MHS Homes Ltd (202230777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230777

MHS Homes Ltd

23 August 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 handling of:
1. The allocation, nomination and suitability of the property.
2. Reports of repairs in the property.
3. Anti-social Behaviour (ASB).
4. Parking allocation.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 7 December 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord said it is aware that the resident has anxiety disorder, depression and an unspecified long-term illness. The resident resides at the property with 2 young children.
The resident made several reports to the landlord about ASB from a neighbouring property (property A) between February 2022 to present. The ASB reports included harassment, intimidating behaviour, noise transference, banging, door slamming and loud music (noise nuisance).
The resident contacted the landlord about several disrepair issues between December 2021 and February 2024. This included problems with the resident’s back door/patio door, garden, toilet, kitchen, floorboards and a doorstop.
On 8 March 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. The landlord failed to complete works to her garden in a timely manner.
2. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. The resident said she was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of a meeting which it had scheduled on 25 October 2022.
3. She felt the landlord had treated her differently to other tenants. The resident also made a subject access request to the landlord.
4. The landlord failed to provide her with written permission to install CCTV around the property.
5. The landlord had not responded to emails from her health visitor.
6. The property was unsuitable for her needs and had caused damage to her spine.
7. The landlord had not provided her with suitable parking outside of the property.
8. The landlord had not supported her with a managed move or a priority social move.
9. The landlord failed to complete repair works in the property including a toilet lid replacement and repairs to a back door.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. There were delays in completing work to the resident’s garden. The landlord said it disagreed that it had treated the resident differently to other tenants. The landlord said it emailed the resident on 8 August 2022 and explained the reason for the delay, as well as why it had been able to complete works to a neighbouring garden.
2. It replied to and actioned emails from the resident’s health visitor in May 2022.
3. It dealt with 2 ASB cases in 2022. The landlord said it had acted appropriately and it involved all relevant agencies.
4. The resident was aware of its intention to attend the property in October 2022.
5. The resident had not requested written permission to install CCTV around the property. The landlord said the resident requested permission after she had installed CCTV, which was a breach of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
6. There were parking spaces available within a reasonable vicinity of the property. The landlord said due to planning permission, it could not change the parking spaces.
7. It was aware that the resident had raised disrepair issues on 17 November 2022. The landlord said it would chase for an update on the repairs.
8. The local authority had allocated the property to the resident. The landlord said if the resident’s circumstances had changed, she could request an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment and the landlord would review this.
On 10 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. In her escalation request, the resident said:
1. The landlord did not complete works to her garden until November 2022. The resident said this was an example of discrimination against her.
2. Her health visitor had sent more than 1 email to the landlord chasing repairs.
3. She wanted the landlord to admit it had breached its obligations.
4. She wanted an explanation as to why the landlord had treated her differently in relation to her reports of ASB, her request for CCTV and the allocation of the property.
5. The meeting in October 2022 was not “as agreed” as the actions taken “were not discussed” and the police and local authority did not attend. The resident said this was an unlawful entry into the property.
6. She had requested written permission for the CCTV. The resident said she spoke with the landlord in August 2022, and it had not told her that she needed written permission.
7. She wanted the landlord’s staff to receive additional training.
8. She was not allocated a parking space in December 2022. The resident said the landlord had told her she had no allocated parking. The resident said the landlord had agreed to change the parking spaces, but it had not done this.
9. There were multiple outstanding repairs. The resident asked the landlord to cover the costs of moving properties.
On 20 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. There was no evidence that the resident was treated differently regarding the allocation of the property. The landlord said the local authority nominated the resident for the property. The resident viewed and accepted the property and did not express any concern at the time.
2. It could support the resident with an OT assessment if the OT recommended any adjustments.
3. It would chase the outstanding repairs to the resident’s doors, floorboards and a door stop. The landlord said it would update the resident by 30 June 2023. The landlord said it was also aware of a broken cistern, which it said was the resident’s responsibility. However, due to the delays in it completing the other repairs, it said it would repair the cistern as a gesture of goodwill on 18 June 2023.
4. It was sorry that it did not respond to the resident’s request about the CCTV. The landlord said it would send a letter to the resident confirming approval by 23 June 2023.
5. Its handling of reports of ASB and the meeting was within its policy. The landlord said it was disappointing that the police and the local authority did not attend the meeting in October 2022, but there was no reason that the meeting could not continue with its staff.
6. The offer and acceptance of the property were in line with its policy and practices, and it would not offer moving costs.
7. There was no breach of its obligations, but it agreed that its response to the resident’s request for CCTV was poor and there had been delays in completing repairs.
8. There were no plans to change the parking spaces.
9. The resident’s complaint about the garden was part of a separate complaint, but it re-offered £175 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. The property should not have been allocated to her because it was not suitable for her needs. The resident also felt she was treated differently to others about the allocation of properties.
2. She wanted a transfer to another, more suitable property.
3. The issues with ASB were ongoing.
4. There were outstanding repairs in the property.
5. The landlord has not allocated her a parking space directly outside of her property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 41(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The allocation and nomination of the property.
The resident said she is unhappy with the allocation and nomination of the property. The Ombudsman understands that the property was allocated to the resident as part of the local authority’s discharge of a homeless duty. The resident said that the local authority referred her for a property from the landlord using a choice-based letting scheme. However, the resident said it was the landlord who determined which property she moved into on the estate.
The allocation and nomination of a home to discharge a homeless duty was not an act or omission by the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot investigate it under paragraph 41(b) of the Scheme.

