Soha Housing Limited (202233236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233236

Soha Housing Limited

30 July 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations and to make reasonable adjustments.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination and concerns about the conduct of staff.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 24 May 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident told the landlord 1 of her children had a brain injury and was autistic. She said he had difficulty communicating, was unaware of danger and required constant supervision to maintain his safety.
The resident told the landlord on 11 May 2022 that she needed to move into the property by 24 May 2022 given her circumstances. The landlord told her on the same day that the property would not be ready until 2 June 2022. It agreed to complete the outstanding works once she moved in and sent a list of the repairs that still needed to be completed to its contractor on 23 May 2022. The resident moved in on the following day.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 and said the contractor had not been in contact and the repairs were outstanding. She also said her son had cut his leg on the floor which had still not been replaced. She asked the landlord on 25 June 2022 when the outstanding work would be completed and said the property was not safe.
The resident made a complaint on 6 July 2022. She said the landlord had failed to carry out the identified repairs and the property was not safe for her son to live in. She also said there was glass in the garden, the garden gate did not lock, cupboard doors were broken and she was unable to lock the front door whilst holding her son. She said the outstanding work posed a significant danger to her son and affected his dignity. She also said the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments and this amounted to disability discrimination.
The landlord responded on 7 July 2022 and said:
1. It had never discriminated against anyone based on their personal circumstances.
2. It did not have an OT report or overview assessment of her son’s disabilities but it was happy to discuss the matter further with her if significant works were required.
3. It would investigate why the list of outstanding work identified whilst the property was empty had not been completed after the resident moved in.
4. Some of the repairs listed by the resident had not previously been reported.
5. It would visit on 14 July 2022 to resolve the outstanding matters.
The landlord visited the resident on 14 July 2022 and identified a list of repairs. Several repairs were completed during the visit and the resident was told the external doors, windows and kitchen were due to be replaced in the following year. It also told the resident it had a member of staff who dealt with adaptations and they would liaise with her son’s occupational therapist (OT) if adaptations were required. It said the resident agreed to provide the landlord with details about her son’s disabilities. A number of repairs were ordered on 22 July 2022.
The resident made a further complaint on 20 September 2022. She said the landlord’s contractor had failed to attend the appointment to repair the fence and as a result her son had cut his neck. She also said the insecure windows were not safe and wires was still hanging from the radiators and there was a risk her son would chew them. The resident noted her son’s needs were continually being ignored and the property was not safe.
The resident made a further complaint in October 2022. She said there were ongoing concerns about the property and there was a ‘‘toxic culture of stonewalling and poor performance’’ in the organisation. She also complained about the conduct of members of staff.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 February 2023 and said:
1. Its contractor would be in contact to arrange for the fencing work to be completed.
2. The front door and windows were due to be replaced by the end of March 2023.
3. Some of the minor adaptations recommended by the OT had been completed and the remaining work would be completed as soon as possible.
4. The resident had agreed to contact the OT to arrange an assessment for major adaptations for the property.
5. A meeting had been arranged to discuss the resident’s request for compensation.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 30 June 2023 and said:
1. Many of the problems encountered by the resident were due to her being allowed to move in before the property was ready to let. The delays in carrying out the work were not acceptable.
2. It failed from the outset to prioritise the resident’s son’s needs when it became clear he had a disability.
3. It took too long to engage the OT and waited for a referral to be made before acting on the resident’s concerns about safety. The minor adaptations were not completed until February 2023.
4. It could have shown more compassion to the resident given her circumstances.
5. Its communication with the resident was strained at times and fell short of what was expected.
6. It could find no evidence of deliberate discrimination. Staff acted politely and did their best to resolve the resident’s queries and treat her fairly.
7. No formal investigation would be undertaken into staff conduct. Whilst they adhered to the landlord’s policies, this was sometimes at the ‘‘cost of flexibility, initiative and common sense.’’
