Derby Homes Limited (202323553)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323553

Derby Homes Limited

31 May 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 the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and needed adaptations.
2. The resident’s request for a discretionary housing allocation.
3. The resident’s reports concerning her mental health.
4. The resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lived in a 2-bedroom house that was managed by an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) on behalf of a local authority landlord. The property was let to the resident on 4 December 2020 via mutual exchange to a secure tenancy that was initially let in 2019.
The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable and has physical and mental health disabilities.
The landlord administers access to a local authority choice based letting rehousing scheme. The local authority’s banding system categorises applicants based upon their personal circumstances and housing need. Rehousing applicants bid on advertised property and are prioritised based upon their banding and position on the rehousing list.
During a conversation this Service held with the resident on 18 March 2024 we advised that the choice-based lettings scheme and the associated eligibility and banding procedures are administered by the local authority in its capacity as a local authority and not as a landlord.. As such any complaint about these matters is outside the scope of this investigation and would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However details about the landlord’s and resident’s communication about these matters have been included by way of background.
In emails the resident sent to the landlord on 10 July 2023 and to this Service on 15 April 2024 she said that she feels that she has been discriminated against by the landlord. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as these are legal terms which are better suited to a court to decide. However, we have considered whether the landlord had regard to its obligations under the Equality Act.
In an email the resident sent to the landlord on 10 July 2023 and to this Service on 12 April 2024 she said that she feels that her human rights have been breached for living in a property with no useable washing facilities and no bathroom which had a seriously detrimental effect on her mental health issues. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all public authorities – and other bodies carrying out public functions – to respect and protect individuals’ rights. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in its treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint. Landlords may be able to show they have shown due regard for the Human Rights Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and that there is a process for decisions to be challenged by way of review or appeal.

Relevant policies and procedures

In accordance with the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to premises to meet the needs of residents with disabilities. It also requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
The landlord’s allocation policy says it will complete an initial assessment based on the information provided on the housing application. Prior to any offer of accommodation evidence will need to be provided of all circumstances declared and the residency details on the application at that time. It will place applicants in one of 3 bands: Corporate needs, Priority needs, and General needs. Access to the Corporate needs band will be given to those whose current housing situation is having a significant detrimental impact on their medical condition and those who require property adaptations where it is not feasible or cost effective to carry these out to the current property. It will prioritise the applicants that have bid for a property according to their suitability for the particular property, band, and length of time on the Housing Register. Where a property is identified that has some or all of the adaptations that meet an applicant’s needs, the landlord will match the property to applicants who need the particular adaptation and who will make best use of the adaptations within the property. It may hold back some properties from the scheme to make allocations that are at its discretion.
The landlord’s discretionary allocations policy says a discretionary, or an out of turn allocation, can be considered if a tenant has a very urgent need to move, such as, a recent traumatic event, if they are at serious risk of harm in their current address or where their current tenancy has become unsustainable. A discretionary allocation request will however only be done where the circumstances are described, or the urgency is such that this cannot be addressed through the working of the normal allocations process.
The landlord’s equality, dignity and respect policy says it will make sure that its plans, policies, and practices do not unfairly discriminate against people with protected characteristics by doing robust equality impact assessments and acting on the results.
The landlord’s welfare adaptation policy says housing staff or applicants themselves may request minor adaptation aids. Major works require a referral from an Occupational Therapist (OT) and evidence of existing health conditions.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days and stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may consider paying discretionary compensation if it has not acted reasonably. It will pay up to £500 for the low impact of a succession of service failures and if the problem is not resolved within a reasonable timescale. It will pay up to £5,000 for the medium level impact of a serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in disruption, inconvenience and/or damage. It will pay up over £5,000 for the high-level impact of a serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities resulting in disruption, inconvenience and/or damage.
Paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a rehousing application to the landlord on 24 July 2022. The landlord re-assessed the application in November 2022 and placed the resident in a corporate needs band in recognition of a severe medical and urgent rehousing need.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 January 2023 to say that she was not able to bid on an advertised disabled bungalow and if she was unable to bid on disabled adapted properties she would be even more limited. She asked if she could bid on a suitable property that could be adapted. The landlord replied to the resident the next day to say that she was in highest band and was eligible to bid on 2-bed properties that appeared in the “place bid” area of her transfer application.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 February 2023 to ask if she could bid on a property she had identified that was being adapted by the landlord and when a named property which was suitable for her needs would be available for her to bid on. The resident also said that she had been told the property had already been allocated without being placed on the bidding site which she said was not right. The landlord phoned the resident the same day to explain that the property she had referred to had been offered to meet the needs of another family that had been matched to it.
