Hyde Housing Association Limited (202101398)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101398

Hyde Housing Association Limited

22 April 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of the mutual exchange process;
2. response to the resident’s reports that her boiler was not working properly;
3. response to various reports of outstanding repairs at the property;
4. decision not to replace the kitchen in the property;
5. handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered;
6. decision to stop communicating with the resident’s representative.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident resides in a two-bedroom end-terrace house which she rents from the landlord. She moved into the property with her husband on 30 November 2020 by mutual exchange.
The landlord states that it has no record that the resident or other household members have any vulnerabilities or require any adaptations. The resident however states that her husband was disabled and had severe COPD, this Service has seen evidence that the resident refers to these disabilities throughout her communications with the landlord. In late 2022 the resident’s husband passed away.
She also advised that her son has been acting on her behalf as she had been suffering from stress and has given permission for him to act as her representative in relation to this Service’s investigation.
The resident has made two separate formal complaints to the landlord in April 2021 and November 2021. The complaints relate to the way the mutual exchange process was conducted and several outstanding repairs. This report only makes reference to the repairs that were raised by the resident in her complaint to this Service.
The landlord accepts that, at the date of this report, there are some outstanding repairs to the property, these are:
1. Damp survey to the bedroom
2. Repair to the outdoor WC roof
3. Jet the external WC pipework
4. Check the loft for holes in the brickwork
5. Replace insulation in the loft.
The landlord has stated that these repairs are outstanding due to difficulties working with the resident’s son. It stated that it had “become too difficult to deal with [the resident’s son] as he has prevented access to our repair services. We have identified that [the resident’s son] has hindered resolution rather than aided the resolution to his parents repairs. He is also difficult to communicate with”. The landlord said that it had now ceased communications with the resident’s son.
The landlord states that other repairs requested by the resident will not be completed as they are considered improvements, not maintenance.

Mutual exchange

A mutual exchange is an assignment of tenancy between two social housing tenants. Put simply, one party swaps their home legally with another.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it will inspect the property before the exchange takes place and that it “remains responsible for all landlord obligations but tenant responsibilities such as minor repairs and internal decoration must be seen and accepted by the incoming exchange partner”.
The landlord’s policy states that it will carry out gas and electric safety tests on the day of the mutual exchange and issue certificates to the incoming tenant.

Repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property and installations for water and space heating.
Section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 places an obligation on the resident as an assured tenant to allow the landlord access to carry out required repairs.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that it will attend to emergency repairs within four hours (and make safe within 24 hours). It states that non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s tenancy handbook describes loss of heating and hot water between 1 October and 31 March as an emergency repair.

Unacceptable behaviour

The landlord operates an unacceptable behaviour procedure to manage “unreasonable demands on our service or unreasonable behaviour towards staff”. Included in its definition of unacceptable behaviour are:
1. Unreasonable demands (including “repeatedly changing the substance of an issue/complaint or raising unrelated concerns” and “insisting on seeing or speaking to a particular member of staff”).
2. Unreasonable levels of contact (“when the amount of time spent…responding to, reviewing and filing emails…impacts on our ability to deal with that enquiry or complaint or with other customers’ complaints”).
3. Unreasonable refusal to co-operate.
The procedure outlines actions the landlord may take in handling unreasonable behaviour, this includes limiting contact to particular time periods and restricting contact to a particular member of staff (a single point of contact).
The procedure also states that, when a decision has been made to restrict contact, the landlord will explain this to the resident and inform them of their right to appeal.