8. The resident had a case for compensation given the delays in carrying out the work, missed appointments and inconvenience caused. It offered £1361.60 compensation, which was the equivalent of two months’ rent.
9. Further information would be requested from the resident regarding her allegations of a toxic culture in the organisation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that she said her son was injured as a result of delays in carrying out repairs. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings on such matters, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs and request for compensation.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repairing obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were confusing and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine if it responded appropriately to some of the resident’s reports.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 11 May 2022 that she needed to move into the property by 24 May 2022 given her personal circumstances. The landlord told her on the same day that the property would not be ready until 2 June 2022 and it needed to ensure it met its empty home standard before being let. It did, however, agree she could move in on 24 May 2022 and said the outstanding works would be completed afterwards. This demonstrates it was sensitive to the resident’s personal circumstances and was willing to be flexible in its approach.
The landlord completed a number of repairs on 23 May 2022 and sent a list of the outstanding work to its contractor on the same day. This included renewing the vinyl floor in the utility room, renewing skirting board in the bedroom and fitting child safety window locks. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for the property to be cleaned and the garden cleared before the resident moved in, in accordance with its empty property standard. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident when the outstanding works would be completed. This was not in accordance with its repair standards which say it will tell residents how long they have to wait for repairs to be completed.
The housing records confirm the resident moved in on 24 May 2022. She contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 and said the contractor had not been in contact and the repairs were outstanding. The resident also said her son had cut his leg on the floor which had still not been replaced. There is no evidence the landlord prioritised the work even though its repairs policy says staff can do so if the resident or a member of the household has a disability. The resident confirmed the new vinyl flooring was fitted on 22 June 2022, although the landlord has not provided any records to this Service confirming this.
The resident asked the landlord again on 25 June 2022 when the outstanding work would be completed and said the property was not safe. The delay in carrying out the work meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and components in the resident’s home. It also meant it failed to meet the 20-working day target for routine repairs. This was a service failure by the landlord.
The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 7 July 2022 and provided a list of outstanding repairs. It said it did not know why its contractor had not carried out the work but it would investigate the matter further. It also noted the resident had identified a number of new repairs. This included a faulty front door lock, glass in the garden, a broken bath handle, insecure cupboards and a broken garden gate lock. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to carry out a property inspection on 14 July 2022 and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
The housing records confirm the landlord carried out the inspection of the property on 14 July 2022 and completed a number of repairs on the same day. This included repairing the garden gate lock, adjusting the kitchen window and repairing a cupboard. It said some of the new repairs identified by the resident may have been caused by her son and would not have been picked up at the post inspection. There is no evidence the landlord shared this information with the resident.
The identified new repairs were ordered on 22 July 2022. This included renewing a bedroom door frame, replacing damaged fencing, repairing the bath handle and renewing the cylinder door frame, handle and lock. It also agreed to refix the earth cables to the radiators in the bathroom and toilet which it said were loose. An appointment was booked for 19 August 2022, although it is unclear from the housing records what work, if any was completed on this day. There is no evidence the landlord arranged for the glass to be removed from the garden. This was not in accordance with its empty property policy and was a risk to the resident’s son and other children. This says it will provide homes that are clean, safe and secure.
The resident told the landlord on 20 September 2022 that no one turned up to repair the fencing and as a result, her son had cut his neck. She also said the wires were still hanging from the radiators and the windows were insecure.
The landlord responded on 30 September 2022 and noted the resident had not raised concerns about the windows during the visit on 14 July 2022, other than the kitchen window which was adjusted during the visit. It confirmed the windows were due to be upgraded in 2023/24 and asked the resident for more information. The landlord also confirmed the list of outstanding work. This included relocating the earth wires to the radiators in the bathroom and toilet, renewing the bedroom door frame and renewing the damaged fencing. No timescales were given to the resident for completing the work. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
There is no evidence the landlord prioritised the resident’s requests for repairs to make her home safe for her son. This was not in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy. This says it will prioritise repair orders according to the urgency and nature of the work. It also says guidelines are available for staff on how they can change the repair priority if the resident or a member of the household is disabled. This was a failure by the landlord and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the resident’s circumstances or her son’s needs.
