Islington Council (202215237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215237

Islington Council

19 June 2023

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:
1. Actions in providing a replacement key fob and the associated offer of compensation.
2. Decision not to refund the resident’s council tax.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision not to refund her council tax is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her concerns about her key fob being faulty, and the time taken to provide a replacement fob. During the course of the complaint, the resident asked for a refund of the council tax she paid between October 2020 and May 2021, which amounted to £583. This covered the period she said that she was unable to access her property, due to the faulty key fob. In response to the resident’s request, the landlord said that “there is no provision in the […] council tax legislation to issue refunds when residents are unable to access their property” and was therefore “not eligible for a council tax refund”.
While the reasons for the resident’s request are understood, the Housing Ombudsman cannot consider whether a refund of council tax is due. The decision not to refund the resident’s council tax was made within its capacity as the local authority. How local authorities administer council tax falls properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (LGSCO) jurisdiction. As such, the resident may wish to refer this part of her complaint to the LGSCO if she wishes for her council tax to be refunded. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision not to refund council tax will not be considered further as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a one-bedroom flat on the first floor. Her tenancy began on 12 March 2001. The landlord has recorded the resident as vulnerable due to suffering from mental health problems.
Much of the resident’s communication with the landlord was done through a chosen representative. For the sake of clarity, the resident and her representative will both be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
As part of the evidence provided for this investigation, the landlord gave an explanation about the wider issues with the key fobs for its properties. It said – in September 2020, it began experiencing “borough-wide technical issue” with its key fob system. This affected a “significant number” of its properties, and it was unable to programme new or replacement key fobs during this time. It reported existing fobs were not affected and told this Service that it prioritised fixing fob issues for “vulnerable and disabled residents”.

Summary of events

The resident told the landlord that she submitted a complaint on the landlord’s website on 4 April 2021, and by email on 12 May 2021, and did not receive a response from the landlord. The resident said that she started to experience an issue with her key fob in October 2020 and tried to report this to the landlord over the telephone and through its website. She stated that she then made a complaint by phone on 3 June 2021, and did not receive a call back.
The resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint on 30 June 2021 and said:
1. She had complained on 4 April 2021 and on 12 May 2021 and she had not received a response. Both complaints related to the same problem, her key fob was not working.
2. That her key fob for the communal door had not worked since October 2020 and she had been unable to access her flat.
3. She had raised further complaints by phone on 3 and 21 June 2021 and was told she would be called back, but was not.
4. She suffered from poor mental health and that being unable to access her flat was affecting her mental health further.
5. She told it that she wanted to be compensated for the time she had been unable to access her flat.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2021 and told her it would respond by 22 July 2021. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 July 2021 and said:
1. It had not registered the complaint she had made on 4 April 2021 due to a “technical glitch”, it apologised and offered £25 in compensation.
2. It confirmed it had told the resident on 7 April 2021 that it could not fix or replace her fob and she would be given a new one as soon as it was able to. As a “form of compensation” the new fob would be issued for free.
3. It apologised for not returning her calls on 3 and 21 June and said call back messages were not passed on to the relevant people. The issue was raised with a manager.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, due to its poor communication.
The resident told the landlord on 22 July 2021 that she was dissatisfied with its complaint response and said that the offer of compensation was not satisfactory. She told the landlord that she had sent emails and called it to say that the key fob was not working in October 2020. But the earliest copy of an email she had was dated 5 March 2021.
The resident said that she had spent a lot of time ringing her neighbours’ doorbells to get access to her flat, or waiting on the doorstep for someone to let her in. She had been “locked out on a number of occasions” and decided that she could not “continue to live with the worry of uncertainty of access”. She said that the stress of the situation had affected her mental health and that she had moved in with relatives. The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for the time she had been unable to access her property by a refund of rent, council tax and for it to clear the arrears on her rent account.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 July 2021 and told her it had logged her complaint as a ‘stage one review’ and that it would respond within 10 working days. It asked the resident to provide evidence of the emails she had sent to report the issue, dating back to October 2020. The resident responded on 28 July 2021 and said that she had called it to report the issue between October 2020 and December 2020. She said that she then logged the issue on the landlord’s website in December 2020. She advised that the website did not provide her with a “sent receipt” and asked the landlord to check its records of her correspondence. The resident provided a screenshot of an email dated 5 March 2021, adding that, as she had not received responses to her previous reports she wanted to collect evidence.