Scope of the investigation

The resident made a subject access request to the landlord. The resident said she is unhappy with the landlord’s response to the subject access request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations, it is therefore able to assess the regulatory aspects of both the resident’s complaint about the subject access request, and the landlord’s response.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The resident reported issues with her kitchen units on 28 July 2023. However, this was separate to the issues raised in her complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to a “re-offer” of £175 compensation for issues relating to the resident’s garden. The landlord explained that it had already responded to the resident’s complaint about her garden in a separate complaint process. The resident said she was unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord offered.
From the evidence provided, the complaint about the resident’s garden followed a separate complaint procedure in November 2022. The landlord issued a separate stage 1 response to the resident on 28 November 2022. However, there is no evidence that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. That means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint about the resident’s garden. This issue followed a separate complaint procedure to the complaint which was brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. This means the complaint has not been duly made to us and we have no power to investigate it at this time.

The offer and suitability of the property

The landlord noted that the resident placed a bid on the property and viewed it before accepting it. The landlord accepts that the resident raised some concerns about a step and moving bins at the viewing – but accepted the property. However, it was not unreasonable that the landlord asked for a report from an occupational therapist to decide what adjustments it could make. The landlord’s approach was not unreasonable.

The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs in the property

The landlord’s repair records are unclear and inconsistent, making it difficult to establish when, if any, the landlord’s contractors undertook repairs. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of any surveyor reports to understand what repair works were required and any timescales it had agreed with the resident. For example, the landlord provided a “report” for the resident’s toilet which contained only 1 photograph.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord’s online repairs guide states it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and all other standard repairs within 20 working days.

The toilet

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it is responsible for toilets, baths, basins and sinks, as well as toilet seats. Unless the damage was caused by “misuse”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2022 and reported an issue with her toilet seat.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was aware of a broken cistern, which it said was the resident’s responsibility. However, due to the delays in it completing the other repairs, it said it would repair the cistern as a gesture of goodwill on 18 June 2023. There is no evidence that the issue reported by the resident was caused by “misuse”. Therefore, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it was its responsibility to inspect and repair the toilet seat.
It appears that the landlord did not complete the repairs by 18 June 2023. Paragraph 7.3 of the Complaint Handling Code (2024) states that landlords must set out what will happen and by when in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
The landlord said it completed a repair to the toilet on 25 January 2024. However, the resident said the toilet lid is too big for the toilet seat, making it unusable.
While it appears that the landlord has carried out some repairs to the toilet, the resident said the toilet is still unusable. Further, there were significant delays in the landlord carrying out works to the toilet. The landlord did not appear to adhere to its own timeframe set out in its complaint response.