The resident told the landlord on 1 October 2022 that the fencing was continually being broken by the sheep in the adjacent field and there was no point in patching it up as a new fence was required. She noted no one had turned up for the appointment in August 2022 to repair the fencing and she had heard nothing since. She also said there were no window locks and the landlord had previously noted that some of the windows did not shut properly during the visit on 14 July 2022.
The landlord confirmed on 3 October 2022 that it had installed non-lockable window restrictors on the living room, bedroom and upstairs toilet windows. It also said window restrictors in the other bedrooms were in working order and it had replaced the kitchen window hinge and renewed the window handle in the bathroom. No evidence was provided by the landlord to this Service confirming this work was completed. The resident disputed the landlord’s claim that there were safety locks on the windows and said some did not close. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have checked the windows given the resident’s ongoing concerns about safety.
The landlord confirmed on 4 October 2022 that it had previously offered to install chain link fencing or fit fence panels to cover the gaps in the hedge. It asked the resident to confirm which option she wished to pursue and to confirm when she was available for the outstanding work to be completed. It also asked the resident to confirm which windows would not shut.
The housing records confirm an appointment was booked for 7 October 2022 to renew the bedroom door frame and to relocate the earth wires in the bathroom and toilet. It also arranged for the fencing to be replaced, although the resident told the landlord on 6 October 2022 it was pointless given the number of holes in the fence. She said it was best to await the outcome of her complaint before undertaking the work.
The landlord said the bedroom door frame was renewed and the earth wires on the bathroom and toilet radiators were relocated on 7 October 2022, although it provided no evidence to this Service confirming this. This was some 2 ½ months after the resident reported the issues and was outside the target timescales set by the landlord. This was a service failure.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 and said she had reported the front door and windows did not lock and the fence was not secure. Whilst the housing records note the landlord spoke to the MP’s office in February 2023, no details of the conversation were provided to this Service. Neither is there any evidence the identified work to the front door was ordered. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 and said it had received a referral from the council which recommended a door was fitted between the utility room and kitchen, that the plug socket in the bedroom be securely fitted to the wall, the loose wires in the living room were made safe and new garden fencing installed. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the fencing work and said its contractor would visit to measure up. No appointment time was offered to the resident. The landlord confirmed the plug socket had already been repaired and it would arrange for the loose wires to be replaced, although provided no timescale for completing the work. There is no evidence it prioritised the work for the resident. This was a further service failure.
The resident confirmed the fencing was replaced in March 2023, some 10 months after she moved in. Again, the landlord did not provide this service with any evidence confirming the work was completed.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case the landlord acknowledged on 23 June 2023 that there were multiple failings in the way it handled the resident’s reports of repairs. This included noting it failed to treat her report that her son had been injured as an urgent priority and there were delays in completing repairs. It also acknowledged its communication with the resident fell short at times and identified a number of learning points to take forward. It decorated parts of the resident’s home and agreed to pay the cost of cleaning the property. It also offered the resident £1361.60 compensation for the service failures with its repairs service.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping was poor, it failed to take a proactive approach to the resident’s reports of repairs and there were delays in completing some of the identified works. Its communication with the resident was also poor at times and it failed to prioritise repairs which the resident said impacted on her son’s wellbeing. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She repeatedly told the landlord the property was not safe and she was concerned for her son’s safety. It is evident the landlord took learning from the complaint and its financial offer was reasonable in the circumstances given the impact the situation had on the family. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs. As such, we will not be making a further order of compensation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations and to make reasonable adjustments.