The landlord sent its ‘stage one review’ complaint response to the resident on 16 August 2021, it upheld her complaint and said:
1. It apologised for the frustration caused by the issue with the key fob and said it was a “borough wide” issue.
2. It was unable to provide a timeframe for when it would deliver her new key fob.
3. It changed its offer of compensation from £25 to £50 to reflect the time it was taking to resolve the issue.
The resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its complaint response on 17 August 2021. She refused the offer of compensation and said the landlord had not fully considered the amount of compensation she had asked for. She added that she was still unable to access her flat.
The landlord wrote an undated letter to the resident and acknowledged her complaint escalation request. It told her the complaint was now at the ‘chief executive stage’, but it was unable to start its investigation due to the high volume of complaints. It said it would contact her when the complaint investigation had started.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 11 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and said:
1. It apologised for the issues the resident had with her key fob and the time it had taken to resolve the matter. It did have an emergency contingency plan where fobs could be programmed and issued to residents, but this was not cost effective.
2. It understood the resident was “buzzing” other neighbours who provided access to the building, and this was not an ideal situation, and it acknowledged the inconvenience this had caused.
3. It disputed that the resident had reported the issue before 5 April 2021, and it had no records that she had contacted it about the issue before that date.
4. There was an “oversight” that meant the order for the resident’s key fob to be “reprogrammed on site” went unnoticed until 7 July 2021. The new order was then placed on 5 August 2021. It apologised for this.
5. It told her that it would not refund the £1,800 in arrears, as the resident could have applied for Universal Credit to help with her rent.
6. It accepted that the resident had a four-month period when she could not access her property.
7. It upheld her complaint and offered £575 in compensation, as follows:
  1. £300 for the delay in providing a key fob from April 2021 to August 2021.
  2. £150 for inconvenience and distress.
  3. £25 for the “oversight” when ordering a key fob.
  4. £100 for the delay in complaint handling.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 October 2022 and said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response, and wanted the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s housing repairs guide sets timeframes in which repairs should be completed. It states that repairs that “affect a tenant’s day to day living” are categorised as “urgent” and have a response time of 24 hours.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble”. It can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service. For “severe or prolonged” distress the landlord can award up to £1000.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that it operates a two stage complaints procedure: stage one and stage two (chief executive stage). At the time of the resident’s complaint, it also had a ‘stage one review’ in its complaint procedure.
The complaints policy states that stage one complaint responses will be sent within 10 working days and stage two complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days.

The landlord’s actions in providing a replacement key fob and the associated offer of compensation

The date that the resident first reported the key fob issue to the landlord is disputed. The resident stated that she first reported the issue in October 2020, when she claims to have first experienced the issue. The landlord told the resident that it checked its records and could not find any reports before 5 April 2021. This Service asked the landlord to provide telephone records of its contact with the resident from October 2020 to October 2022. The landlord told this Service that it does “not have any further records in respect of this matter”.
It is not possible to determine how the landlord satisfied itself that the resident reported the issue in April 2021 and not October 2020, given its poor record keeping in relation to the matter. The landlord stated that it was aware the resident reported the issue in April 2021, and it is therefore reasonable to expect it to be able to provide evidence of this, but it has not. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the matter.
On the evidence available it is not possible to determine when the issue was first reported, and this Service has seen no evidence of when the matter was first reported. It is noted that the landlord told this Service it began experiencing a “borough wide issue” in September 2020. As such, it is possible that the resident started to experience the issue around that time, and the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident’s claim that she reported the issue in October 2020. Due to the lack of available evidence, evidence of poor record keeping, and the landlord’s finding that, albeit sometime later, call back messages were not passed on to the relevant people, on balance, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident did report the issue in October 2020. For the purpose of the investigation, this Service will treat the landlord as having been put on notice of the issue from October 2020.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide categorises repairs that “affect a tenant’s day to day living” as urgent and sets a response time of 24 hours for a repair. It is clear that this issue affected the resident’s day-to-day living, as she was unable to come and go from her home as she pleased. In this instance it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond/try to put things right within 24 hours of the resident’s report. The landlord has accepted that it did not respond to the resident until it acknowledged her complaint and due to an “oversight” it did not order her a new fob until 5 August 2021. Given it could reasonably be expected to respond to the resident’s report within 24 hours, a 10-month delay was unreasonable. The landlord failed to apply its own repairs guidance and lacked urgency to resolve the issue for the resident.
