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

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202345542)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345542

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

24 April 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:
    1. The landlord placing a warning marker about the resident on its systems.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord.
  2. The landlord placed a “do not visit alone (DNVA)” warning marker on the resident’s records in September 2023. The resident said the landlord told him about this whilst it was dealing with a separate complaint, and he expressed his concerns about it at the time. The landlord addressed these concerns within its response to the separate complaint on 13 November 2023. It said that its staff were able to raise concerns about conduct that made them feel uncomfortable. It agreed to review its processes, but did not commit to removing the marker.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 December 2023 about its decision to place the marker on its systems. He also contacted his local MP and the Service. The landlord responded on 9 January 2024 and confirmed it had removed the marker. It apologised and offered the resident £50 in compensation, which it said was for the “distress and inconvenience this caused you.”
  4. On 11 January 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to the landlord. He said that the discovery of there being a warning marker on his records had affected his mental health conditions and he did not think the landlord’s compensation offer reflected this. The landlord responded on 9 February. It said it would “ensure a thorough impact assessment has taken place and more information provided where there are no overt signs of verbal or physical abuse”. It said that it had received feedback from its staff and had removed the marker. However, it refused to increase its compensation offer, as it said its offer was reasonable.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to the Service on 29 February 2024. He alleged the landlord was discriminating against him by placing the marker on its systems. He said he had made a Subject Access Request (SAR) as he wanted to know which staff member had recorded the data about him. He also complained to us about the landlord’s handling of his complaint. He said he did not think his complaint had been handled independently. He wanted the landlord to increase its level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the impact the issues may have had on his health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. In accordance with the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will therefore not be considered in this report.
  2. The resident has raised concerns of discrimination. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable.
  3. Additionally, the resident has raised issues about the landlord’s handling of his data. He said he had received data following his SAR and the landlord had “heavily redacted” the information. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to respond to this and we have advised the resident to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about this matter.

The landlord placing a warning marker about the resident on its systems

  1. The landlord’s policies outline the occasions where it will add a warning marker to its systems. These include where its staff have raised concerns for their own personal safety, or instances where it considers a resident’s behaviour has been unacceptable or unreasonable. The landlord’s policy says that when it places restrictions on its services to the resident due to their alleged behaviour, it will inform them in writing and they have a right to appeal this decision.
  2. In this case there is no evidence of the landlord clearly explaining to the resident that it had placed a restriction marker on its systems, and its reasons for doing so. As the marker may have impacted the services it provided to the resident, it should have informed him of this, and given him a right to appeal this, as per its policy. The landlord failed to demonstrate it followed its policy in this case. 
  3. It is evident that the landlord’s decision to place a warning marker on its systems has been upsetting for the resident. The resident had described the impact on him within his emails to the landlord between November 2023 and March 2024. He said he thought he was being “singled out”, and that the issue had caused him “unnecessary stress”.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses on 9 January and 9 February 2024 went some way to resolving the resident’s complaint. It confirmed it had removed the warning marker and explained the learning it would take from the complaint, such as completing an impact assessment in future. It also apologised for the “distress and upset” the issue had caused him, and offered him £50 in compensation.
  5. The landlord’s attempts to put matters right for the resident were in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations as set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), with one exception, that being the level of compensation it offered. It had missed an opportunity to resolve the issue when addressing it at an earlier stage in November 2023. This prolonged resolution of the issue was not reflected in its £50 compensation, which was not proportionate to the full scale of its poor service. As such, it left the complaint unremedied.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained that staff in “senior positions” did not respond to his complaint. He has also raised concerns that there was a conflict of interest as the person dealing with his complaint was already dealing with his other issues and he did not think the landlord was looking at his case “independently”.
  2. The Code (2022) contains guidance that landlords were expected to follow at the time of this complaint. It says that the person considering the complaint at stage 2, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. It also says “the complaints officer may allocate complaints handling to another person. Where this is the case, the complaint handler appointed must have appropriate complaint handling skills and no conflicts of interest”. There is no specific requirement within the Code for senior managers to respond to all complaints.
  3. The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint operated a 2 stage complaint process. It says “Stage two complaints will be handled and investigated by a Head of Service or Senior Manager”. It also says “The colleague dealing with the stage two complaint will not be the same person that dealt with the stage one complaint”, which is compliant with the Code.
  4. The landlord demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s complaint fairly and in line with its policy and the Code. An example of this was when a member of staff more senior to the first operative replied to the resident’s escalated complaint on 9 February 2024. It demonstrated that it taken appropriate steps to investigate the complaint and no evidence has been seen  of any conflict of interest.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was a service failure in the landlord placing a warning marker about the resident on its systems.
    2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay compensation of £300 to the resident in recognition of the failing found in this report. This amount includes the £50 the landlord previously offered.
    2. Provide evidence of this payment within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has told the Service that he would like the landlord to have regard to his health conditions when providing its services to him. As such it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to ensure it holds accurate and up to date information in its records about his health conditions so it is aware of these when delivering its services.