This Service does not have the expertise to assess whether the property was suitable for the resident or whether it met her son’s needs. We have, however, considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations and reasonable adjustments and whether this was done in a timely manner and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
The housing records confirm the resident included details about her son’s disabilities on her rehousing application form that was submitted on 6 March 2021. This included noting he had a brain injury and required high levels of support. No additional information was included with the application form detailing his specific needs. There is no evidence the landlord sought further details about his disabilities before the family moved into the property. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s lettings policy. This says it will identify the needs of new residents and signpost or provide appropriate support to help them sustain their tenancy. It also meant the landlord did not consider its duties under the Equality Act, 2010 to minimise the disadvantages related to a person’s protected characteristics. This was a service failure.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident on 7 July 2022 for details about her son’s disabilities given it did not have a copy of the OT report or an overview assessment regarding his needs. It said it was happy to discuss the matter further with the resident if any significant works needed to be completed. This demonstrated it was sensitive to the resident’s request and wanted to meet her son’s needs.
The housing records confirm the landlord told the resident on 14 July 2022 that it had a member of staff responsible for dealing with request for adaptations and they would liaise with the council’s OT regarding any adaptations that may be needed. This was in accordance with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy. This says the landlord will work with OTs to assess applications and help residents apply for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) for major works. The resident agreed to provide the landlord with further details about her son’s disabilities at this point.
It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to fit a grab rail in the bathroom on 22 July 2022. An appointment was arranged for 2 August 2022, although it is unclear from the housing records when the work was completed. It also arranged for a member of the team to visit the resident to discuss the planned kitchen replacement programme and confirmed that an OT assessment would be required given her son’s disabilities. This was in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy which says it will provide clear and accurate information about the process for applying for an adaptation. There is, however, no evidence the landlord acted on this information or contacted the resident’s son’s OT for further information at this point. This was a service failure.
The landlord told the resident on 30 September 2022 that it would install a standard kitchen unless she provided the reports discussed during the visit on 14 July 2022. Whilst it said it needed this information so it could provide further assistance and offer appropriate support, the response lacked empathy and was not fair in the circumstances. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to provide the contact details of the NHS OT team.
The resident responded on 1 October 2022 and said the new kitchen would not meet her son’s needs. She said she had already sent proof about her son’s disability living allowance (DLA) and queried what additional information was needed. She also said the OT team had failed to contact her 3 times regarding who could access her son’s medical information and noted the landlord had no right to review it. She asked the landlord’s safeguarding officer to contact her. She also said the landlord had shown no dignity or respect towards her son. There is no evidence the landlord clarified what specific information was required or if its safeguarding officer contacted the resident. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on the 3 October 2022 that the OT worked for the council and it had no control over waiting times. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations and was in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the OT rather than ask the resident to do so. Its aids and adaptations policy says it will help residents apply for a DFG for major works.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident again for details about her son’s disabilities and what adaptations were required in the kitchen to meet his needs. The resident responded on the same day and said dangerous appliances such as cookers needed to be fitted at a height given her son did not understand pain or instructions about danger. She also queried why the landlord required ‘‘highly sensitive and distressing’’ paperwork about her son. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that no details were included on the nomination form that her son required adaptations.
The landlord told the resident again on 4 October 2022 that information she included on the council’s rehousing application form, including medical information was not shared with it. It confirmed it had requested medical information to help put forward her request for additional work. It also said its contractor was aware of her request for a ‘‘higher than normal’’ oven to safeguard her son and it could not do major adaptations without OT guidance. It asked the resident to contact the OT to arrange an assessment.
The resident told the landlord on the same day that she would not contact the OT but would discuss the lack of support and obstructions by the landlord with her son’s doctor and nursery.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 and asked if there was anything it could do to help the family given the property was not suitable for their needs. He noted there was no downstairs bedroom or bathroom. This meant the resident and her son had to sleep in the living room and she could rarely bath him. The MP also noted there was no disabled parking and getting in and out of the house was a challenge. Whilst the housing records note the landlord spoke to the MP’s office in February 2023, no details of the conversation were provided to this Service.