Complaints

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to stage one and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The complaint policy states that, if the landlord exceeds the timeframe of 20 working days without advising the resident that the deadline will not be met, the complaint will automatically be escalated to stage two of the procedure.
The landlord states that if a resident requests escalation of their complaint to stage two, it will “review the case to determine if it warrants a review at stage 2 of our process. We will consider any request for a complaint to be escalated to Stage 2.”
The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it may not agree to escalate a complaint where:
1. The customer is not happy with the level of compensation offered.
2. The customer has not yet received a full response.
3. The customer is waiting for a repair and the repair appointment is imminent.
4. The customer has not explained why they remain dissatisfied or explained what resolution they would like to see.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the boiler in the property was installed in 2018 (two years prior to the resident moving into the property). Two repairs were carried out to the boiler in 2019.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord carried out a ‘mutual exchange inspection’ on the property. The inspection form notes that the inspection was carried out via “whatsapp call” so the form is unsigned. On the same date the landlord emailed the resident confirming that it had carried out the inspection by video and attached a copy of the inspection form.
The resident moved into the property on 30 November 2020. On 21 December 2020 a new pump was fitted to the heating system and the system was flushed.
On 17 March 2021 two new radiators were fitted to the property, one in the hallway and another in the living room. The heating system was flushed again and the boiler pump valves changed.
In April 2021 the resident complained to the landlord regarding the way the property inspection was handled prior to the mutual exchange. They raised the same issue again in March 2022 and stated that they did not believe that the required EPC and gas and electric checks had been completed. The landlord has stated that, due to government guidelines relating to Covid-19, at the time of the mutual exchange both parties were advised that viewings would be conducted via video call, the resident agreed to this verbally and also signed the appropriate documentation. The landlord has also stated that the resident did view the property in person but that this was arranged without the landlord’s involvement or knowledge at the time. The landlord has stated that the relevant checks were completed and has provided a copy of an electrical certificates dated 2 October 2020 and 8 January 2021, a gas certificate dated 25 September 2021
On 16 April 2021 the resident contacted this Service and stated that she had made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its mutual exchange process, issues with her boiler, and other outstanding repairs. She said she had not received a response. This Service contacted the landlord and advised it to provide a response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2021 and apologised that it had not yet provided a full response to her complaint. It stated that it required longer to gather the relevant information and would provide a full response by 26 May 2021.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response:
1. Apologised for the delay in acknowledging her complaint, this was caused by staff shortages.
2. The landlord accepted that the mutual exchange viewing had been carried out by video call, this was due to Covid guidelines. The resident had agreed to this verbally and signed the appropriate inspection documents, she had also told the landlord that she had viewed the property on two earlier occasions.
3. By entering into the mutual exchange the resident accepted the property in its present condition. The resident had signed to agree to this.
4. The resident reported that the landlord’s heating contractors had been involved in an argument in her property and this had scared her. The contractors had provided a different version of events and stated that the resident had been “aggressive and rude” towards them.
5. The landlord’s surveyor had attended the property on 4 March 2021 and carried out an inspection. He raised works orders for all of the repairs that were pointed out to him during his inspection. The resident had later requested additional repairs.
6. The resident had stated that she wanted the kitchen to be replaced. The surveyor stated that it was “in good condition and is not beyond economical repair and it does not require replacing”.
7. The resident reported that she had no heating or hot water on 16 December 2021. The resident was provided with temporary heaters and the heating system was flushed five days later. Further repairs to the boiler were carried out in March 2021 and May 2021 but the resident continued to report issues.
8. The resident reported that there was asbestos behind the shed after the surveyors visit. Works had therefore been raised to remove this.
9. The resident reported in May 2021 that the structural beams in the loft appeared to be rotting and that there were dead birds, birds nests, and faeces in the loft. The landlord’s roofing contractor had confirmed that a new roof was required and this would be arranged along with pest control to remove the birds.
10. There had not been a service failure however the resident had been without heating and hot water for six days in December 2020. Therefore the complaint was partially upheld and the landlord offered £75 compensation.
11. The landlord agreed to contact the resident to arrange to carry out the following works:
  1. Pest control to attend to birds in the roof
  2. New roof and guttering to be installed
  3. Inspect the boiler and radiators.
On 27 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The resident stated that she did not feel that the landlord fully considered the complaint and was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.
