022, changes in the Scheme and the removal of the “democratic filter” meant that residents no longer had to wait 8 weeks after the landlord’s final complaint response to refer their complaint to this Service. We therefore find it inappropriate that within the landlord’s closing paragraphs of its stage 2 response (in December 2023), it told the resident that we were unable to consider cases until 8 weeks later. We expect landlords’ complaint handling and related correspondence to be aligned to the requirements outlined in the Code.
  13. Taking all the above into account, we have made a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  14. Accordingly, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the failures identified in this report. As the landlord’s compensation guidance does not include a calculation matrix for complaint handling failures, the award has been calculated in accordance with our own remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Provide the resident with an explanation about what evidence it reviewed when it investigated her reports of discrimination and set out its reasons for concluding there had been no discrimination against her.
    3. Pay the resident £550 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
      1. £400 for its handling of her concerns about discrimination.
      2. £150 for its handling of her complaint.