Both the landlord’s stage one and ‘stage one review’ complaint responses did not try to manage the resident’s expectations by giving a timeframe in which it hoped to resolve the issue. It did not give any solution as a possible alternative to allow her to freely access her property. The ‘stage one review’ response said it did not know when the issue would be resolved.
The resident had explained that she had found the situation distressing and her mental health had suffered. The evidence does not show that the landlord had regard for the distress the resident had experienced, or the reported impact on her health. By advising that it did not know when the situation would be resolved, it failed to consider the impact such comments would have on the resident. This is particularly significant, as the resident had already told the landlord she was distressed by the situation, and the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to use its complaints procedure to find solutions and minimise the detriment to the resident. This was a failing by the landlord and showed a lack of empathy for the situation the resident was experiencing at the time of the complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint responses stated that it was going to issue the resident the new key fob for free as a “form of compensation”. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure the resident could access her property through the communal entrance. Given that the resident’s key fob was not working through no fault of her own, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to issue a replacement for free. The suggestion that replacing a faulty fob for free somehow compensated the resident for her inconvenience was unreasonable, and suggested that she would be expected to pay, but for its discretionary offer.
The landlord told the resident, in its final complaint response, that it had an emergency plan for issuing fobs, as a work around to the issue. The landlord’s internal emails on 18 August 2021 state that it was exploring a more reliable fob system, but it was still in the “pilot stage”. It had a “contingency plan” for issuing emergency key fobs but these were time consuming and costly. It said that the resident would “buzz her neighbours” to let her in and this was “less than ideal”.
From the evidence available, it appears that the final complaint response was the first time this work around was explained to the resident, after it had already resolved the issue. The landlord’s repair log shows that an urgent request was made to issue the resident with a new key fob on 5 August 2021. The landlord accepted that there was an “oversight” between deciding to order the fob in July 2021 and when it ordered the fob in August 2021. It is unclear why the landlord did not do this when the resident first reported the issue in October 2020, or indeed when it said it became aware of the issue in April 2021. It is not clear from the repair log when the new fob was delivered, but the landlord later confirmed with this Service that the resident was issued with a new key fob in “August 2021”.
The landlord’s poor record keeping in relation to this matter contributed to the delays. As outlined above, this Service has reasonably concluded that the landlord was put on notice of the issue in October 2020. It states it became aware of the issue in April 2021, but cannot provide evidence of this. There were instances of the landlord not recording complaints, and a later delay in ordering the new key fob, due to poor communication. It is evident the landlord’s poor record keeping in relation to this matter impacted on its ability to respond appropriately. When asked for evidence by this Service, the landlord was unable to provide evidence of calls with the resident. It was also unable to provide corroborating evidence that it relied on in its complaint responses.
It is reasonable to expect the landlord to readily be able to provide records of contact with its residents, particularly if it is disputing claims made by a resident. The poor record keeping in relation to this matter had a significant impact on the resident. It is reasonable to expect that if the landlord had appropriately recorded the matter when it was first put on notice of it, it would have identified the need to issue the resident with a new fob sooner. The detriment the resident suffered as a result of the delay was a significant amount of distress at not being able to access her property freely, for 10 months. She suffered time and trouble of needing to repeatedly report an issue that should have been recorded by the landlord from the outset. The resident suffered further inconvenience of feeling the need to move in with relatives, due to the impact the lack of access was having on her mental health.
The landlord had an identified “contingency plan” and the resident had told it she had moved out of her property due to being unable to access it. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered her access to the “contingency plan” to give her access to her property. In line with its repairs guidance, the landlord could reasonably be expected to have offered the resident access to this “contingency plan” within 24 hours of her reporting it in October 2020, if the plan was available at that time.
The landlord told the Ombudsman, as part of this investigation, that it prioritised fixing fob issues for “vulnerable and disabled residents”. However, the evidence available suggests that the resident in this case was not prioritised, even though the landlord considered her vulnerable. The impact of this is increased because the resident had explained the negative impact the situation was having on her mental health. The landlord failed to prioritise the resident, as it said it had with other vulnerable residents. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted with greater urgency to offer an alternative mode of entry for the resident. This was a failure to have the appropriate consideration of the resident’s vulnerability and the likely impact the situation had on her.
The landlord’s complaint response said that the “contingency plan” was “not cost effective” and was time consuming. The resident told the landlord that the level of distress and frustration she was experiencing was high. Citing “cost” and “time” as reasons for not taking action sooner showed a lack of empathy. It failed to consider the resident’s personal circumstances and the detriment she told it she was suffering. It is reasonable for a landlord to consider the cost effectiveness of any measure, but citing this as the reason for not giving the resident access to her property was unreasonable. The landlord accepted that waiting for neighbours to allow her in was “not an ideal situation”. However, it failed to reflect on the comments the resident had made about how that had affected her, and it failed to reasonably consider that rent was still charged for the period that the resident did not have reliable access to the property.