The resident contacted the local authority on 22 February 2023 about her housing circumstances. The local authority completed a direct and small equipment pathway form and arranged for a perching stool and a bath board to be delivered to the resident on an undisclosed date in February 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 March 2023 to confirm she had placed a bid on a property with a wet room. She said that the property was ideal for her needs. She asked the landlord to confirm who the property would be offered to if she needed the wet room but the other people who had bid on the property didn’t need the wet room. The resident emailed the landlord again the next day to say that she urgently needed the property she had bid on.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 10 March 2023. The resident complained about the allocation process and her need to move to an adapted property. The resident explained that she had been finding it difficult to manage in her home due to her back condition and that she was struggling to use bathing facilities and was sleeping in the living room because she struggled with using the stairs.
The resident and the landlord held an email discussion on 10 March 2023 in relation to the position the resident held on the transfer list and the allocation process. The resident said that she felt that she should have the same chances of getting a non-adapted property as anyone else but that she was only able to bid on properties which had been adapted and that this was discriminatory. The landlord confirmed that she could bid on adapted properties with wet rooms and general housing without wet rooms but that she would be bypassed if the property did not meet her needs. The resident asked the landlord to clarify how a family had been offered a property straight away when she had been told there were 49 people ahead of her. She also asked why some adapted properties were not restricted to allow only people that required the adaptation to bid on them. The landlord explained that properties were allocated based upon the ‘number of needs’ on a housing application and that those with the most needs would be prioritised and those without needs or the required adaptations would be bypassed.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 21 March 2023 to ask why she was not able to bid on 2 adapted properties she had identified. She also reported that her application was showing that she had been on the list since January 2023 instead of June 2022.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. The resident’s housing application was up to date in the corporate needs band with 2 housing needs.
2. Previous information it had provided that suggested the resident could only bid on adapted properties had been incorrect and that she could bid on adapted and unadapted properties.
3. At the point of an offer being made an occupational therapist (OT) and a surveyor would assess the property to determine if it met or could be adapted to meet her needs.
4. A named property had been offered to a family that had required the adaptations in the property and the stairlift in the property had not been removed.
5. It would arrange for an adaptations surveyor to assess her current home to establish if it could be adapted to meet her needs and to be confident that it had considered all options.
6. The resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 within 20 days if she remained dissatisfied. It did not say it if upheld the complaint.
The landlord inspected the property on 27 March 2023 and found that the staircase was too narrow to be adapted for the installation of a stairlift and the property would not allow for an upstairs bathroom due to its size.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June and 16 June 2023 to say that she was not able to bid on housing association properties. She also asked it to confirm that she could bid for and would be considered for properties even if they were not adapted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 June 2023 to say that she could bid on housing association properties and would only be bypassed for general needs accommodation if they could not be adapted.
The landlord offered the resident a 2-bed semi-detached bungalow on 24 August 2023. The resident contacted the landlord the next day to say that the property was not suitable as it was too far from her caring responsibilities.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2023 to make a complaint about the allocation procedure which she said was unfair. The resident said that the landlord had not advertised a property with adaptations in an area that she was looking to move to because it had been held for a discretionary allocation. The resident said that she was unable to get upstairs in her property, bathe in the property, use the bathroom and was sleeping on the sofa and had been left like that to give a property to a family that was not on the list. The resident also requested an appeal of the landlord’s decision to allow a family to bypass the bidding process for an adapted property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 September 2023 during which she said that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that her complaint was about the discretionary allocation process which she believed was corrupt. The landlord said that it would respond to her as a stage 1 complaint, but the resident said that she wanted to escalate it to stage 2.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2023 to withdraw her complaint. The resident said that she was fed up with the stress she was giving herself and so I wouldn’t be taking it any further. She asked the landlord to close the complaint as she felt its explanation had been suitable.
