Southern Housing (202410058)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410058

Southern Housing

19 December 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 the resident’s:
1. Subject access request (SAR).
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his concerns of discrimination and bias.
3. Request for a disabled parking bay and access improvements.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat in a block.
The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system. It has a disabled marker and a communication marker on his account.
On 30 May 2023 the resident reported ASB from his neighbours. He reported they had physically and verbally abused him. The police attended. The next day the landlord confirmed the neighbour disputed the resident’s version of events and made counter allegations. The landlord said without any evidence it could not progress an investigation. The resident said he had the evidence and reported further incidents on 4 June 2023. He also made a SAR for the phone calls between himself and the landlord.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord sent the resident an action plan and asked for evidence. It followed this up by confirming again that it could not take the claim of assault further as there was no evidence. The resident told the landlord he had a video of the assault but was concerned about general data protection regulations (GDPR). The resident accused the landlord of gender bias and of breaching GDPR. He thought the landlord had shown the neighbour his text messages. Around this time the resident made a further SAR request and asked for a disabled parking bay, and the landlord checked internally if this was possible.
On 16 June 2023 the resident asked to make a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. On 20 June 2023 the resident wanted a new member of staff to handle his case. He told the landlord he still wanted the manager to call him. He wanted the delays and inaction explained.
The resident felt the landlord had not covered all the parts of his complaint in its definition and on 22 June 2023 confirmed to the landlord the parts he felt were missing. On 11 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident about the ASB case and updated him on the points he had raised. By the end of July, the resident told the landlord the ASB issues were ongoing, and he was still waiting for his disabled bay. The landlord sent the resident extension requests for its stage 1 complaint response.
In August and September 2023 the resident reported more ASB from his neighbour. The landlord asked for the evidence and told the resident it would no longer accept direct emails from him to the housing manager, due to the content of his emails. It provided a general landlord email address for the resident to use.
On 25 September 2023 the disabled parking bay was completed. In December 2023, the resident chased the complaint as he had not heard from the landlord since 27 October 2023, when it extended the response date again. On 9 February 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint was late and that it should have updated the resident’s contact details. It offered £50 compensation. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s other complaints.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. He said the stage 1 response did not address the discrimination and bias he experienced from the landlord nor the lack of formal action against the neighbour. On 17 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and sent its final response on 13 May 2024. It increased its compensation offer to £100 for its complaint handling delays.

Post internal complaint process

The landlord has confirmed the alleged perpetrators have moved out and there have been no reports of ASB for over a year.

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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman 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”.
In this case the resident first submitted a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord on 4 June 2023 and the resident has complained to this Service about the landlord’s handling of the SAR. As complaints about SARs fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office, this element of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, the disabled parking bay and access improvements, and the associated complaint are investigated below.

Scope of investigation

Whilst the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB and other requests, this Service is unable to make a legal finding of discrimination in that regard. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options.
The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the ASB case has adversely impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The condition and access to the gardens at the scheme were mentioned in some of the communication between the landlord and the resident during the period of this complaint. The resident did not include these issues in his original complaint and the landlord did not consider the garden issues within its complaint responses. The resident has since raised a complaint about the gardens and the landlord has provided a stage 1 complaint response. The resident’s garden complaints will not be investigated in this report.

