PSOW Individual Decisions

Mrs A complained that Trivallis failed to respond to the complaint she submitted regarding the works that need completing at the property. The Ombudsman found that the Housing Association failed to provide a complaint response. The Ombudsman said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs A and decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to, within 3 weeks, provide a final complaint response that will also include an apology and explanation for the delay.

Ms A complained that Trivallis (“the Housing Association”) failed to follow Safeguarding and Anti-Social Behaviour (“ASB”) procedures in response to the concerns she reported. She said that the Housing Association failed to respond to her correspondence within reasonable timeframes, or comply with its complaints policy. The Ombudsman decided that the Housing Association had responded appropriately to Ms A’s Safeguarding and ASB concerns. It had responded to the majority of Ms A’s complaints appropriately within reasonable timeframes, but there appeared to be some confusion when individual officers were unavailable, and some correspondence that had not been acknowledged or responded to. The Ombudsman acknowledged that this caused frustration for Ms A. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to provide a final response to Ms A to address any correspondence previously not responded to and to offer an apology for any delays. It agreed to provide clear details for reporting future concerns and timeframes to expect a response, and to review the use of out-of-office messages and a single point of contact, to ensure consistency in responding to correspondence when individual officers are unavailable. The Housing Association agreed to undertake the action within 2 weeks.

Mr B complained about the way the housing association Trivallis (“the Association”) dealt with reports of repairs at his home. The Ombudsman investigated whether the Association responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould and a broken boiler. The investigation found that the Association did not respond appropriately to reports of damp and mould in Mr B’s home. When Mr B reported issues to the Association, they were not dealt with in line with relevant policies and guidance. As a result Mr B lived in a home with outstanding repairs for nearly 7 years. The Association did not respond appropriately to reports of a broken boiler in Mr B’s home and did not follow its repairs policy. During the period boiler repairs were awaited, Mr B was not able to heat his home to a comfortable level. A repair was eventually carried out after Mr B’s wife made a complaint to the Association. Whilst not an issue specifically identified for investigation, the Ombudsman also had concerns about the way the Association responded to Mr B’s complaint. The Association failed to maintain accurate records which led to fundamental errors in the way Mr B’s complaint was addressed. The Ombudsman was concerned that the failings identified in this case may be systemic. The Association did not provide an explanation as to why, despite Mr B making many repair requests, problems were not resolved sooner. The failings identified during this investigation are also significant. Association employees did not attend Mr B’s home to carry out an inspection of his roof; photographs from a previous visit were used to support the incorrect assertion that they did. The Association also failed to provide records requested as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations which the Association accepted: Within 1 month: a) Provide evidence that the Association has acknowledged and apologised to Mr B for the failings identified in this report. b) Provide evidence that the Associatio

Mrs C complained about whether Trivallis (“the Association”) responded appropriately to reports of damp and mould made by her between November 2023 and the present time. The investigation found that the Association did not always respond appropriately to reports of damp and mould. Reports of issues in Mrs C’s home were not always acted on promptly or line with relevant policies. Surveys have identified moisture in the same area of Mrs C’s home but the Association has yet to definitively establish the cause. The way the Association communicated with Mrs C was also not always appropriate and I have seen no evidence that the Association considered the needs of disabled children living in Mrs C’s home when responding to reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman was concerned that the failings identified in this case may be systemic, with opportunities missed to identify the issues in Mrs C’s home. The failings identified in this case, particularly in relation to repair requests from vulnerable people, are ones from which other organisations can learn. The Ombudsman made a number of recommendations which the Association accepted. Within 1 month: a) Provide evidence that the Association has acknowledged and apologised to Mrs C for the failings identified in this report. b) Provide evidence that the Association has offered Mrs C a financial redress payment of £840. This includes £500 for the cost of a mattress, clothes and toys Mrs C has had to dispose of, £40 for the survey she arranged and £300 for the distress caused to her by the failings identified in this report. c) After the next period of significant wet weather or when the tenant next reports any evidence of damp on the wall, to remove the plasterboard in the area where moisture has been recorded and undertake a full inspection of the wall. A copy of this inspection should be shared with Mrs C and this office. Within 3 months: d) Carry out any works determined as necessary as a result of the inspection of the wall.

Mrs X complained regarding the significant delays by Trivallis to complete the works / replacement of the windows. The Ombudsman found that there had been a significant delay in completing this work and said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, offer an apology and explanation to Mrs X for the significant delays in completing the work, ensure the fitting of the window restrictors is completed and to offer a financial redress payment of £250 in recognition of the time and trouble and significant delays.

Ms A complained that Trivallis (“the Housing Association”) had failed to resolve outstanding bathroom repairs. These included a leaking toilet, damp and mould, the shower not working and taps not turning off. The Housing Association upheld Ms A’s complaint in July 2024, but matters remained unresolved. The Ombudsman found that although the Housing Association had recently undertaken some repair works, there had been a significant delay in undertaking the repairs, and the issues with damp and mould had not been resolved. The Housing Association had not provided Ms A with regular or meaningful updates in relation to a planned bathroom replacement. Ms A had been inconvenienced by the organisation’s actions and the delay in carrying out repairs, which had caused her frustration. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Housing Association agreed to, within four weeks, provide Ms A with a written apology for the delay in completing the bathroom repairs, supply Ms A with a schedule of works to address the damp and mould issues, and offer her a financial redress payment of £125 in recognition of the inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble she experienced in pursuing her complaint. It further agreed to, within eight weeks, provide Ms A with an update on the planned bathroom replacement works.

