Industry News


Ombudsman urges Croydon Council to use learning as a springboard for improvement in delivering its housing services


T


he Housing Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in four cases involving Croydon Council, urging the


landlord to use these as a springboard to deliver better services. It also ordered the council to pay the residents


almost £8,500 in compensation. Te cases covered several aspects of the council’s landlord responsibilities, including anti-social behaviour, adaptations and mutual exchange.


CASE A In Case A, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration aÅ¿ter the landlord mishandled an upgrade and adaption to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It led the resident to believe it would carry


out extra works that did not form part of an occupational therapist’s recommendations as long as she paid for these, which she agreed to. Given that it was aware that she had physical


and mental conditions, the landlord failed to take these circumstances into consideration and missed several opportunities to put things right. Te landlord’s failure to follow its procedures,


its lack of knowledge and its delays in investigating the case effectively negatively affected her day-to- day living. On top of this, the landlord at one point


incorrectly told the resident it would not undertake her adaptations at all. Miscommunication between the landlord and the OT department was concerning, as both are part of the same local authority. Te landlord also failed to provide important


evidence by way of emails or call logs and notes of outcome of visits with key people involved, and therefore failed to demonstrate that it handled the upgrade and adaptations requests to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom appropriately. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to


pay £3,875 in compensation and organise an occupational therapist assessment of the entire property, following up on this with any adaptations that need to be made.


CASE B In Case B, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration aÅ¿ter the landlord failed to adopt a victim-centred approach or respond to the resident’s allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including indirect racial harassment. It failed to support the resident through


regular communication and there was no evidence


noise nuisance. Te resident reported that this impacted her mental health. Te landlord did not follow its own anti-social


behaviour policy during this case, and in particular did not keep the resident informed about the progress of the case until she complained again. Tis caused unreasonable delay and distress to the resident. It also took five years to supply any sound


In its learning from this case, the landlord says it has complied with the orders above and has therefore made improvements to its mutual exchange process


it liaised closely with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity. Despite numerous reports and the resident


stating the impact it was having on her mental health, the landlord failed to undertake a risk assessment and was unsympathetic to her concerns about attending court as a witness. Although there is evidence of the landlord asking


for timesheets from an early point, two years’ worth of these could not be found. It also took nearly three years, in which multiple neighbours had also experienced this ASB, for the landlord to hold a multi-agency meeting. Tese delays and failings led to severe distress for


the resident who, by the end of this investigation, had been complaining of this for nearly five years. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay


the resident £2,900 in compensation, for the housing director to apologise to the resident and for it to conduct a full review of its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the risk assessment matrix and action plans.


CASE C In Case C, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how the landlord handled


18 | HMMFebruary/March 2024 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


recording equipment, and the Ombudsman made an order to ensure this happened. Although equipment was in high demand, this was not a reason for it to be unavailable for this length of time. During this time, it also took years for alternatives to be arranged and used. While the landlord carried out an inspection and


wrote to the landlord during this case, it did not keep the resident updated of any outcomes and the issues remained. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to


apologise to the resident, provide her with a device such as sound recording equipment so she can make accurate reports moving forwards and pay £900 in compensation.


CASE D In Case D, the Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how delays in processing a mutual exchange application and arranging the inspection and repairs caused for the exchanged to be cancelled. Tis was despite a large amount of chasing by the


resident over a period of months. It also meant that the resident was leſt sleeping on the sofa as her son was using the only bedroom. Te landlord accepted this was a failing on


its behalf and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of it ever giving urgency to these works despite a 42 day deadline needing to be met. Instead, some of the works were completed two months aſter the exchange had already been cancelled. Although the landlord accepted its failings,


it did not offer any compensation for the upset, disappointment and distress it caused. It also offered no further practical support aſter this period. Te Ombudsman ordered the landlord to


provide a written apology from the Chief Executive, pay £700 in compensation and review its mutual exchange process. In its learning from this case, the landlord


says it has complied with the orders above and has therefore made improvements to its mutual exchange process.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52