Reports of ASB

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if ASB occurred, or which party in the disputes was responsible. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord and the Ombudsman that the landlord discriminated against him and showed bias in favour of other residents. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, this Service will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord treated him fairly.
The landlord’s ASB procedure at the time outlined the following statements:
1. It used the definition of ASB from the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, (b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or (c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
2. It explained early intervention steps it may use such as mediation, verbal warnings, visits, or acceptable behaviour contracts.
3. It detailed assessing vulnerability using the risk assessment matrix (RAM) which it uses to define the level of risk.
4. The landlord adopted a victim centered approach meaning that if a person affected by the conduct perceived it to be harassment the landlord would treat it as such.
5. After an initial assessment it would explain the next steps and associated timescales.
6. That it would:
  1. Interview complainant / witnesses.
  2. Produce an action plan.
  3. Gather evidence using a variety of tools.
  4. Manage expectations and keep all parties informed.
On 30 May 2023 the resident reported ASB from his neighbour. On the same day the landlord asked for clarity on who the alleged perpetrator was, and the resident confirmed. The next day the landlord spoke to the neighbour and the police. The landlord was swift in its initial actions. The landlord acted reasonably and took appropriate actions in respect of the type of ASB that had been reported.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord told the resident the neighbour disputed the resident’s version of events, and it could not progress an investigation without any evidence. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations of what it could do, without any evidence. Due to further reports of ASB the landlord sent the resident an action plan. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB procedure, and the landlord asked the resident if they agreed with the plan. This was customer focused, and evidence of a victim centered approach. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident had an awareness of what was happening on his case.
By this point in the case the Ombudsman would expect to see a completed RAM. This would have ensured the landlord had a complete awareness of the level of risk to the resident, and it could have implemented any support or safeguarding to mitigate the risk. The landlord acted unreasonably. By not completing a RAM the landlord lacked an awareness of the impact the situation was having on the resident. It was a missed opportunity to put meaningful support in place.
There was no explanation on the case as to why the landlord did not consider other remedies such as mediation or an acceptable behaviour contract. The Ombudsman is aware there were other severe ASB cases at the block, and the landlord may have had good reasons why these measures were not used. Good case management would display that the landlord documented on the case that is had considered measures and why it has not used them.
There is no evidence that beyond the first 2 days of the case, the landlord was in contact with the police or other agencies. The police had told the landlord it was investigating the incident, but the landlord’s case notes do not confirm the outcome of their investigation. The landlord should have communicated with the police. It may have helped the landlord decide what action to take on the case. As its ASB procedure tells us, many organisations have a responsibility to tackle ASB, and the landlord needed to know what the police were doing. The landlord acted unreasonably. It may have contributed to the resident’s reported view that the landlord did not take the case seriously.
The resident sent the landlord some evidence but did not send a video of the assault as he said he was being careful because of GDPR. The landlord viewed the evidence and told the resident it could not take any action against the neighbour. This was reasonable and the landlord was managing the resident’s expectations. However, the landlord was not inquisitive enough. It did not ask the resident about the video of the alleged assault or try to assist him with his GDPR concerns. On 28 July 2023 the resident told the landlord he had sent the evidence of the assault, but the landlord did not try to verify what evidence it had and what evidence it needed. The landlord acted unreasonably. With just a few more questions and some support, the landlord could have gathered more evidence, which may have changed the outcome for the resident.
The resident wanted the landlord to take action against the neighbour. The landlord explained why it could not do that. It confirmed the case remained open and under investigation. The landlord also asked the resident what he was expecting as an outcome to the case. It was fair of the landlord to ask this. It had explained it could not take any action and the resident wanted action. By asking the resident, the landlord would then have an opportunity to consider and respond to the resident’s request. The landlord acted reasonably.
In September 2023 the resident reported some incidents that he deemed to be ASB. The landlord advised the resident that it did not sound like ASB but would await the evidence. The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations. The resident felt that the landlord was minimising the behaviour. Had the landlord completed a RAM with the resident it may have better understood the impact such behaviour had on him. And while it may not have been ASB, the landlord could have offered support or signposted the resident to support. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not show empathy with the resident. The resident repeatedly stated that the situation was impacting his health and there were no offers of support evidenced.
The resident said that the landlord was unprofessional, biased, impartial and discriminating. The Ombudsman can only base their determinations on the evidence to hand and determine on those issues within our remit. The evidence showed that the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrators and detailed on the case record reasons for the actions the landlord took (or did not take). None of the evidence points to the landlord having any bias or unprofessionalism. The case, based on the evidence, was conducted fairly under all the circumstances. The evidence shows that the landlord made errors and missed important parts of its ASB procedure, but the evidence does not suggest this was due to malice or bias, but poor case management.
At the beginning of the ASB case the resident asked the landlord for a different housing officer. He followed this up with 2 further requests in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, the landlord confirmed this would not happen. It told the resident it was open to discussing the matter. The landlord acted reasonably. While it may have been beneficial to explain why it would not accommodate his request, it was open to a discussion and provided an answer to the resident’s request.
On 8 September 2023 the resident asked again for a new housing officer and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided an answer. A landlord should answer resident’s questions in a timely manner. The resident may have wondered what was happening with his request. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Where there are identified failings, we would expect a landlord to implement these principles within their internal complaint procedure. In relation to the handling of the ASB case, the landlord found 1 failing. It acknowledged that although a manager had tried to contact the resident as requested, they had called an old number. The landlord apologised and offered £25 compensation. In line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this was a fair remedy for an incident that was minor and was subsequently put right.
The resident complained specifically about the way the landlord handled the case and said certain staff had been discriminatory. For a complaint like this the landlord should carry out an investigation and gather information to make an informed decision based on its findings.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said that it had discussed the case with the manager and looked at the case communication. This showed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. However, the landlord did not go far enough. There is no evidence to suggest it reached out to the resident to fully understand his concerns around discrimination, or that it interviewed the member of staff in question. The landlord acted unreasonably. Had it gone further in its investigation and response, it may have assured the resident that the investigation, and the landlord’s actions, were fair and thorough. By not doing so the resident maintained the landlord had acted with bias and discrimination.
The resident complained specifically about the handling of the case and the landlord did not investigate wider than the specific points the resident raised. Had it completed a thorough investigation into the handling of the case it may have found the other failures the Ombudsman has recognised in this report. A fair financial remedy for the failings identified would be £300, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble the resident went to in pursuing his ASB case and the impact the landlord’s failings had on him. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding where the landlord failed to acknowledge all its failings or put them right.
In May 2024 the Ombudsman published its special investigation report into this landlord. One of the recommendations, that relates to the findings in this case, was for the landlord to put performance monitoring measures in place to ensure that timely and accurate risk assessments are carried out in all ASB cases, and that the results of the risk assessment are considered in any follow-up action throughout the life of the case. The Ombudsman acknowledges this is in progress at the time of this report and for this reason does not make an order in this case.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and his concerns of discrimination towards him and bias toward others by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot determine on a finding of discrimination, it found no evidence of bias or unfair practice. However, the landlord failed to complete a RAM, show evidence of effective partnership working or utilise all the remedies available to it. It did not support the resident when he repeatedly said the situation was impacting his health and well-being. When the resident complained about the handling of the case the landlord’s investigation did not find these failings.