The floorboards

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident’s health visitor reported issues with the floorboards in the property on 17 May 2022. The resident also contacted the landlord on 30 May 2022 and said the property was unsafe. The resident reported further issues on 17 November 2022 regarding the floorboards.
The landlord has indicated that it completed some works to the floorboards on 6 July 2022. However, it is unclear what works it completed. Regardless of this, the resident reported further concerns about the floorboards on 17 November 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 20 June 2023, also referred to outstanding repairs to the floorboards. The landlord’s repair work notes suggest it completed works to the floorboards on 2 February 2024.
While the landlord may have carried out some works to the floorboards in July 2022, it appears that this did not resolve the issue. Further, the landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding repairs to the floorboards in June 2023. This was over 12 months since the landlord was first aware of issues with the floorboards. The delay was not appropriate.
The resident said that when the landlord completed works to the floorboards, it planed some of the floorboards and filled them with filler. The resident said she was unhappy that the landlord did not offer any carpet for the floorboards. The resident said the landlord changed its position on carpeting properties halfway through the development of the estate and that it had offered carpets to other properties.
Section 3 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states she is responsible for floor coverings in the property. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord offered floor coverings to other properties on the estate based on the documentary evidence available. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident about any support services that may be available to her for flooring in the property.

The kitchen cupboard door and the doorstop

The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2022 and reported an issue with her kitchen cupboard door. The resident said the kitchen cupboard door had “blown”. The landlord said it completed a repair to the kitchen door on 2 February 2024. However, the resident said the landlord installed a kitchen cupboard door but left it unpainted.
There was an inappropriate and unreasonable delay in the landlord repairing the kitchen cupboard door, for which it has provided no reasonable explanation. The landlord has not explained why it left the kitchen cupboard unpainted or whether it intended to return to the property to complete these works.
The resident also reported issues with a door stop on 17 November 2022. The landlord referred to the door stop in its stage 2 response and said it would update the resident by 30 June 2023. It does not appear that the landlord updated the resident about the door stop. The landlord has since said it is unable to find any repairs relating to a door stop. The Ombudsman is therefore unsure if the issue remains outstanding.

The back door/patio doors

The resident reported issues with a back door/patio door throughout 2022. There is evidence that the landlord undertook some repairs to the door in 2022. However, the resident reported further issues in December 2022.
The landlord’s repair records show that it completed works to the door in March 2023. However, the resident said that the patio door hinges keep coming out and the repairs have not resolved the issue.
While the landlord has completed some repair works to the door, the resident said there are still issues with the hinges. Further, there were delays of at least 3 months in the landlord carrying out works to the door between December 2022 and March 2023. The delay was in excess of the landlord’s repairs policy. This was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would update the resident by 30 June regarding repairs to the door. Despite this, it appears that the landlord failed to complete the repairs within the timescales given and failed to follow up the works with its contractor to ensure that the works were carried out.

Repairs summary

The resident said there are a number of outstanding repairs. From the evidence provided, it is not clear what works the landlord needs to do in order to complete the repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property and identify and complete any outstanding repairs.
While the landlord has apologised for the failures identified, it did not offer any compensation to acknowledge the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in repeatedly chasing for updates, multiple delays across several repair issues and a lack of clarity/updates on repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the failures outlined above.

The landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy sets out its approach to preventing and tackling ASB. The landlord does not have a separate policy to deal with noise nuisance. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord deals with reports of noise nuisance via its ASB policy.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the incidents she reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. However, it is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
On 28 February 2022, the resident reported issues with noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2022 and asked her for details of which property was causing the noise. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident responded to the landlord with this information.
However, the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 April 2022 and reported noise nuisance from the residents of property A. The resident said the issues had been ongoing since December 2021. The landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case file in April 2022 following reports of “domestic noise”.
Following the resident’s reports of noise nuisance on 12 April 2022, there was a delay in the landlord contacting the resident to investigate her reports. The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 May 2022 and asked for support regarding the noise nuisance. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2022 to discuss her concerns. Section 4.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy states “in most cases, it will contact the complainant within 72 hours to discuss the complaint and contact the perpetrator within 5 working days.”. The delay was in excess of the landlord’s policy and was therefore not appropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the noise nuisance with the residents of property A and discussed the option of mediation between the parties. However, on 30 May 2022, the resident told the landlord that she had contacted the police following threatening behaviour from the residents of property A. While the evidence shows that the landlord discussed the issue with the residents of property A, there is no evidence that it liaised with the resident and the police regarding the resident’s reports of threatening behaviour.
The landlord closed the ASB case file in August 2022 as it said the matter had improved between the resident and property A. The landlord opened a new ASB case file in September 2022. It closed this file in February 2023.
While the landlord carried out investigations between the resident and property A, it did not appear to liaise with relevant support agencies in an attempt to resolve the issue. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord tried to arrange a meeting with the resident on 20 October 2022 with the landlord, the local authority and the police in attendance. However, it appears that this meeting did not go ahead with all the agencies mentioned and the landlord did not appear to rearrange this.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated the outcome of the ASB case files with the resident. For example, it did not contact the resident upon closure of the file to outline what steps it had taken, what actions were outstanding and any follow-on support or signposting where relevant.
The landlord failed to undertake a risk assessment for all parties at the start of the reported ASB and at significant milestones. Section 4.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy states it will “risk assess cases”. In completing risk assessments and focusing on the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB. The landlord should have considered the impact on the resident given the resident’s vulnerabilities, as well as ensuring it maintained regular communication with the resident using her preferred method and at an agreed frequency.
The landlord failed to consider several non-legal tools to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord failed to consider whether a sound recording device, such as a noise app, was necessary to investigate the noise issues the resident had reported. There is no evidence the landlord liaised with the Environmental Health Department to determine if the noises reported by the resident were causing a statutory noise nuisance. In addition, while the landlord offered the resident and property A the option of mediation, the Ombudsman understands that this has not yet taken place. Mediation is not compulsory, and the resident would be entitled to refuse to participate. However, the landlord should have considered whether this was an option sooner in order to resolve the ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will make sure it offers support and makes referrals, as well as considering legal action options and working in partnership with agencies. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord made any referrals to support the resident, other than the offer of mediation. The landlord could have offered the resident additional support or referred her to any relevant services at a much earlier point and it missed multiple opportunities to do so.
In the resident’s emails to the landlord on 20 March 2023 and 24 April 2023, she said the noise nuisance was ongoing. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it referred to 2 previous ASB case files, but it failed to assess the resident’s reports of further ASB and whether it should have opened a new ASB file to investigate her concerns. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. When the resident reported further ASB it should have taken steps to log the report and investigate whether further action was required.
It is not clear from the evidence when the resident first requested to install CCTV. However, the Ombudsman understands that the reports of ASB was one of the reasons why the resident wanted to install CCTV. The resident said she contacted the landlord in August 2022, and it gave her verbal permission to install CCTV. However, there is no reference to this conversation in the evidence provided. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to make a definitive conclusion on whether the landlord gave the resident verbal permission to install CCTV.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 November 2022 to advise that she had installed CCTV without written permission. It is unclear if the resident responded to this letter. However, the resident said she verbally discussed the issue with the landlord in December 2022 and requested written permission on 3 January 2023.
Regardless of this, in its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to send a letter to the resident confirming its approval for the CCTV. It also apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s request in January 2023. The Ombudsman understands the resident has received a letter from the landlord which gave permission for the installation of the CCTV.
Overall, while the landlord acknowledged that its handling of the resident’s CCTV request was poor, it did not offer compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s written request and inconsistent communication from the landlord on the issue.
The resident has requested to be moved permanently into a different property due to the issues outlined above. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should support the resident with her request to move from her current property and discuss her options with her if it has not done so already.
Overall, there were several failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB, as outlined above. The resident said that issues with ASB are ongoing. The landlord should therefore contact the resident to support her with any ongoing issues in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should assess whether any further incidents require investigation. The landlord should also support the resident with its mediation process if required.

