PSOW Individual Decisions

Ms B complained that Pobl failed to address and resolve certain matters of her complaint in its complaint response. The Ombudsman found although most matters of Ms B’s complaint had been addressed, certain issues had not been addressed. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Pobl’s agreement to provide a full complaint response specifically addressing the matters that were missed, along with an apology and explanation for the oversight.

We investigated a complaint from Ms W about whether the Housing Association responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould as well as repairs needed to electrics and whether it had appropriately managed the subsequent re-wiring of her home. The investigation identified that the Housing Association had not responded to Ms W’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. We also found that the Housing Association did not have a repairs or maintenance policy. The Housing Association was unable to provide sufficient evidence of its attempts to carry out repairs to Ms W’s property. It was also not adequately able to explain why the repairs had taken almost 2 years to complete. We therefore upheld Ms W’s complaint and recommended that the Housing Association write to Ms W to apologise for the maladministration identified. We recommended that the Housing Association make a financial redress payment of£250 for the poor complaint handling and £500 for the delays and distress this had caused. In addition, we recommended that the Housing Association reimburse Ms W her rent from 16 October 2024. We also recommended that the Housing Association develop a repairs and maintenance policy and that it review its records management process.

Mr A complained that the Housing Association had not taken sufficient steps to address the concerns he had raised with regards to a neighbours antisocial behaviour. Mr A expressed concern over a lack of communication from the Housing Association. The Ombudsman found that the Housing Association had failed to provide a formal complaint response. The Ombudsman felt that this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Associations agreement to, within 4 weeks, provide a formal, comprehensive complaint response and to provide regular updates to Mr A about the ongoing legal action being taken against the neighbour.

Ms K complained that Pobl failed to respond to a complaint she submitted in November 2024. The Ombudsman found that Ms K’s initial complaint had been sent to an unmonitored email address. Ms K submitted a second complaint which did not fall within the Association’s complaints process but it had failed to explain the reasons. This caused additional frustration and uncertainty for Ms K. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to write to Ms K, within 7 working days, to apologise and explain the actions taken to remove the unmonitored email address and explain why her complaint does not fall within the complaint process.

Mr J complained that Pobl failed to respond to a complaint concerning a rat infestation in the communal bin area. Mr J said that the rats are entering his garden and damaging his property. The Ombudsman found that while the Association had communicated with Mr J about his concerns, it failed to explain or offer to escalate his concerns to its formal complaint process. The Ombudsman said that this caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr J. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to issue Mr J with a complaint response within 3 weeks. The response should include an apology and an explanation for the mismanagement and poor communication. The Association also agreed to offer Mr J a redress payment of £50in recognition of his time and trouble contacting the Ombudsman.

Ms A complained that Pobl had failed to take timely action to repair or replace broken bins in the communal bin storage area, which had resulted in a subsequent rat infestation at Ms A’s home. The Ombudsman decided that there had been a substantial delay in completing the repairs and the Housing Association had not provided a formal response to Ms A’s complaint, leaving her feeling uncertain if, or when, any further action would be completed. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to issue a full response to Ms A’s complaint within 2 weeks, confirming the date when the repairs would be completed.

Mrs A complained about Pobl’s response when she had repeatedly raised issues about her heating not working properly over the past year. She said that Pobl had previously agreed to replace some of the heaters that were not working but had not done so. She had made a formal complaint to Pobl but had not received a response. Pobl said that it was currently awaiting a quote to replace the heaters. It acknowledged Mrs A’s formal complaint had been received in June 2024, but had not been replied to. It therefore agreed, within 2 weeks, to provide a formal response to Mrs A’s complaint, including an explanation for the delay and any apology/redress it considered may be due.

Ms X complained that Pobl had failed to deal with her complaints about damp and mould in her property or to update her. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in Pobl dealing with Ms X’s complaint and it had not updated her, although after the Ombudsman approached Pobl, it planned to visit Ms X’s property to discuss her concerns. Despite this, the Ombudsman said that the delays had caused frustration for Ms X and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Pobl’s agreement to apologise to Ms X for the delay in responding to her complaint and failing to update her, offer a £50 redress payment and to issue a Stage 2 complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mr E complained that Pobl had not responded to a complaint he raised in February 2024, concerning a faulty patio door that had fallen off its hinges. The Ombudsman found there had been a delay in investigating the complaint and responding due to an internal assignment error. She found this caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Mr E. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman agreed with the Association that it will write to Mr E, within one week, to acknowledge and explain its error. To pay Mr E £25 for his time and trouble. The Association also confirmed to attend and repair the door within one week.

Mr A complained that he was ignored by the Housing Association when he reported repairs to his property including a leak which needed repairing. The Ombudsman considered the complaint and decided that whilst the Housing Association had taken steps to complete the repairs, it had failed to provide a formal response to his complaint. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to provide a full written response within 20 working days. As the Ombudsman considered this to be an appropriate resolution, she did not investigate the complaint.

Ms A complained that Pobl failed to respond the complaints she made over the telephone. Pobl said that there was no evidence on its system that Ms A had complained. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Pobl’s agreement to contact Ms A to confirm her complaint and provide a written response within 20 working days.

Ms X raised a formal complaint concerning damp and mould to Charter Housing Association (Part of the Pobl Group) in November 2023. She complained that she has not received its response. The Ombudsman found that the Association is still actively investigating her concerns and awaiting information but failed to update Ms X. This caused additional frustration for Ms X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without and investigation. She sought and gained the Associations agreement to write to Ms X, within 2 weeks, apologising for failing to update her and to provide her with an explanation of the current position.