The landlord confirmed on 20 February 2023 that it would meet the cost of minor adaptations up to £2000 and that anything above this amount would be subject to approval of a DFG grant by the council following an OT assessment. This advice was in accordance with information on the landlord’s website. It said the resident was placed on the waiting list for major adaptations but failed to provide evidence to this Service confirming this to be the case. It is unclear from the housing records what, if any reasonable adjustments were completed in the kitchen when it was replaced.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge on 23 July 2023 that it should have been more proactive in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. This included noting it should have advised the resident when she viewed the property to contact the OT if major adaptations were required. It also said it could have shown compassion towards the resident and it took too long to engage the OT. The landlord identified a number of learning points from the complaint to take forward including reviewing the void process and repairs ordering system to ensure they took account of the specific needs of residents.
In summary, the landlord failed to take account of the resident’s son’s disabilities when it offered her the property. It did not undertake an assessment or consider whether it needed to make any reasonable adjustments. It was not proactive liaising with the council’s OT team, and its communication with the resident lacked empathy at times. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings in its final complaint response and took learning from the complaint, it did not offer compensation to the resident for these specific failures. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She told the landlord on numerous occasions that she struggled on a day-to-day basis and the property was not safe for her son given the lack of adaptations. Given the level of failings, a finding of maladministration has been made with regards to this element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of discrimination and concerns about the conduct of staff.

This Service is not able to make a legally binding decision as to whether discrimination has taken place (this would be for the courts to decide on) and does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. We have, however, investigated whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of discrimination and concerns about staff conduct.
The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 6 July 2022 that her son had been subject to disability discrimination. She said the landlord was aware of his disabilities and it failed to carry out identified works to the property.
The landlord responded on 7 July 2022 and said it had ‘‘never discriminated against anyone based on their personal circumstances.’’ No evidence was provided by the landlord to this Service confirming it undertook an investigation into the allegations made. This was a failure by the landlord. It is vital that investigations into allegations of discrimination are fully documented to ensure full transparency. Furthermore, given it responded the next day, without asking the resident for more details, it is reasonable to conclude that a full and fair investigation was not carried out at this point.
It is of concern to note that an internal e-mail sent on 22 July 2022 suggest that some of the repairs identified on 14 July 2022 were due to the resident’s son being ‘‘heavy-handed with things.’’ These comments were not appropriate and indicate a lack of understanding about the nature of the resident’s son’s disabilities and the difficulties faced by the family.
The housing records confirm the resident continued to claim the landlord had discriminated against her son over the following seven months. She said the landlord ignored her son’s needs and the property was not safe for him to live in. There is no evidence the landlord investigated these claims or responded to the resident about them at any point. This was not appropriate and evidently further impacted the deteriorating relationship between it and the resident.
The housing records confirm the resident asked the landlord on 1 October 2022 for her case to be handed over to a manager given the lack of progress and the stress caused. She said the member of staff had made her life a ‘’living hell,’’ had failed to listen or show her any respect or dignity. She also said the landlord’s staff had demanded private medical information and she was unhappy it had taken photographs of her son’s injured leg.
It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 3 October 2022 that a different member of staff had taken over the case. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident and rebuild trust. It also confirmed the resident had given permission for the photograph to be taken and it was held securely on the landlord’s database but would be removed at the resident’s request.
The resident told the landlord on 4 October 2022 she was not happy with the new member of staff handling her complaint as there was a conflict of interest. She asked for her complaint to be handed over to somebody else to investigate and suggested certain members of staff needed further training given they had provided incorrect information and guidance. In particular, she raised concerns that they had asked for private and sensitive medical information about her son and given incorrect information about the OT assessment process. She also disputed she had given permission for the photograph to be taken and said she would be contacting the police regarding the matter.
The resident asked the landlord on 6 October 2022 for a ‘‘more sensitive and experienced member of staff’’ to contact her. She said her questions had been ignored and the member of staff was rude. She accused the landlord of ‘‘stonewalling’’ her on 10 October 2022 and said there was a “toxic culture” in the organisation. Whilst the landlord responded on the same day and confirmed the resident’s complaint had been handed over to a different member of staff, there is no evidence it carried out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s claims. This was a failure on the landlord’s part. When concerns were raised about staff conduct, the landlord should have conducted a fair and objective investigation. This should have included interviewing the resident and the staff concerned to get an understanding of their positions.