Mrs A complained that Trivallis failed to carry out repairs to the internal walls of her property. Mrs A contacted the Housing Association, but the matter was not logged as a complaint. The Ombudsman found that Trivallis had previously informed Mrs A that it would send a tradesperson to her home to assess the walls, but this had not taken place, and it had not responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Trivallis’ agreement to, within 2 weeks, offer an apology to Mrs A, issue a response to her complaint, arrange for a tradesperson to visit her property to assess and agree repairs to be completed and to offer to pay £100 redress for the delay.

Miss X complained that her front garden was in disrepair, and she had not received updates or a response from Trivallis Housing Association. The Ombudsman found that the Association had incorrectly closed the complaint and failed to update Miss X, despite her repeated attempts to follow up with the Association. She said this caused uncertainty and frustration for Miss X. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Association’s agreement to, within 4 weeks, apologise to Miss E, explain the reasons for the lack of communication and the failure to provide a complaint response, offer to pay her a £250 redress payment and issue a stage 2 complaint response

Ms X complained that her garden had been unusable and unsafe for many years. She complained that Trivallis had failed to act promptly to address the issues, even once it had undertaken a site survey and monitored the problems in order to establish what works were required. Finally, she complained that the proposed area of garden to be levelled was too small and that the timescale for completion of the work necessary to make her garden usable was unacceptable. The Ombudsman found that Trivallis had failed to address Ms X’s concerns for several years, had delayed works once it had been established what was required, and had failed to explain why it proposed to level only part of the garden. The Ombudsman asked Trivallis to, within 1 month, apologise to Ms X, pay her £250 for her time and trouble in pursuing her concerns and to explain why it would not level the entire garden. Within 2 months, the Ombudsman asked Trivallis to complete the necessary works. Trivallis agreed to these actions and so the Ombudsman did not investigate.

Ms A complained about delays in Trivallis undertaking repairs to her home. This included a delay in addressing an issue with the radiators at the property and also carrying out planned maintenance to the garden. The Ombudsman found that Trivallis had been due to undertake the work to the radiators in December 2023, but the works did not go ahead. Following her complaint submission to the Ombudsman, Ms A reported further deterioration to the rear garden wall. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman contacted Trivallis and in resolution of Ms A’s complaint it agreed to, within1 week, commence the work on the radiators and the planned maintenance work to the front and rear garden. Additionally, within 2 weeks, to provide an apology and offer a sum of £100 to Ms A for the delay in undertaking works to the radiators.

Mrs A complained about the action Trivallis had taken in respect of reports of water damage in her home. Trivallis had identified additional moisture in the air at Mrs A’s home. It determined that this was likely being caused by the space required for a hoist into her bathroom, which was allowing water vapour to migrate through her home. Whilst Trivallis had undertaken some work to reduce the levels of moisture in the air in Mrs A’s home it had not resolved the issue regarding the space required for the hoist. Trivallis agreed to complete works to Mrs A’s bathroom that were intended to reduce the migration of water vapour. It agreed to monitor the situation with Mrs A over the next 2 months and to work with her to consider further options should they be needed.

Miss A complained that Trivallis (“the HA”) failed to renew her loft insulation following a rat infestation. Miss A detailed the mental health impact this was having on her. Following a further review of Miss A’s complaint, the HA, having identified some failings in its investigation process, agreed to remove and renew Miss A’s loft insulation and make a redress payment to her of £100 as an acknowledgement of its service failure. The Ombudsman considered the actions by the HA was reasonable and the matter was settled.

Mr A complained about the length of time Trivallis Housing Association had taken to complete repairs to his property and that he still did not have a time frame within which his kitchen would be replaced. The Ombudsman decided that whilst the Housing Association had taken steps to complete the repairs, Mr A was still waiting fora date for the kitchen to be replaced under planned works. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained the Housing Association’s agreement to update Mr A every 3 months to keep him informed on the likely time scale for the works.

Ms E complained that Trivallis had failed to respond to a complaint she submitted on 22 March 2024. The Ombudsman found that whilst the Association had communicated with Ms E, its communications were not clear, and it had not appropriately managed her expectations in respect of the substantive issues raised . This caused additional frustration and uncertainty to Ms E. The Ombudsman decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and agreed with the Association to provide a written apology, within 2 weeks, for the quality of its responses and an offer of £50 for time and trouble.

Mr E complained that Trivallis failed to action a roof repair which has been ongoing for over 6 months. The Ombudsman found that there had been a delay in Trivallis undertaking the repairs required. Furthermore, Trivallis had failed to provide regular and meaningful updates to Mr E. She said that this caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr E. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Trivallis agreement to provide the necessary apologies and explanations for the oversights, undertake the necessary repairs and offer to pay £75 to Mr E for his time and trouble in making his complaint to the Ombudsman within 2 weeks.