The landlord reviewed the resident’s rehousing application on 20 September 2023 in response to her report that she could only see advertised 3-bed properties. The landlord noted that the resident had added an occasional overnight carer to her application. The landlord amended the application on the same day and confirmed that she was eligible for 2 and 3 bed properties.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 October 2023 to ask when 3 named properties would be advertised. The landlord replied to her to say that it could not provide this information and to check the system weekly.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 11 October 2023. The resident said:
1. She felt that she should be considered for the discretionary allocation list due to her needs and those of her family which she listed in detail. She asked the landlord to explain why she could not be added to the discretionary allocations list.
2. A named member of staff had ignored her and not answered her previous rehousing questions.
3. She was a carer for her daughter who had physical and mental health needs which she described, and which required her to live nearby.
4. She had been threatened with a petrol bomb to the house, had a police report to confirm this and was scared.
5. Her current property was not able to be adapted following an adaptations assessment but that the house was unsanitary and unsafe.
6. She could not have a bath or shower in the property due to her physical health needs and that she had fallen a few times.
7. She struggled with the steep stairs which she could not get down quickly. Furthermore that she had wet herself before reaching the toilet, so she had been sleeping in the living room for over 18 months.
8. The resident summarised the difficulties living the property caused and that she often felt suicidal about the situation which had been affecting her for more than 18 months.
9. She had been told that she would be bypassed for a general needs property because she needed adaptions and had email proof of this.
10. She asked to be put forward for the discretionary allocations list.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2023 to ask her to explain more about the report of a petrol bomb threat as this had not been discussed before. The resident replied to the landlord to explain when the matter had occurred and that she had a police crime reference number.
An external support organisation emailed the resident on 12 October 2023 explaining that it offered free, confidential, and non-judgemental emotional support, advice, information and guidance on parenting and family life.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 17 October 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2023 to say that she had submitted her complaint on 9 October 2023 and not 12 October 2023 as it had said. She also said that she was not happy as the landlord had not addressed matters she had raised about her mental health, nor offered her support as a vulnerable person.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2023 to say that it had not acknowledged her complaint of 9 October 2023. She said that she had told lots of people that she was suicidal and that her mental issues were bad, but no one had attempted to assist her to get help which was not acceptable. She also said that she had not received a complaint response within its 10-day target.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 23 October 2023 to say that she had sent her email on 10 October 2023 to the data protection team which had not been received by its customer service team until the next day and was therefore logged on 12 October 2023. It said that the 10-day timescale for its response was 31 October 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 October 2023 to advise that it had assigned her complaint to a named member of staff. It also advised the resident to contact her GP if she had concerns about her mental health.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 October 2023. The landlord thanked her for her time on the phone on 25 October 2023 and said:
1. The resident had been unhappy with the responses she had received from a named member of staff.
2. The resident felt that she should be considered for a discretionary offer of accommodation due to her physical and mental health which were declining due to her housing circumstances.
3. Following receipt of additional documentation and information about her declining heath she had met the requirement for it to make a discretionary offer of accommodation which would be decided by a senior management team on 7 November 2023.
4. If the referral was approved she would be made an offer of accommodation in the areas she had chosen, but that there could still be a significant time period before an offer was made.
5. It had discussed her declining mental health and the support she was received during its conversation with her and that she had confirmed that the mental health team were visiting her on the same day to discuss her concerns and medication.
6. It thanked her for bringing the matters to its attention and encouraged her to seek further support from the mental health team if it was required.
7. She could escalate the matter to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied with the response but did not say if it upheld the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 27 October 2023. The resident said:
1. The landlord’s complaint response had not addressed the lies she had been told by a named member of staff,
2. She had been told that she would be bypassed for general needs accommodation, which was discrimination.
3. She had been waiting in unsanitary conditions and that the property had been inspected in May 2023 and found to be unsuitable for her needs which was a long time to be left in the situation.
4. She was waiting for a definitive response regarding her access to a discretionary allocation which was not acceptable given she had been in the situation since June 2022.
5. She was waiting for an offer of compensation as a gesture of goodwill due to the actions of a named member of staff and the housing team.
6. She had been treated badly and not helped with her housing needs or mental health issues which was a safeguarding issue.