In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the resident had felt the need to move in with relatives, and the inconvenience that had caused. The response evidenced the landlord was under the impression that the resident had still been able to access her property, accepting it that was not ideal. It did not acknowledge that the resident had told it that how she had been made to access her property, had caused her distress and led to her temporarily moving out. This was a failing to show empathy in its complaint response and fully understand what had happened and how that had impacted on the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award up to £300 for time and trouble, £25 for each month there is a delay in service and up to £1000 for distress. The landlord offered a total of £475 in compensation for its handling of issuing a replacement key fob. It awarded the maximum it could for time and trouble (£300), which acknowledged the resident experienced significant amount time and trouble in this case. However, given the length of time it took to resolve the issue, and the time and trouble experienced due to the landlord’s handling of the matter, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have used its discretion to make an offer outside of its policy, in recognition of the significant failings in relation to the matter.
The landlord offered £25 for its “oversight” of not ordering the key fob, which acknowledged a one-month service delay. As outlined earlier in this report, this failed to acknowledge that it should have ordered the fob when the resident first reported the issue In October 2020. Under its compensation guidance it would have been reasonable for it to offer significantly more compensation to acknowledge the 10-month delay in ordering the fob.
In recognition of the distress caused to the resident, the landlord offered £150 in compensation. For the reasons set out above, the compensation offered did not put it right for the resident and failed to fully address the detriment she experienced. It is clear that the level of distress was “severe and prolonged” for which it could award up to £1000 for. The £150 it offered was not reasonable in the circumstances of this case and did not fully put things right for the resident.
In addition, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was paying £516.23 in rent per month between October 2020 and April 2021, and £485.25 between April 2021 and August 2021. During this period she had limited access to the property. The resident had some benefit of living in the property over that period but, for 10 months, she had very sporadic access to her property and was reliant on neighbours letting her in. The resident did not therefore receive an appropriate service for which she was paying rent.
When the resident reported the issue is disputed, as outlined above. However, the landlord accepts that it was on notice about the issue from April 2021. Taking this into account the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of 25% of the rent covering the period from October 2020 to April 2021, when the resident claims to have first experienced the issue and reported to it. From April 2021 to August 2021, during which time the landlord has accepted it was on notice about the matter, it is ordered to pay compensation of 75% of the rent.
The total amount of rent payable over that period was £5,523.63, so the compensation ordered for loss of amenity is £2,594.04, and is calculated as follows:
1. 25% of rent (£516.23) from October 2020 to March 2021 amounts to £774.35.
2. 75% of rent (£485.25) from April 2021 to August 2021 amounts to £1,819.69.
The key fob issue was evidently a widespread and complex matter that affected many of the landlord’s properties. The Ombudsman appreciates there was not a quick solution to the issue. However, in its handling of this case, it failed to respond to the resident’s report in a timely manner. It failed to offer its “contingency plan” straight away to allow her access to her property. It also failed to have due regard for her vulnerability and the increased impact the resident said this issue had on her mental health. Its responses to the resident’s experiences lacked empathy and failed to understand the practical difficulties the situation had caused. The redress offered to the resident failed to fully put right its multiple failings, and there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a replacement key fob and the associated offer of compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 1 July 2021. In its response it acknowledged that a “technical glitch” had caused it to fail to log her complaint, that she tried to make in April 2021. It apologised and offered the resident £25 for the delay in service. This was in line with its compensation guidance and reasonable in the circumstances.
When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint it told her that it would respond within 15 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (the Code) state that a stage one complaint must be responded to within 10 working days. The landlord failed to correctly apply its own complaints policy and the Code. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response 16 working days after the resident made the complaint. This was 6 days later than set out in its policy and the Code and was a further failing during stage one of the complaint procedure.
When the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to a stage two complaint, the landlord opened a ‘stage one complaint review’. This was the correct application of its policy, at the time. However, its policy at the time was not compliant with the Code. The Code states that a landlord should ideally only have a two-stage complaint procedure to ensure the process is not “unduly long”. The impact of the additional stage on the resident was the additional inconvenience of a protracted complaints process. It is noted that the landlord has since updated its complaint procedure and removed the ‘stage one review’.