There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s allegations made on 13 October 2022 about the conduct of a member of staff, which she said was unpleasant and frightening. Neither did it respond to her follow up e-mails of 31 October 2022 and 20 February 2023 in which she noted the landlord had ignored her concerns and did nothing to protect her or her family. This was a further significant failure on the landlord’s part.
The landlord told the resident on 20 February 2023 it did not ‘‘prejudice against any of its residents based upon their protected characteristics.’’ This standard response was unnecessarily defensive and demonstrates a lack of openness and willingness to both learn and improve. It also evidences a lack of understanding and knowledge around the Equality Act and how to respond fairly to allegations of discrimination. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out an impartial investigation into the concerns raised by the resident and used the opportunity to identify any training needs or learning opportunities. This was a further service failure and an opportunity missed by the landlord.
Furthermore, the landlord told the resident on 23 February 2023 that its staff acted with integrity and had not ‘‘gaslighted’’ her. It noted it had made errors and taken too long to complete repairs but that it had always aimed to provide a fair transparent service to her. However, no evidence was provided by the landlord to this Service confirming it undertook an investigation into the allegations made.
Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s report of 3 May 2023 that a member of staff was rude and aggressive towards her. This was a further service failure.
The housing records confirm the resident’s claims of discrimination were considered as part of its final complaint response. It told the resident on 23 June 2023 that there was no evidence of discrimination and noted delays in carrying out the work were due to the performance of its repair contractor. It said the delays affected all of its residents and this was acknowledged in its e-mail to the resident on 27 February 2023, although a copy of the correspondence was not shared with this Service.
Whilst the landlord said its staff acted politely and did their best to treat the resident fairly, it did not explain how it reached this conclusion or evidence it had carried out a thorough and meaningful investigation. Its responses to the discrimination allegations suggest it was mainly focussed on any possible direct discrimination but do not evidence an appropriate level of awareness of the Equality Act and of any possible indirect or unintentional discrimination.
However, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it could have been more proactive at times and there was a failure from the outset to prioritise her son’s needs when it became clear he had a disability. The complaints panel made a number of recommendations including reviewing key processes and training staff. This demonstrated the landlord was more open at stage 2, recognised some failures around its response to the family’s circumstances and took learning from the complaint. Were it not for this improved response and learning at stage 2, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made for this part of the complaint.
In terms of staff conduct, the landlord said there was no case for a full investigation into individual members of staff. It said that they had adhered to the landlord’s procedures, but this was at the ‘’cost of flexibility, initiative and common sense’’ It is of concern to note this was not acknowledged by the landlord prior to it issuing its final complaint response and indicates it was previously defensive and not open to investigating the resident’s concerns or taking the opportunity to identify any potential learning opportunities. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out an investigation and used the opportunity to identify any potential learning opportunities. The complaints’ panel did, however, recommend refresher training in key areas and that further information should be sought from the resident regarding her allegations of a toxic culture in the organisation. However, there is no evidence these recommendations were actioned by the landlord.
In summary, the landlord repeatedly failed to carry out investigations into the resident’s claims of discrimination and concerns about members of staff. This was despite her telling the landlord on numerous occasions that it failed to carry out reasonable adjustments for her son and that its staff where not impartial, were rude and failed to listen to her. The landlord did not investigate these concerns until June 2023; some 11 months after the resident made her first complaint. The situation evidently caused the resident significant inconvenience and distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s claims of discrimination and concerns about staff conduct. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 6 July 2022. She said the landlord had failed to carry out the identified repairs and the property was not safe for her son to live in. She also said the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments and this amounted to disability discrimination.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will do this within 3 working days. Neither is there any evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
Although the landlord responded on 7 July 2022, it did not confirm the reply related to the resident’s complaint. This was not in accordance with the housing ombudsman’s complaint handling code and caused confusion, as the resident believed she did not receive a response and had to pursue the matter further. The resident was not advised of her right to escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy. This was not an accordance with the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
The resident submitted a further complaint on 20 September 2022. Whilst her e-mail did not state she wished to make a complaint, it is evident she remained unhappy and wanted the landlord to address her ongoing concerns about the property. She told the landlord on 4 October 2022 that her complaint should be passed to someone else given there was a conflict of interest and said no one had explained the complaints process to her.
