London Borough of Hillingdon (202427669)

Background

1. The resident signed his tenancy on 22 July 2024. He had not viewed the property since the completion of void works. His tenancy started on 29 July 2024. He reported problems with the property condition. These included no appropriate space in the kitchen for a fridge, damaged décor and an exposed capped radiator pipe. He asked us to investigate as he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses, including its communications.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of no adequate fridge space and concern about the property condition when let.
   2. The resident’s report of poor communication and lack of support provided.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of no adequate fridge space and concern about the property condition when let.
   2. The resident’s report of poor communication and lack of support provided.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. There were appropriate inspections of the property prior to the let.
   2. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded appropriately by completing an additional inspection to investigate his concerns.
   3. The landlord provided the resident with information as to where it had designated space for the fridge within the kitchen design.
   4. The landlord maintained and provided timely responses to the resident’s communications. It responded to his complaints in accordance with its complaint handling policy. However, it did not address the additional issues the resident raised in his escalation.
   5. The landlord provided a Welfare Reform and Tenancy Support Officer to assist with the move to the property.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s voids management policy states it will complete a void inspection prior to re-letting a property. This will include completion of a void inspection check sheet and a health and safety check. If it identifies any repairs, these are appointed and completed. All properties will be presented in a good condition.
8. The landlord’s records show that it appropriately carried out the post inspection on 17 July 2024. The inspection did not identify any further work required.
9. It is not in dispute that the resident raised concerns on the first day of his tenancy. These included a fault with the bedroom window and questions regarding space for a fridge within the kitchen. The landlord arranged for its contractor to repair the window on 7 August 2024. This is an appropriate response and within the landlord’s timescales for a routine repair.
10. The landlord did not advise the resident regarding his concerns on space for a fridge within the kitchen. It would have been reasonable for it to answer him on where it had designated space for a fridge within the new kitchen design. Following a further email from the resident on 5 August 2024, the landlord arranged an additional property inspection for 2 September 2024. This was an appropriate response from the landlord and shows that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
11. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident said he felt the standard of the flat was not appropriate to move in to when let. He stated space for a fridge was a basic requirement of a kitchen. He also raised the quality of the workmanship regarding paintwork. He said door hinges were painted over and net curtains splashed with paint.
12. The landlord inspected the property on 2 September 2024 to address the resident’s concerns. The inspection was carried out by 2 members of the council’s voids team. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 September 2024 which advised:
    1.      There were no paintwork defects found and no rubbish left in the property.
    2. The kitchen had enough space for a fridge/freezer. It noted the resident’s refusal to move in until a radiator was moved to accommodate his preferred location. It confirmed this was not a valid reason for it to move the radiator.
    3. It would complete 2 repairs identified to a shower curtain and larder shelves.
    4. These were minor and would not prevent him living in the property, and it would not change the tenancy start date or council tax liability.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect and assess the resident’s concerns and it promptly communicated the outcome of its investigations through the stage 1 response.
14. In his complaint escalation, the resident expressed concerns regarding the location of the kitchen radiator. This was regarding its proximity to the space the landlord advised a fridge would go. He also enquired about a discussion with the inspectors regarding the removal of the larder cupboard to allow for additional space in the kitchen. He raised concerns regarding an improperly finished wall and painted over trunking in the kitchen and an exposed capped radiator pipe.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated the resident had not given new evidence. It reviewed the information on file along with the information provided by officers from the inspection and stated it was satisfied with the resolution it had provided. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice and guidance provided by its officers who had inspected the property.

16. In the resident’s original complaint on 28 August 2024, he said the landlord had stopped replying to his communications. He also asked it for ongoing support due to his mental health condition.
17. The landlord’s records show that it responded to all emails received from the resident within 4 working days. This was a reasonable timescale. This enabled it to gather the relevant information or forward the correspondence to the correct team allowing time for a response.
18. The landlord’s response provided further clarity on its communications with the resident. It provided a list of dates it had received emails along with the dates and information provided within its responses. This shows it appropriately investigated the allegations and ensured no failings had occurred.
19. In the response, the landlord also addressed the lack of support offered. It said it had provided support via its Welfare Reform and Tenancy Support officer. It clarified that the officer would assist with benefits, bills, and grants for furniture as well as other things. It requested the resident let them know if he would like the officer to contact him. It also advised he contact his GP for any additional needs.
20. Overall, the landlord’s communications and record keeping were appropriate. It replied to all communications within a reasonable timescale and provided suitable points of contact for support.

21. The landlord issued its responses within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. The resident complained on 28 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 5 working days later on 4 September 2024. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 18 working days later on 9 October 2024. Each of these responses were issued within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
22. However, the resident raised additional concerns in the stage 2 escalation. The landlord did not confirm its position on these concerns. These included:
    1.     An exposed capped radiator pipe.
    2.     Painted over electrical trunking above the cooker.
    3.      An improperly finished wall in the kitchen.
    4.     The suggestion of removal of the larder cupboard.
23. It is acknowledged that the resident had not raised these as part of the stage 1 complaint. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to comment on its position regarding these concerns. In line with the Ombudsman’s Code, it should have confirmed if a new complaint was needed or if these issues were addressed as part of its original survey.