The landlord told the resident that it would not progress with its stage two complaint investigation, due to the volume of complaints it was dealing with. The Code states that stage two complaints must be responded to within 20 working days and “if an extension beyond 10 working days is required […] this should be agreed by both parties”. The landlord did not say when it would start its investigation and did not try to agree an extension with the resident, as the Code requires. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord. It failed to have due regard for the Code and this led to a prolonged complaints process for the resident. The landlord did not try to manage the resident’s expectations and say when it would respond to her complaint. This was the cause of increased detriment to the resident, as she was left not knowing when or if the landlord would respond to her complaint.
The landlord sent its final complaint response 14 months, or 293 working days, after the resident had asked her complaint to be escalated following its ‘review stage’ complaint response, and 311 working days after the resident had told it she was dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response. This was well outside the timeframe set out in its complaints procedure and the Code and was a significant failing due to a lengthy delay.
The landlord’s final complaint response failed to identify any learning it had done from how it had handled the key fob issue. Given its admitted failings in its handling of the resident’s case, it would have been reasonable for it to identify how it had learned from the outcomes so that it could reduce the risk of these failings happening again. It identified various breakdowns in communication and missed opportunities to resolve the situation sooner but failed to tell the resident how it had learnt from them.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it can offer £25 for each month for a delay in service. The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for its delay. This is equivalent to recognising only a four-month delay when applying the landlord’s compensation guidance. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately acknowledge the delay experienced by the resident and to reasonably apply its compensation guidance.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the impact its poor complaint handling had on the resident. This report has detailed that the landlord’s stage one and ‘stage one review’ complaint responses lacked empathy and did not acknowledge the impact on the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles the final complaint response should have identified the failings in the stage one complaint responses. It should also have considered the detriment experienced by the resident. In line with its compensation guidance it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation for distress and sought to put things right. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not amount to reasonable redress with regard to its complaint handling, and there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the handling of a replacement key fob, and the associated complaint, was poor and contributed to its overall poor handling of the matter. As outlined in detail above, this included:
1. The landlord was unable to provide evidence of contact with the resident from April 2021 in relation to the key fob, when it accepted that the resident had reported the issue. It is not possible to determine how the landlord satisfied itself that the resident reported the issue in April 2021 and not October 2020, given its poor record keeping in relation to the matter.
2. This Service asked the landlord to provide records of any telephone contact with the resident from October 2020 to October 2022, including notes from telephone calls, to which it advised it did “not have any further records in respect of this matter”. The fact that the landlord was not able to provide any records of telephone contact with the resident for a two-year period of her tenancy is concerning, and is further evidence of poor record keeping.
3. The landlord acknowledged that call back messages were not passed on to the relevant people and there was an unexplained delay in ordering the new key fob. This is further evidence that its record keeping and communication in its handling of the matter were poor, which can reasonably be concluded contributed to the delays in responding to the matter.
4. The landlord acknowledged that it did not properly record a complaint the resident had raised about the matter. In its email acknowledgement of 1 July 2021, it attributed this to a “technical glitch”, but offered no further explanation. This is evidence that the landlord’s complaint recording mechanisms were not operating effectively and is a further failing in its record keeping and overall case management of the resident’s complaint.
In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the replacement key fob and complaint handling. This impacted on both its ability to resolve the substantive issue, as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s actions in providing a replacement key fob and the associated offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s decision not to refund the resident’s council tax falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of an issue with the key fob in line with its repairs guidance. It failed to offer the “contingency plan” to the resident to give her access to her property. It also failed to have due regard for her vulnerability and the reported impact the issue had on her mental health. There were significant failings that caused the resident a significant amount of distress, time, trouble and inconvenience.
There were lengthy delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and the landlord failed to provide proactive updates to the resident about the delays. The complaint responses lacked empathy and failed to consider how the situation had affected the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified within it.
2. Pay the resident £4,394.04 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £325 it has already offered for the delay in its handling of a replacement key fob (if it has not already done so).
  2. An additional £2,594.04 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the delay in its handling of a replacement key fob.
  3. The £150 it has already offered in recognition of the distress caused in its handling of a replacement key fob (if it has not already done so).
  4. An additional £600 in recognition of the distress caused by its handling of a replacement key fob.
  5. The £125 it has already offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
  6. An additional £600 for the adverse effect caused by its complaint handling.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the replacement key fob including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should give particular consideration to:
  1. Its repairs and complaints record keeping.
  2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks.
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in understanding the impact on a resident when responding to a complaint. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.