7. She had been talked out of taking her complaints further on 2 occasions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 October 2023 to say that she had held a conversation with another resident who had been accepted onto the discretionary allocation list with mental health issues only. She asked the landlord to explain why it had not been easy for her but that it seemed to let everyone else onto the discretionary list. She also said that she had seen lots of empty properties which were tenanted but had not been advertised for the bidding.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 31 October 2023.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 15 November 2023 to confirm that her application for a discretionary allocation had been approved and that it would make one direct offer of suitable accommodation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 November 2023 to ask if it could extend its complaint response date from 24 November 2023 to 1 December 2023. It also spoke to the resident about the complaint on the same day.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 December 2023. The landlord thanked the resident for taking the time to discuss her complaint on 24 November 2023 and said:
1. It had placed the resident in a corporate need band in November 2022 in recognition of her severe medical needs.
2. There had been changes made to the application to accommodate a carer, which it had amended as the person was not living at the property but that the resident remained eligible for 2- and 3-bed properties.
3. It had already addressed the resident’s view that she had been incorrectly advised that she could not bid on general needs properties in its complaint response of 22 March 2023. It had reminded staff that applicants requiring adaptations could apply for general needs properties. It apologised for any stress or confusion the error had caused.
4. It recognised that the resident had felt that she had been lied to when she had been told she was in the highest position with the most needs possible, yet some properties were taken out of the bidding system to make non-shortlisted direct offers. This was due to its discretionary allocation policy which had set criteria for when a discretionary allocation may be considered on a case-by-case basis. It said that some of the resident’s circumstances would align with the discretionary allocation criteria.
5. It recognised that a fire bomb threat had affected the resident which had not previously been disclosed, despite a related question being asked on its application form. The adverse effect of this threat along with her deterioration in health and its inability to adapt the current property had led it to approve a discretionary housing allocation.
6. It understood the resident’s concern that a discretionary offer wasn’t considered at an earlier stage. It was unable to determine whether she would have been successful in an earlier referral. In consideration of the distress and anxiety she expressed it backdated the discretionary award to March 2023, the point at which the property had been surveyed for adaptations.
7. It had reviewed the properties it had allocated since April 2023 to see if any would have been appropriate for the resident. Only 3 would have been suitable, 2 of which were advertised to the resident’s rehousing band and a third property was offered as direct offer to a more suitable household.
8. It acknowledged the resident’s view that her complaints were unanswered, and/or that she had felt misled into withdrawing complaints. It was satisfied that it had responded to her complaints and said that it was not its intention to mislead or coerce the resident and apologised if this had not been to the resident’s satisfaction on occasion.
9. It had been made aware that the mental health team were due to visit the resident on the day that a named staff member had visited. As she had appeared to be engaged with the mental health service it did not consider a referral for mental health support was necessary.
10. It had previously explained that the normal process would be for it to advise the resident to contact her GP about her mental health needs as the GP would be able to make referrals into mental health services.
11. To confirm if she would like to explore some other potential support so that it could look at local area coordination or talking therapies.
12. It apologised that its stage 1 complaint had only addressed the main discretionary allocation issue and not fully addressed the additional complaints the resident had raised. But it hoped that its stage 2 complaint response had rectified the matter.
13. She could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its complaint response. It did not indicate if it upheld the resident’s complaint.

Events that took place after the completion of the internal complaints procedure.

The landlord made a discretionary housing allocation to the resident on 8 December 2023. The resident viewed the property on 18 December 2023 and agreed to accept the offer the next day.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 December 2023 about being treated unfairly. The resident said that it had broken equality laws and human rights laws and had missed safeguarding opportunities. The resident withdrew this complaint on 4 January 2024.
The landlord arranged for an OT assessment of the property it had offered to the resident to be completed on 10 January 2024. The OT recommended adaptations to the landlord which it completed prior to the resident signing a new tenancy agreement for the property on 25 March 2024.
The landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident on 23 April 2024. The landlord said that it recognised that there had been missed opportunities in its complaint investigations and in the installation of minor adaptations in the property. It also acknowledged that while it recognised that the resident had been placed in the highest rehousing band it did not discuss or consider a discretionary housing allocation. The landlord apologised for this and awarded the resident a compensation payment of £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord stated that the resident subsequently confirmed that she was happy that the landlord had admitted that it hadn’t done everything it could and was happy that this had been acknowledged and accepted the goodwill gesture of £600.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and needed adaptations.

The landlord accepted the resident onto its housing database in July 2022 and recognised that she had a severe medical and urgent rehousing need based upon a review of the application in November 2022.