On 4 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it would not be escalating her complaint to stage two of the complaint process. It stated that this was because:
1. Its stage one complaint response was based on information provided by the resident, conversations with those involved in the case, and its policies and procedures.
2. All details of the complaint had been checked thoroughly and all aspects of the complaint responded to.
3. The resident had been advised by the landlord that she would be unable to attend the property in person prior to the mutual exchange due to government guidelines during the Covid pandemic. The resident had however advised the landlord that she had attended the property twice in person whilst the previous resident was living there. The resident had signed the mutual exchange paperwork after the video call and accepted the property.
4. The landlord’s contractor had given a different version of events regarding the resident’s allegations of inappropriate conduct. It had alleged that they were “spoken to in an unsuitable manner and they were being distracted from the repairs that they were attempting to make”.
On 29 July 2021 the landlord’s repair records show that a heating operative attended the property and found the pressure on the boiler to be fine but recommended a “re pipe heating system due to partial blockage making system noisy”. The resident stated that she wanted a new combi boiler to be fitted and requested a new radiator in the kitchen. The operative noted that “Tenant complaining about everything, but [were] friendly and not aggressive just frustrated”.
On 27 August 2021 a repair was logged as there was no power to the boiler. The landlord’s repair log states “very urgent this is a major complaint”. The records show that the landlord replaced the main circuit board.
On 20 October 2021 the repair records show that a supervisor from the landlord visited and noted that there were “many issues” and that a new pressure vessel was required and a ‘leak sealer’ needed to be put in the system. The notes state that if this did not work, a re-pipe would be required. On 3 November the required parts were fitted and tested, the records state that the system was “all working”.
The resident emailed the landlord’s heating contractor on 5 November 2021 and advised that the new cylinder had not improved the situation and in fact the noise had worsened. She said the radiator in the kitchen was still off and the house was “really cold”. The contractor confirmed that its supervisor would attend on 8 November 2021 to investigate her concerns.
On 19 November 2021 the landlord’s property contracts manager visited the resident whose son was present. It was agreed that the following actions would be taken:
1. Copies of EPC, electrical test certificate, and gas test certificate to be provided as these were not supplied during the mutual exchange process. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the electrical certificate dated 8 January 2021.
2. The central heating system would be assessed to confirm whether it was suitable as numerous repairs had been orders since the start of the tenancy.
3. The resident had requested that the landlord revisit its decision not to replace the kitchen.
The landlord’s property contractor’s manager emailed the resident on 29 November 2021 and stated that the landlord’s kitchen replacement team had advised that the resident would need to formalise her kitchen request review via the landlord’s complaint process. He also stated that the resident had moved to the property by mutual exchange less than ten months earlier and had “left behind a property that was fully adapted and met with your family needs”.
Emails between the landlord and its heating contractor on 30 November 2021 state that the resident had been contacted by an engineer from the contractor that day to advise that there was “no point” in them attending the appointment as “whatever he puts in his report is being ignored…a new boiler is required due to the ongoing repairs and multiple parts needed”. Subsequent emails show that the contractor investigated and confirmed in December 2021 that its engineer did make this statement.
On 30 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that there were a number of outstanding repairs to the inside and outside of her home and that the landlord’s contractor were not communicating with her. She said that no property inspection had been completed when the resident moved into the property by mutual exchange and that an inspection would have identified the repair issues. She said that the boiler in the property was faulty and had undergone ten repairs, she had been advised by the landlord’s contractor that the boiler needed to be replaced. A radiator had been turned off in the kitchen by the contractor two months previously and she was therefore unable to keep her open plan kitchen/front room adequately warm. Her husband had COPD and the cold was impacting his health “massively” and he had been forced to stay with family on a number of occasions. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 1 December 2021 confirming receipt of her complaint.
The landlord has provided emails from its heating contractor that demonstrate that it attempted to contact the resident by email on 13 December 2021 to book an appointment but received no response. The contractor stated on 6 January 2022 that they had received communication from the resident that they no longer wanted to communicate with the contractor.
On 5 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to state that she had not received any response to her complaint made on 30 November 2021.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint, the resident agreed to allow access to the heating contractor to assess the boiler repair. The resident’s son then called the landlord back and advised that no access would be provided and he would only discuss the matter with the complaints team as he was waiting for its complaint response.
Internal landlord communications on 10 January 2022 state that “The customers expectations need to be managed though in that she can not demand or refuse to speak to specific people or teams, this is in line with the Unacceptable Behaviour policy.”