Mr R complained that the Charter Housing Association (Part of the Poble Group) failed to repair a communal gate since reporting its poor state in 2004, despite its contractor carrying out various inspections. The Ombudsman concluded that the Association had made attempts to repair the gate but it had failed to provide a formal complaint response to communicate this and to detail what went wrong and how it proposes to resolve his complaint. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation and sought and gained the Associations agreement to issue its complaint response and apologise for the delay within two weeks.

Mr L complained that repair works that have been ongoing for4 years had not yet been actioned. Mr L further complained that despite raising numerous concerns with Pobl, it failed to respond. The Ombudsman concluded that the Association failed to carryout repairs in a timely manner and failed to keep Mr L updated. She said this caused Mr L frustration. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Associations agreement to provide an apology to Mr L for the delays and communication failure, provide him with an update and timeframe on the repair work, and issue a time and trouble payment of £100 within 30 working days.

Miss F complained that Pobl failed to provide a response to her complaint about an incorrectly fitted electric shower. The Ombudsman decided that Pobl had failed to issue a complaint response nor provide regular and meaningful updates to Miss F. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss F. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Pobl’s agreement to apologise to Miss F, provide an explanation for the failure and issue a complaint response within 4 weeks.

Mrs A complained about the robustness and accuracy of a Stage 2 investigation undertaken by the Council into the care and support provided to her late mother (Mrs C) by an Extra Care Facility operated by Pobl. The Ombudsman commenced an investigation into the appropriateness of the Stage 2 investigation against the Council and exercised discretion and commenced an investigation against Pobl in relation to the substantive aspects of Mrs A’s complaint. The Council undertook an internal review of the Stage 2 investigation and identified that certain aspects of the investigation report were not as robust as it would expect. It was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support all of the findings. The Council agreed to undertake the following actions: • Within 1month apologise to Mrs A for the issues identified within the internal review in relation to the robustness of the original Stage 2 investigation and provide her with a redress payment of £450 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress of pursuing the complaint • Within 4 months undertake a further Stage 2 investigation (undertaken by a new Independent Investigator). Whilst the remit of the investigation is to be agreed between Mrs A and the Independent Investigator, the investigation will consider as a minimum: • Whether care staff should have undertaken checks on Mrs C overnight between 23 and 24 January 2020 and whether these checks were carried out • Whether care staff applied Timodine cream as directed between 13 January and 23 January 2020 • Whether the care staff ensured Mrs C’s skin integrity was monitored in January 2020 given the moisture damage that she had around her groin and sacrum area upon attendance at hospital • Whether care staff should have arranged for Mrs C to be moved off the commode sooner on 23 January 2020

Mrs A complained about the robustness and accuracy of a Stage 2 investigation undertaken by the Council into the care and support provided to her late mother (Mrs C) by an Extra Care Facility operated by Pobl. The Ombudsman commenced an investigation into the appropriateness of the Stage 2 investigation against the Council and exercised discretion and commenced an investigation against Pobl in relation to the substantive aspects of Mrs A’s complaint. The Council undertook an internal review of the Stage 2 investigation and identified that certain aspects of the investigation report were not as robust as it would expect. It was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support all of the findings. The Council agreed to undertake the following actions: • Within 1month apologise to Mrs A for the issues identified within the internal review in relation to the robustness of the original Stage 2 investigation and provide her with a redress payment of £450 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress of pursuing the complaint • Within 4months undertake a further Stage 2 investigation (undertaken by a new Independent Investigator). Whilst the remit of the investigation is to be agreed between Mrs A and the Independent Investigator, the investigation will consider as a minimum: • Whether care staff should have undertaken checks on Mrs C overnight between 23 and 24 January 2020 and whether these checks were carried out • Whether care staff applied Timodine cream as directed between 13 January and 23 January 2020 • Whether the care staff ensured Mrs C’s skin integrity was monitored in January 2020 given the moisture damage that she had around her groin and sacrum area upon attendance at hospital • Whether care staff should have arranged for Mrs C to be moved off the commode sooner on 23 January 2020

Mr X complained that there was damp in his property caused by the neighbouring property owned by the Association. He also complained that he had not received a response to his complaint. The Ombudsman was concerned that Mr X had not received a formal response to his complaint and that he had been inconvenienced by the Association’s actions. He decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to carry out the following actions within 2 weeks: • Provide Mr X with a formal complaint response • Provide Mr X with an explanation for the delays in providing a formal response • Provide Mr X with an apology for the delay

Miss X complained that the Association had not carried out the required repairs to her property and had not responded to her complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman was concerned about the significant delays Miss X had experienced in having repairs carried out, the delays receiving a response and that she had been inconvenienced by the organisation’s actions. The Association advised that it was not sustainable for it to carry out the necessary repairs and it had now offered Miss X an alternative property, with the removal costs being met by the Association. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation and also sought and gained the Association’s agreement to carry out the following within 2 weeks: · Provide Miss X with a formal apology for the delay in responding to her complaints · Provide Miss X with an explanation for the delays · Provide Miss X with a formal complaint response · Offer Miss X redress of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to her in having to complain to the Ombudsman about the failures identified · Commit to review Miss X’s complaint history to ensure that lessons are learnt, and staff are trained to prevent any recurrence in the future