There is no evidence that the landlord had sought to assess the resident in her home or complete an equality impact assessment in line with its equality, dignity, and respect policy. This resulted in the resident residing in a property that did not adequately meet her housing and sanitary needs for over 18 months. Furthermore, it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and resulted in her visiting her daughter’s property to meet her bathing needs.
The local authority completed a direct and small equipment pathway form in February 2023 following contact it had received from the resident about the property. This resulted in the provision of a perching stool and a bath board. However there is no evidence that the landlord had sought to make a referral to an OT, or for it to assess whether any additional property adaptations could be made on her behalf in line with its welfare adaptation policy. Given the landlord had assessed the resident as having a severe medical rehousing need in November 2022 it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered whether any adaptations, such as additional handrails to the stairs and/or grab rails were required in the property so as to ensure the resident’s disabilities were given due regard under the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered whether a visit might be required so as to check the housing conditions the resident was living under in recognition of her human rights. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to support the resident and ensure her right to adequate housing was met.
The resident referred to a requirement for an adapted property in her stage 1 complaint of 10 March 2023 and this led the landlord to arrange for an adaptations surveyor to assess the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise a need to assess the property so as to be confident that ‘it had considered all options.’ However its assessment on 27 March 2023, which found the property to be too small to adapt, was completed 9 months after it had accepted a rehousing duty and 4 months after it had recognised an urgent medical priority. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to have taken to assess the needs of the resident and which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Despite the landlord recognising that the property could not be adapted, the landlord failed to explore alternative means to ensure the quality of accommodation was suitable for her needs with due regard to her human rights. Whilst the landlord’s discretion to offer property outside of the local authority’s allocation policy is addressed later in this report it is evident that the landlord had failed to consider whether the conditions of the property and the impact this had on the resident for a sustained period of time interfered with the resident’s rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The landlord failed to consider its response to the requirement for adaptations in the property in its complaint responses and therefore did not consider whether an award of compensation for the delays in assessing the property was appropriate. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have considered the distress and inconvenience its failure to consider installing adaptations in the property had on the resident in the circumstances. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.
The landlord sent an additional complaint response to the resident in April 2024, 4 months after it had issued its final complaint response under the complaint procedure in which it recognised that additional minor adaptations could have been offered. It indicated that handrails and grabrails could have been installed and that this was a missed opportunity in how it had investigated her complaints.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and required adaptations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a discretionary housing allocation.

The resident first made reference to the landlord’s discretionary housing allocation on 1 February 2023 when she referred to a property that had been allocated to an applicant without being advertised which she said was not right. The landlord explained that the property had been offered to another family that had been matched to it. However there is no evidence that the landlord explained that this had been achieved via its discretionary housing allocation policy so as to address the resident’s view that it was not right. Furthermore for it to clarify that its policy allowed it to make direct offers of accommodation.
On 10 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to clarify how a family had been offered a property straight away when she had been told there were 49 people ahead of her. It is evident that the landlord responded to the resident later the same day to explain that properties were allocated and prioritised based upon their needs. However the landlord failed to explain that it also made some offers outside of the advertisement and bidding process, under its discretionary allocation policy, so as to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident reported the specific living and sanitary difficulties she was experiencing at the property to the landlord in her complaint of 10 March 2023. The landlord arranged for an assessment of the property to be completed within 2 working days of its complaint response and recorded that the property could not be adapted. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have had regard to the resident’s disabilities under the Equality Act 2010 and consider whether the conditions the resident was residing under met the requirements for a referral to its discretionary housing allocation under its policy at this time, and whether the tenancy had become unsustainable.
The resident emailed the landlord with a complaint about accessing its discretionary housing allocation on 12 September 2023 in which she referred to the discretionary allocation as corrupt. Whilst the resident withdrew her complaint the next day the landlord failed to take the opportunity to clearly explain the discretionary housing allocation process so as to ensure that the resident understood how and why the policy was administered. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord to have considered and responded to the circumstances and expressed frustrations of the resident with reference to her housing circumstances.