Miss L complained that Trivallis had failed to act on concerns regarding a damp and mouldy property. She further complained that works had been delayed and caused further damage to her property. The Ombudsman concluded that there had been a significant delay in resolving Miss L’s concerns, and that it had failed to complete promised works within a timely manner. She also concluded that there were outstanding concerns to be investigated and said this caused frustration to Miss L. As an alternative to an investigation, the Ombudsman sought and gained the Associations agreement to provide Miss L with an apology for the delays, investigate and assess any further work required on the property, provide a further complaint response, and issue a time and trouble payment of£100 within 30 working days.

Miss X complained that Trivallis had cancelled and rescheduled operative appointments and she still had outstanding repairs to her shower. The Ombudsman decided that there had been delays and oversights with the appointments and that Trivallis had closed its file before the repairs had taken place. She said this caused frustration and uncertainty to Miss X. She decided to settle the complaint without an investigation. The Ombudsman sought and gained Trivallis’s agreement to issue a written apology to Miss X and offer her redress of £100 within 2 weeks.

Ms X, a tenant of Trivallis (a social housing provider), complained that the fitting of an intercom to assist with her disability had been delayed and that other repair works (to a shed, windows and shower) were outstanding. This included where contractors booked had failed to attend Ms X’s home, as anticipated, to undertake the necessary works. During the Ombudsman’s enquiries into the complaint, the intercom was fitted and completed to Ms X’s satisfaction. Service failure was identified in relation to the other delayed matters. As an alternative to an investigation, and in resolution of Ms X’s concerns, Trivallis agreed to undertake the following actions (within 1 month save where specified differently): • To apologise in writing to Ms X for the service failure identified. • Offer Ms X redress of £150 for her time and trouble in having to pursue these issues with the Ombudsman. • A named contractor to attend on 28 April 2022 to deal with the shed. • A further inspection of the shower to take place on 27 April 2022 and a carpenter to attend the same date to replace the bath panel. • A contractor to visit to deal with the windows issue on 28 April 2022.

Miss X complained that the Association had failed to complete work in her property and would not communicate effectively with her. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned that Miss X was restricted from contacting the Association by telephone and that written correspondence from the Association was not always clear or in large print. As an alternative to an investigation, he asked the Association to complete the following in settlement of Miss X’s complaint: By 31 March 2022, a) Apologise to Miss X for the poor communication b) Provide Miss X with a detailed complaint response which addresses the outstanding repairs and communication concerns

Mr X complained that the Association had failed to move the extractor fan on his landing into the bathroom. Having no extractor fan in the bathroom had caused damp. The Association acknowledged to the Ombudsman that it did not install a new extractor fan in a timely manner. It should have also communicated with Mr X more effectively. The Association therefore agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay £100 in recognition of its shortcomings, within 1 month. The Ombudsman considered this to be an acceptable resolution as an alternative to an investigation.

Mr D, a tenant in a residential block of flats largely owned and managed by Trivallis Housing Association (“the HA”), complained that since taking up his tenancy in 2018, the HA had: 1. Failed to implement and enforce its anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) policy in response to his numerous reports and complaints about the unacceptable behaviour of neighbouring HA tenants (and their visitors). 2. Failed to appreciate and respond to the impact that the ASB directed at him by his neighbours had on his mental health. 3. Failed to facilitate his re-housing application despite agreeing that moving away from the Flats would be in his best interests. The Ombudsman did not uphold Mr D’s complaints. With regard to complaint1, the Ombudsman found extensive evidence that the HA attempted to apply and enforce its ASB policy in extremely difficult circumstances in a (measured) way that was consistently supportive of tenants (including Mr D) with vulnerabilities. The more substantive enforcement actions taken against problematic tenants were applied in those instances where there was clear and supported evidence of high level ASB (and/or criminal behaviour). These measures (which included eviction notices) were only taken when multiple warnings had been issued for repeat ASB and where supportive attempts to maintain a tenancy and improve conduct had failed. With regard to complaint 2, the Ombudsman found that, throughout his tenancy, the HA made reasonable efforts to provide Mr D with support, advice, guidance and practical help, and that it was instrumental in facilitating the mental healthcare and support that he received through his GP and via referrals to numerous other mental health support services. With regard to complaint 3, the Ombudsman found that the HA had clearly explained to Mr D that the local authority had full control of the Common Housing Register and that, as such, it was not within the HA’s gift to advance any housing register application or to award priority bandi

Mr X complained that the Association had failed to start or complete any of the work to his property, as outlined in their complaint response to him dated 18 December 2020. In considering the complaint, the Ombudsman was concerned about the delays that Mr X had experienced, that the Association had not adhered to the timelines it set in their response letter and that he had been inconvenienced by the Associations actions. The Association agreed to undertake the following in settlement of Mr X’s complaint: • Provide Mr X with an apology for the delay in responding to his complaint. • Provide Mr X with an explanation for the delay. • Provide Mr X with a Stage 2 complaint response which should address the substantive issues raised in his complaint. The association agreed to carry out the above actions within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, by 21 June 2021.