Request for a disabled parking bay and access improvements

Disabled parking bay

In June 2023 the resident requested a disabled parking bay to help improve his access to his home. The landlord quickly made an internal check that it allowed disabled parking bays and on 22 June 2023 asked the relevant department to contact the resident to discuss where he would want the bay marked out. The landlord acted reasonably and told the resident what action it had taken.
On 2 August 2023 the job was raised on the system. It was not clear, in the evidence provided as part of this investigation, if there were any justifiable reasons for this delay. On 30 June 2023, the landlord had asked the resident for documents in relation to the parking bay. This would have created some delay but there was no date logged of when the documents were received. The Ombudsman cannot determine if the 29 working days it took to raise the order was reasonable.
The work was raised under the landlord’s aids and adaptations budget as a routine job to be completed in 28 days. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy does not state the timeframes for specific orders. However, the Ombudsman finds that 28 days was a reasonable timeframe to set.
The resident chased the landlord when the work was not completed and on 21 September 2023, the landlord told him it had been delayed until 7 November 2023 and provided an explanation. The landlord managed to move the job forward, and the disabled bay was completed on 25 September 2023. This was 37 working days after the order was raised. The landlord had experienced staff shortages and had to prioritise work. While the Ombudsman can understand the resident’s frustrations at the delay, 37 working days is considered a reasonable timeframe, given all the circumstances.
The resident complained that the landlord asked for personal medical information that it already had. While the Ombudsman has only seen evidence of requests for documentation, it is not unreasonable for a landlord to ask for evidence of a resident’s need for an adaptation and to check against its records that it has current information. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy at the time, and its most recent one, does not state what information or evidence the landlord may require. A recommendation is made in recognition of this. The landlord should ensure that it explains to residents why it is asking for certain information and that is only asks for what it needs.
The resident complained that the landlord said he did not need the disabled parking bay. On 21 September 2023 the landlord had advised the resident of the delay and commented that as there was 1 less car, he should be able to park where he needs to most of the time. The resident was upset by this and accused the landlord of making light of his disabilities and the need for the disabled parking bay. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the landlord’s comment made the resident feel like this. However, the evidence does not suggest the landlord meant this. It shows it was trying to present the delay in a positive light. The landlord used the word ‘need’ which suggests it understood the resident’s requirement was necessary. It had spent money from its aids and adaptations budget, evidence that it agreed the adaptation was required.