The landlord’s handling of parking allocation

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that all vehicles must be parked in a designated parking space. However, the tenancy agreement does not say which parking space the landlord allocated to the resident.
The resident said that she needed a parking space outside of her property due to health issues, ongoing ASB and in order to safely put her 2 children into the car. The resident said that the landlord did not initially allocate her a parking space.
The resident first reported an issue with parking on 8 February 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s concern about parking on the same day. It said it had allocated parking space “E” to the resident. While this may not have been the outcome the resident was hoping for, the landlord responded to the resident promptly and explained which parking space it had allocated to her.
On 8 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint about the parking. The resident said the landlord had not provided her with suitable parking in order to “safeguard her children”.
On 21 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said it was working with its contractors to address the parking issue. The landlord said it would change the parking letters in the parking spaces. However, it later said in its stage 1 response that it could not change the parking space letters.
The resident contacted the landlord again in November 2023 and said it had not changed the parking spaces. The landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss her concerns. It is not clear if the landlord contacted the resident to discuss this.
While the tenancy agreement does not specify that a parking space should be allocated outside the property, anti-social parking can cause or is capable of causing annoyance and nuisance. More importantly, strategic parking can be done purposefully as part of an ongoing course of conduct or be perceived in that way. Therefore, it was also open to the landlord to fully assess if the parking issue was part of the ongoing broader ASB reported by the resident.
When the landlord became aware of further issues with the parking, it would have been reasonable for it to investigate the resident’s concerns and provide her with a response. While the evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns, it is unclear why it informed the resident in March 2023 that it could reallocate the parking spaces. The landlord was not clear in its position regarding the parking spaces in its subsequent communication with the resident. This was a service failure in its handling of its communication with the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s queries in November 2023. There is also no evidence that the landlord liaised with its contractors to confirm if the parking spaces could be reallocated.
The resident said she has recently obtained an OT assessment dated 22 February 2024, from the local authority. The assessment states that the resident requires parking within close proximity to her property to meet her disability needs. The resident said the landlord also has a copy of the OT assessment. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has not changed the parking spaces.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the OT assessment dated 22 February 2024, was provided to the landlord 8 months after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the landlord could not have considered the assessment at the time of the complaint.
However, as the landlord does not appear to have responded to the resident’s queries in November 2023, or addressed the resident’s point that it had previously told her it would change the parking spaces, it would be reasonable for the landlord to review its position on the issue. The landlord should also have consideration for the resident’s OT assessment. The landlord should provide the resident with a clear response regarding the parking spaces and whether it can reallocate them.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to initial complaints within 7 working days and any appeals within 15 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 April 2023 which was 26 working days later. This was in excess of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 10 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 28 working days later. This was also in excess of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 34(a) the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to assess the allocation and nomination for the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of parking allocation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,000, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing repairs in the property.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication with the resident about the parking allocation.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The total compensation is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Contact the resident to support her with any ongoing issues in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should assess whether any further incidents require investigation. The landlord should also support the resident with its mediation process if required. The landlord must evidence that it is written to the resident.
Contact the resident to discuss her concerns regarding parking. The landlord should also have consideration for the resident’s OT assessment. The landlord should provide the resident with a clear response regarding the parking spaces and whether it can reallocate them.
Arrange an inspection of the property. Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must provide a written report to the Ombudsman and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. Set out any outstanding repairs.
2. Include photographs of the areas specified.
3. Set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.

The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her options for moving home, if it has not done so already.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any support which may be available for floor coverings in the property.