The landlord told the resident on 5 October 2022 that it had raised a complaint on 3 October 2022, although it did not provide this Service with a copy of the acknowledgement letter. There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand her complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. Neither is there any evidence she was told when she could expect to receive a response. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 February 2023, some 4 months after the complaint was made. It did not confirm the reply related to the resident’s complaint or address her concerns about staff conduct. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord did not advise the resident of her right to escalate her complaint if she remained unhappy.
The resident told the landlord on 20 February 2023 that it had ignored every complaint she made and refused to listen to her. She asked for a point of contact with someone who would investigate her complaint. Whilst the landlord responded on the same day, there is no evidence it escalated her complaint. This was not in accordance with its complaints procedure or the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This says landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all the stages of its complaints process.
In response, the landlord told the resident on 23 February 2023 that it had investigated and responded to all of her complaints. It said its staff acted with integrity and had not bullied, discriminated, belittled or gaslighted her. The resident challenged these comments on the same day and asked for a copy of all of the complaint responses. There is no evidence the landlord provided this information. It later confirmed to the resident on 12 May 2023 that it had not ignored her complaints, but this was disputed by the resident on the same day.
The resident’s complaint was subsequently escalated on 25 May 2023. Whilst the landlord sought clarification about the complaint, there is no evidence the request was acknowledged or the resident advised when she would receive a response.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 30 June 2023. This was outside the 25-working day target set out in its complaints policy and some 11 months after the resident made her first complaint. The complaints’ panel confirmed the landlord had not followed its complaints policy and in particular noted the resident had made several complaints which had not been documented, assigned to the correct person or responded to within timescale. These issues were not identified in the stage 1 complaint response and demonstrated a poor and defensive complaint handling culture in the organisation. It was appropriate for the complaints’ panel to acknowledge the situation would have caused frustration for the resident and that she did not feel listened to. The complaints panel also identified a number of learning points from the complaint to take forward, including a review of the complaints policy. It asked for the resident to be offered an apology, although there is no evidence this was provided. No compensation was offered for the poor complaints handling which was not appropriate.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy on numerous occasions. It failed to respond to the resident’s complaints, address all of the issues she raised when it did respond or escalate her complaints even though it was evident she remained unhappy. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on numerous occasions she did not feel listened to and had to pursue her complaint unnecessarily. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings in its final panel complaint response, it did not offer the resident compensation for its poor complaint handling. In this case, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations and to make reasonable adjustments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination and concerns about the conduct of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology must be shared with this Service.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation of £1,350. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her request for adaptations and to make reasonable adjustments.
2. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her reports of discrimination and concerns about the conduct of staff.
3. £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her complaint.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if any repairs are outstanding. If further works are required, the landlord must agree a plan of action with the resident for these repairs to be completed.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should conduct a review of this case. A summary of the review findings must be shared with the landlord’s board, the resident and this Service and must include (but not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. A review of its working practices and staff training arrangements in relation to the failings set out in this report to ensure it better responds to its vulnerable residents and meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.
3. A review of its record keeping processes, in light of the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management.
4. A review of its approach to complaint handling in light of the findings set out in this report to ensure it responds openly and fairly to all complaints in accordance with its complaints process and also to discrimination and staff conduct issues.
5. In each case the landlord should set out in the resulting report the actions and improvements it has identified to put in place in order to ensure the failures are not repeated.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Recommendations

Pay the £1361.60 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already done so.