Access improvements

Between 13 and 15 June 2023 the resident and landlord communicated via email. The resident mentioned he had raised some repairs in relation to the lighting at the block, doors and windows. The landlord quickly asked for clarification as it could not see them on the system. The resident explained they were for the lights not to be tampered with and the doors and windows to be repaired and replaced. He told the landlord the jobs had been cancelled. By 22 June 2023, the landlord updated the resident on the referenced jobs, explained the lighting system could not be changed and explained the consultation process for a new door entry system. The landlord was quick to try and help the resident. The landlord acted reasonably and was customer focused.
The resident expressed that he was unhappy he would be expected to pay for improvements through his service charge. The landlord set out the process and it was confirmed by a manager on 11 July 2023. It agreed to investigate the options available. The landlord acted reasonably. It managed the resident’s expectations and was transparent about the process.
On 8 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord what budgets and grants were available to him to improve the access at the scheme. While the landlord replied and updated the resident about the lighting improvements, it did not provide the resident with any clarity around any budgets and grants that were available. The landlord acted unreasonably. It should have addressed his query completely. It may have contributed to the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s response to his access requests.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord sought clarity from the resident as to his mobility needs and his noted access issues with the communal paths and gardens. On 21 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that questioning his mobility felt discriminatory. The Ombudsman has read the emails between the landlord and the resident. While we can empathise that the landlord’s words and actions made the resident feel this way, the evidence suggests that the landlord was fair and reasonable in its enquiries. The landlord was inquisitorial in its approach to try and understand the resident’s situation and how it impacted his life at the block. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord ensure it explains to residents why it asks certain questions or needs certain information.
New lighting and repairs to current lighting were carried out in February 2024. This was 161 working days after the resident told the landlord the lighting was not safe. This was not an unreasonable delay if we consider it was mostly new works with the tasks of budget approvals, obtaining quotes and contractor availability. However, on 8 and 12 September, and 8 December 2023, the resident mentioned the communal walkways were unlit and it was “pitch black”. The landlord had in hand a lighting upgrade plan, but it should have attended again to inspect the current lighting and confirm if any interim measures could be found. The landlord acted unreasonably. It may have contributed to the resident’s view that the landlord did not care about the residents’ safety.
The landlord’s complaint responses provided the resident with an update on the disabled parking bay and the exterior improvements funding at the scheme. This was an appropriate response but due to the delay of the landlord’s responses, this meant that some of the issues had been resolved. It also meant that other issues had arisen in the interim. This is an example of why a landlord’s internal complaints process should be efficient and timely. The resident’s complaint became muddled, and the landlord did not have a clear grasp on the old and new complaint issues.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the disabled parking bay and access improvements. The landlord handled the disabled parking bay reasonably. It failed to completely answer the resident’s queries around access improvements. The lighting should have been further inspected once the resident told the landlord it was pitch black.