The resident stated that she should be considered for the discretionary allocation list due to the medical and health needs of her family in her stage 1 complaint of 11 October 2023. She also referred to petrol bomb threats she had received. The landlord acted upon the information the resident had provided about a petrol bomb threat so as to accept her onto its discretionary housing allocation list in November 2023. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to add the resident to its discretionary allocation list based upon a recognition that the resident had experienced a traumatic event, as set out above it was inappropriate that it did not explore her housing needs sooner with regard to the Equality Act 2010 so as to assess whether the living conditions were such that the tenancy was not sustainable.
It is evident that the landlord considered the time the resident had waited to be added to the discretionary allocation list during its review of her stage 2 complaint. The landlord backdated the application to the date that it recognised her property could not be adapted and was therefore no longer suitable. Whilst this response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, it did not fully compensate the resident for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident Taking all matters into account, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a discretionary housing allocation.
We note that during this investigation the landlord has made a goodwill offer of £600 to the resident. We have addressed the fact that this offer was not made within the landlord’s internal complaints process below. Given the payment we have not made any additional order for compensation concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a discretionary housing allocation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning her mental health.

The resident reported that she had poor mental health and physical disabilities to the landlord on an undisclosed date and in complaints she had submitted to it in October 2023. It is evident that the landlord had recorded this information on its housing databases.
The resident referred to her mental health in her stage 1 complaint of 11 October 2023 in which she said that she felt depressed and had often felt suicidal. The landlord contacted the resident the following day in which it sought further information about her reports of a petrol bomb. However it did not seek to address the resident’s reports of about her mental health. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have recognised the emotional difficulties her housing situation had caused and to verify her wellbeing and regain the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s housing services.
The landlord referred the resident to her GP, 14 days later during a conversation it held with her on 25 October 2023 about the mental health concerns she had previously raised. While the landlord had the capacity to make a referral for mental health support, where it considered this would have benefited the resident, she had confirmed to the landlord that the mental health team had been due to visit her later the same day to discuss her concerns and medication. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the specialist mental health teams that it was aware were already engaged, as opposed to submitting a new referral for a matter it was aware was already being professionally supported. However it had not responded to her distress and mental health needs during the preceding 2 weeks which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord explained the reasoning behind its decision not to make a separate referral for mental health support to the resident in its stage 1 response of 27 October 2023, 2 days later and this was reasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, the landlord addressed the matter in its stage 2 complaint response of 4 December 2023 in which it said that it had discussed the matter with the resident on 2 November 2023 and explained that its normal process would be advise her to contact her GP. However, the landlord did not provide any further information and/or signpost support to the resident in recognition of her distress when she reported the wellbeing concerns. The landlord indicated that it could locate talking therapies and local area support in its stage 2 complaint response 2 months later. This was a missed opportunity to build the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s housing services and to work with partner agencies to support her.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning her mental health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Indicated that it had logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2023, despite confirming it’s data protection team had received the complaint on 10 October 2023.
2. Said that the target response date for the stage 1 complaint it had logged on 12 October 2023 was 31 October 2023, instead of 25 October 2023.
3. Failed to fully respond to all elements of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in its complaint response of 27 October 2023.
4. Did not indicate if it had upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with the Code.
5. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 30 October 2023 until 4 December 2023 which was 1 working day later than the extension of time it had agreed with the resident on 24 November 2023.
6. Did not indicate if it had upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint in its response of 4 December 2023.
7. Failed to fully acknowledge its failings in its response to the complaint or adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so 4 months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and needed adaptations.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a discretionary housing allocation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning her mental health.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to consider the impact of the conditions of the property on the resident when it accepted she had an urgent medical rehousing need until she complained about the housing conditions 4 months later.
The landlord failed to recognise that the needs of the resident in the property were such that the property was no longer suitable for her and failed to meet her sanitary needs. It later accepted the resident onto its discretionary allocation list in November 2023 and backdated the application to the date it became aware that the property was no longer suitable for her needs.
The landlord recognised that the resident had mental health concerns and was under the care of her GP, but failed to respond to specific concerns she had raised with the landlord so as to ensure her wellbeing was maintained when she reported depression and suicidal thoughts.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings provide a reasonable award of compensation within the complaint procedure despite recognising its own failings.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in responding to the resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and needed adaptations, providing a discretionary housing allocation, and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £400 for distress and inconvenience associated with the resident’s reports that the property was unsuitable and needed adaptations.
2. £100 for distress and inconvenience related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning her mental health.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.