Bassetlaw District Council (202337036)

Background

1. The resident and his family transferred to an alternative property, which they found to be in poor condition. The landlord agreed the property did not meet its lettable standard. It apologised, made an offer of compensation, agreed to reimburse any moving costs, and let the resident move back to his original property. The resident felt the offer of redress did not reflect the emotional and practical impact of the move on his family and their vulnerabilities. He asked us to assess whether the level of redress was reasonable in the circumstances.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of redress offered by the landlord.
   2. The landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the level of redress offered by the landlord.
   2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The level of redress offered by the landlord

4. The landlord agreed the property did not meet its lettable standards and took steps to put things right.
5. In line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ it’s offer of redress fairly recognised the actual financial loss of the move and the distress caused to the vulnerable household.

The response to the complaint

6. The landlord missed the chance to offer compensation for distress at an earlier stage. But it recognised this and appropriately resolved it as part of its stage 2 response.

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 agreed the property did not meet its lettable standards and that this had impacted the resident and his family. To put things right it:
   1. Apologised.
   2. Cancelled the charges for the rent and council tax.
   3. Offered to reimburse moving costs if the resident provided relevant invoices or receipts.
   4. Confirmed the resident’s waiting list priority.
   5. Offered £250 as a goodwill payment to recognise the emotional and practical impact of its failure on the household’s vulnerabilities.
   6. Committed to reviewing its inspection process to prevent this issue from happening again.
8. The landlord’s actions fairly helped restore the resident’s position to what it had been before the failure. It admitted its mistakes early, showed empathy, and offered compensation for both the quantifiable financial impact and the elevated distress caused due to the family’s vulnerabilities. The redress offered was broadly in line with an award we may have otherwise made under our Remedies Guidance for a finding of maladministration. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the circumstances.

9. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) published in 2022 applied when the resident made his complaint. The landlord responded as follows:
   1. It issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after receiving the complaint. This should have been issued within 10 working days.
   2. It issued its stage 2 response 14 working days after the escalation request. This was within the 20 working day timeframe set out in the Code.
10. We recognise there was a slight delay in issuing its stage 1 response, however, this would not have significantly impacted the resident.
11. We note the landlord offered compensation for the distress element at stage 2 of the complaint process, which was positive. However, as this formed part of the resident’s original complaint, it missed the chance to answer this element during stage 1 of the process. Nonetheless we recognise the landlord resolved this by the end of the complaint procedure. As such, although we consider there was a service failure, the landlord appropriately rectified this. For this reason, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

12. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate.

Communication

13. The landlord adopted a positive approach and committed to reviewing its practices when letting properties. This demonstrates that it appropriately identified learning from the complaint and was taking steps to implement this.