Associated complaint

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process was delayed and it did not always communicate effectively with the resident throughout the process.
The resident made a complaint on 22 June 2023, and this was acknowledged on the same day. This was within the timeframes of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) of the time and the landlord’s complaints procedure (both within 5 working days). The resident knew the landlord had received his complaint and when to expect a response. The landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s acknowledgement letter asked the resident to confirm it had defined his complaint correctly. The resident responded, and the landlord added some of the points to its complaint. Paragraph 4.2 of the Code tells us that landlords should seek any clarification of the complaint and agree the full definition. While the landlord appropriately gave the resident the opportunity to define the complaint, it did not follow up the resident’s response to ensure the new definitions were agreed. In not doing so the resident was not satisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint as he felt it had not addressed all his complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably. It was not customer focused, and it may have contributed to the resident’s documented view that the landlord was a poor communicator.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and in total it sent the resident 9 extension requests, up to 27 October 2023. The landlord then stopped sending extension requests. Paragraph 6.4 of the landlord’s complaints policy confirmed that if the landlord needed more than 10 working days to response it would explain why and give an expected timescale for the response. It tells us that the resident can contact the Ombudsman for advice at any point. Paragraph 5.2 of the Code explained that any extension over 20 working days should be agreed by both parties. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the Ombudsman’s contact details should be provided. The landlord acted inappropriately and unreasonably because:
1. The landlord did not seek to confirm if the resident agreed with an extension, it just stated the timeframe was extended.
2. After the second extension the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the extension request. His language showed that he did not agree with the extension.
3. The landlord did not provide the resident with the Ombudsman’s contact details.
4. When the resident responded to each extension with continued dissatisfaction, the landlord did not reply to these and continued to send the same standard extension letter.
5. The landlord did not provide any explanation for the delay.
6. The resident’s responses to the extension requests told the landlord about new complaint issues and asked to speak to a manager. These requests were not progressed.
From 27 October 2023 until the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not send anymore extension requests. The resident had to chase the landlord to find out what was happening. Paragraph 4.10 of the Code tells landlords they should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even when there is no new substantive information to provide. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its inaction may have contributed to the resident’s time and trouble taken to progress his complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent on 9 February 2024. This was 162 working days from the landlord’s acknowledgement of the complaint. While the landlord may have had reasons for the delay, at no point did it tell the resident what they were. It was unreasonable of the landlord to expect the resident to wait so long without knowing why. This lack of detail will undoubtedly have contributed to the resident’s growing frustration at the delay.
The resident told the landlord that it had not addressed his complaint completely. He said it had missed out his complaint about the SAR. On 8 December 2023 the resident had emailed the landlord and mentioned he was dissatisfied with the outcome of his SAR request. He also complained about the gardens. The landlord did not do anything with this information. The content of his email was not compared to the original complaint to check if there were new issues. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code tells us that if a resident raises additional complaints, then they should be incorporated into the complaint if relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. If it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably, it should have ensured the resident’s points were responded to.
By 20 February 2023 the resident had sent 2 emails that explained why he was unhappy with the stage 1 response. As he had expressed to the landlord that he found it difficult to take in all the information, the landlord extended the date in which he could escalate the complaint. The landlord acted reasonably. It recognised the need for an adjustment, it was customer focused.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler sent the resident’s emails across to the complaints team. He explained he had given the resident more time but that he was unsure if the 2 emails constituted the resident’s escalation or not. He also informed the resident of his actions. The landlord acted reasonably, and the information was sent to the correct team to decide on the next action.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation was acknowledged 39 working days after 20 February 2024. The landlord should have recognised the uncertainty the stage 1 complaint handler had about the escalation and checked with the resident. It took the resident chasing the landlord for the acknowledgement to be actioned. The landlord acted unreasonably and inappropriately. It missed its published timescale and that of the Code. Its inaction demonstrated that it did not have a firm grasp of the complaint and that its procedure was failing to take complaints efficiently through the process. This may have contributed to the resident feeling distress and inconvenience in chasing the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the SAR and provided a response within the stage 2 complaint response. It explained what it had done and gave the resident information on how to take this part of the complaint further if he remained dissatisfied. The landlord acted reasonably. The resident had a full response to his SAR complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 13 May 2024, which was 17 working days after its acknowledgement. This was in line with the landlord’s policy to send a response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The Code at the time told us the response should be within 20 working days of escalation. Although the landlord’s response time was not in keeping with the Code at the time, the landlord did respond quickly once it recognised the complaint was escalated. It was the time it took to acknowledge the escalation that was unreasonable, as detailed above. The Code has been updated and is now aligned with the landlord’s policy.
Over the 2 stages the landlord offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures. It did state at stage 1 the £50 compensation offer was £25 for its failure to update the resident’s phone number and £25 for the delayed complaint response. However, at stage 2 the landlord confirmed its increased £100 compensation offer was for 2 complaint handling failures. Errors such as this make it difficult for the Ombudsman to determine if the compensation was fair, when it is not completely clear how the compensation is divided out. Landlords should check the offers made at stage 1 to ensure the offer made at stage 2 is clear.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s remedy fair whether it was £75 or £100 for complaint handling. It was in keeping with the landlord’s policy on payments for complaint handling but there was room within the landlord’s policy to offer more, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In this case a payment of £300 would have been reasonable, for a situation that adversely affected the resident, and where the landlord acknowledged the failings, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.
The complaint handling process is not only about acknowledging mistakes but also letting the resident know why the mistakes were made and how the landlord intends to put things right. The landlord did not provide any explanation for its delays, nor how it intended to improve. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord provides detailed information on its website about how it is improving its resident’s service across different parts of the business. It should have provided some content in its extension requests and complaint responses. This may have helped the resident understand the landlord’s situation.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. Its stage 1 response was delayed for too long and the complaint process at this point was impersonal and protracted. The resident had multiple complaints, and the landlord failed to communicate effectively with him to cover all his complaints and requests.
In May 2024 the Ombudsman published its special investigation report into this landlord. One of the recommendations, that relates to the findings in this case, was for the landlord to ensure that it has one system in which staff can record complaints, escalation requests and responses, including all the relevant fields needed to ensure the landlord can satisfy itself that it is following its own policy and complying with the Code. This system must include monitoring the landlord’s progress toward actions committed to in its complaint responses, and trigger points for interim contact to keep residents informed. The Ombudsman acknowledges this is in progress at the time of this report and for this reason does not make an order in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his concerns of discrimination and bias.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the disabled parking bay and access improvement requests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the impact of its failings on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650, made up of:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and his concerns of discrimination and bias.
2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in handling the disabled parking bay and access improvement requests.
3. £200 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.
4. £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.
These payments must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.