Citizen Housing (202322514)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322514

Citizen Housing

23 May 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 response concerning:
   1. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the placement of a warning marker on his account, his concerns about the impact of this on the purchase of his home, his concerns about staff conduct, and his reports about discrimination.
   2. The resident’s reports about internal door repairs.

Background

2. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 2009. The property is a house.
3. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported a lounge door repair on 26 June 2023 and a bathroom door repair on 30 June 2023. An operative then attended on 24 July 2023, but left without completing the repairs, as they reported the resident had behaved in a hostile and aggressive way.
4. On 1 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said that due to its duty of care, it had added a marker to his account for 6 months. It said this would be removed if there were no further incidents and detailed how he could appeal the marker.
5. The resident complained on 9 August 2023.
   1. He raised various dissatisfaction with the placement of the marker on his account. He disputed he was hostile. He was concerned the marker would prevent a Right to Acquire application from being accepted. He felt the landlord was unfair to place the marker without proof or speaking to all parties. He raised concerns that the operative had made a false and racist claim that would bias other contractors who visited against him.
   2. He raised dissatisfaction with the handling of internal door repairs and with these being delayed.
6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 August 2023:
   1. It explained it had a process for employees to report any issues and to inform other staff of risks. This involved a review of reports by a panel to consider if a marker was applicable. The operative had raised concerns and their report was managed in line with this process. It said it found no evidence to support that the marker was applied due to discrimination. It said the marker could be appealed and an appeal had been referred. It said the resident would be provided with the outcome in 15 working days.
   2. It noted the issue had delayed the internal door repairs and these had been rebooked for 27 September 2023. It said it had asked for the repair to be brought forward if there were any cancellations.
7. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the response on 5 September 2023. He requested further information about the operative’s allegations. He noted he had made a complaint about the operative not explaining why they were not doing the door repair. He raised dissatisfaction that their complaint had taken precedent over his. He raised dissatisfaction that the landlord found no evidence of discrimination, but had placed the marker after limited investigation and evidence. He queried if the marker would affect a Right to Acquire application he intended to submit.
8. The same day, the landlord responded to the marker appeal. It detailed what the staff had reported and said such behaviour was not acceptable. It said the marker would remain on the account and would be reviewed after 6 months. It said that the resident could contact the Information Commissioner’s Officer if he remained dissatisfied.
9. The landlord completed the internal door repairs on 27 September 2023 and later provided its final response to the complaint on 2 October 2023:
   1. It provided further explanation about its process for when staff felt threatened. It said the operative was spoken to about what made them feel threatened. It said the resident could report if he felt threatened through its website. However, it said it had identified learning for staff to speak to both parties if anyone raises concerns about being threatened.
   2. It noted the decision to the marker appeal and confirmed the marker would remain until January 2024, when the resident would be told if it was removed or kept.
   3. It noted that the resident said he felt discriminated against. It said it took this seriously and had asked him to be contacted to discuss this.
   4. It said that the marker would have no impact on the Right to Acquire application and was just for visiting staff’s information.
   5. It noted that the internal door repairs were completed on 27 September 2023. It noted that the resident was incorrectly told that another operative would attend on 24 July 2023. It apologised for his and said this had been raised with relevant staff. It also said it had identified learning for contractors to inform customers of reasons for being unable to complete repairs before leaving.
10. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in a letter to the landlord. He disputed that the marker should have been applied and he restated dissatisfaction with the investigation before it was. He raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had accepted its contractor’s concerns over his own complaints about discrimination and the door repair not being done. He said he had not been contacted to discuss his feeling discriminated against, but he did not require this as it was the contractor who needed speaking to. He queried the landlord saying he was incorrectly told there would be a further visit on 24 July 2023, as his tenant account showed 2 repairs booked for that day. He said he was apprehensive to report repairs as he was afraid contractors would have a biased attitude.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s dissatisfaction with the placement of a warning marker on his account, his concerns about the impact of this on the purchase of his home, his concerns about staff conduct, and his reports about discrimination

11. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has his own experience of a 24 July 2023 incident that led to placement of a marker on his account and disputes the behaviour alleged. In this case we cannot say whose version is true and it can be possible for different people to have different experiences and perspectives of the same events.
12. The Ombudsman also understands the resident’s concerns about the marker and discrimination and that this will have been distressing to him. However, it is not our role to make definitive decisions about what happened and issues such as discrimination in the same way as the courts. Instead, we look at whether the landlord acted and responded reasonably and in line with its policies and procedure.
13. The Ombudsman understands the resident was distressed and felt the landlord chose to believe the operative’s account over his. However, it is evident that the landlord was handling the operative’s report in line with an internal process, rather than necessarily choosing to believe the operative’s account over the resident’s complaint.
14. The landlord has a process where staff who experience incidents that make them feel vulnerable should remove themselves from the situation and make a report. This is reviewed by a panel that considers if a marker should be placed on a customer’s account, to make other staff who may visit the customer aware. Customers can appeal about a marker to the information governance team, who investigate and inform them of the outcome within 15 working days.
15. The landlord was reasonable to consider its employee’s report in line with this process, in separation to the resident’s complaint. The process is one way it safeguards its staff by making them aware of potential risks. Given the potential consequences if it does not consider staff safety concerns, it is reasonable to follow this process even if there are different versions of events and the reality of the risk is low.
16. The landlord was also reasonable in its responses. It provided explanation about the marker. It referred the dissatisfaction with the marker to the appropriate process. It responded to the appeal in a timely way. It appropriately considered the resident’s concerns about discrimination. It concluded there was no evidence the marker was applied due to discrimination. This reflects what we have seen, as the landlord was following its process for incidents where staff say they felt vulnerable. It was clear about how long the marker would remain. It reassured the resident that a Right to Acquire application would not be impacted, which it is not evident it was. It acknowledged reasonable learning.
17. Overall, the Ombudsman understands the resident was upset by events and that he feels he has been discriminated against. We understand how distressing this must be for him. However, based on the evidence, the landlord shows it considered and responded about the marker and related issues reasonably in line with its policies. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about these.

The resident’s reports about internal door repairs

18. The resident raised a repair on 26 June 2023 for his lounge door, as it banged when windows were opened, and raised a repair on 30 June 2023 for an issue with his bathroom door. He was initially told the repairs would be completed in September 2023 but they were brought forward. The operative who attended on 24 July 2023 left without doing the repairs, so they were later completed on 27 September 2023.
19. The landlord’s responsibilities for internal doors and the timeframe it is obligated to complete such repairs is not entirely clear. They are not mentioned in the tenancy agreement or repairs policy. They are often tenant responsibility in policies. However, in this case, the landlord accepted repairs responsibility.
20. The landlord raised the repairs as a routine repair. Its policies say these are non- emergency, and have flexible appointment slots, but then had target timeframes of 12 working days. This meant the door repairs should, according to this, have been completed around mid July 2023. However, the initial September 2023 appointment is understood to have been due to high volumes, and the 24 July 2023 appointment the repair was brought forward to was not significantly beyond this timeframe.
21. This visit shows the landlord was seeking to progress the repairs in line with its approach to do the repairs then, or at a follow up visit if materials were required. It is unclear if the operative would have completed the repairs if they had not left. However, the landlord did identify learning for contractors to tell customers if they are unable to complete a repair before leaving, which reasonably addresses this aspect.
22. The resident queried the landlord saying he was incorrectly told another operative would attend on 24 July 2023, as his repair account showed 2 door appointments. The landlord shows it reasonably considered this aspect, apologised, and confirmed it was raising this with staff. The resident had 2 repairs but it seems likely that the operative who attended was there for both repairs. However, as information provided on his repair account is potentially unclear, a recommendation is made about this.
23. In early August 2023, the landlord rescheduled the repairs to 27 September 2023, where they were completed. This again exceeded the 12 working days for routine repairs, by around a month, which was a lengthier delay. The landlord did say it asked for the repair to be brought forward if there were any cancellations, so it was seeking to progress it as soon as it could, given competing repairs priorities. However, its responses did not clearly acknowledge and address the delays, which was not reasonable.
24. Overall, the landlord tried to progress the repairs earlier, made suitable commitments in its complaint response that it would do the repairs sooner if possible, and acknowledged reasonable learning. However, its responses should have acknowledged that the repairs exceeded the stated timeframe for routine repairs. It should have provided clear explanation about why the appointments it made, and the completed repairs, were beyond its normal stated timeframes.
25. It is not evident that the doors disrepair and their impact meant they should have been done significantly sooner than they were. However, the resident will have been caused some frustration and uncertainty due to how long they took and were communicated about. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about these and to order it to apologise to him about this.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response concerning the resident’s dissatisfaction with the placement of a warning marker on his account, his concerns about the impact of this on the purchase of his home, his concerns about staff conduct, and his reports about discrimination.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response concerning the resident’s reports about internal door repairs.

Orders and recommendations

27. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, apologise to the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused by the completion of the doors repairs outside of the target timeframe for these.
28. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it provides explanation to residents if repairs appointments are beyond its normal stated timeframes, including in its complaint responses.
29. The landlord is recommended to review the information provided to tenants on their online account, to ensure this is sufficiently clear whether separate repairs on the same day will receive 1 visit, or separate visits for each repair.