The landlord was contacted by the office of the resident’s local MP on 9 February 2022 as the landlord had not yet responded to the resident’s formal complaint. The resident had advised the MP that the landlord’s contract manager had stated that the previous resident had not allowed access to the property for any repairs. The property had not had a new kitchen in the last 30 years due to the previous tenant not allowing access and the property was on the planned maintenance schedule for a new kitchen
On 12 March 2022 the resident reported having hot water but no heating. The repair records show that an electricians report dated 14 March 2022 stated that the issue was with the pipework which was blocked. A further repair job was raised on 18 March 2022 for an “electrical fault” stating that the resident had no heating or hot water and that electric heaters had been provided. An electrician attended on 24 March 2023 and stated that the electrics were working fine and there were no boiler faults whilst they were on site.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge their formal complaint and advised it would provide a full response by 31 March 2022. It stated that it understood that the complaint was about:
1. No property inspection had been carried out when they completed signed the mutual exchange.
2. The boiler needed to be replaced as it made a noise when it was on “like a siren”.
3. There had been failed appointments by the landlord’s contractor.
4. The radiators were not working.
5. The resident had requested a new kitchen.
6. There was asbestos in the shed which required removal.
In March 2022 the landlord attended to inspect the fencing and gate as the resident had reported that the gate post had twisted. The landlord’s records show that the customer had cut out a cat flap in the wooden gate which had caused the post to twist. The resident stated that she felt it was due to poor workmanship in the first instance. The landlord advised the resident not to carry out any further alterations unless permission had been given. The landlord has provided photographs of the garden fence, posts and gate. They all appear to be new and in reasonable repair.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 21 March 2022 and advised that his parents still did not have heating or hot water. He also advised that the following issues needed adding to their complaint:
1. No gas or EPC certificates were provided when his parents moved into the property.
2. There was no insulation in the loft.
3. The chimney needed repointing.
4. Slabs needed installing in the garden.
5. New pipework and toilet were required in the outdoor WC.
6. There was damp and mould in the bedroom due to holes in the brickwork of the chimney breast.
7. There were tiles missing on the outdoor WC roof and water was entering the light fitting which was a health and safety risk.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and her son to advise that it was unable to respond to her stage one complaint within its ten-day timeframe as it was waiting for further information from its teams. It stated it would provide a full response by 14 April 2022.
The landlord provided a seven-page stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 13 April 2022. The letter provided a response to each complaint raised by the resident:
1. No property inspection prior to the completion of the mutual exchange. The mutual exchange took place during the Covid pandemic and restrictions on movement applied at the time. The inspection was done via Whatsapp call and the resident agreed to this.
2. Boiler issues. The resident had accepted the property in the condition it was in. The boiler had been in the boiler at the time and therefore wouldn’t be moved to the kitchen as requested. The landlord provided details of a number of repair requests and appointments for the boiler between 2020 and March 2022. It stated that due to the number of repair callouts it would schedule an inspection with a heating contractor to determine what works were required.
3. Paving/gravel to the garden. The landlord confirmed that garden paving or gravel was to be installed to a specified area. When its contractors had attended to complete the works the resident had requested a larger area be paved/gravelled, this had resulted in the contractors leaving site. The landlord would pave/gravel the agreed area, no other area would be paved/gravelled.
4. Asbestos removal. The landlord would arrange for the asbestos to be removed from behind the shed by the end of May 2022.
5. New kitchen. The property was not due a new kitchen as it was in good condition. The resident had been advised of this in May 2021.
6. No EPC/gas certificates when the resident moved in. This was addressed in the resident’s previous complaint. EPC’s are available to access on the government register. The landlord acknowledged it had not provided a copy of the gas certificate although a copy was on file.
7. Roof works. The property had been inspected and no chimney work was recorded as being required. The resident had stated that the loft let cold air into the property, it was normal to allow ventilation to prevent condensation.
8. Loft insulation. The landlord did not have a record of the resident raising this as a repair request and there was no record that insulation had been removed by the contractor when it had attended to remove birds nests. The landlord’s contractor would attend to re-fit insulation before the end of May 2022.
9. Damp in the bedroom. The landlord had inspected the bedroom and found no damp. Re-fitting the insulation should resolve any damp issues.
10. Outdoor WC. The resident had requested a camera putting down the pipes due to blockages and a new toilet and drainage installing. The landlord stated it did not need to install new drains and would not be installing a new toilet, it would however jet the drains.
11. Roof on outdoor WC. The landlord stated that its property contracts manager had inspected the roof and found it to be in good condition. The roof issues had not been reported via the repair process. Therefore, as the resident had not requested the repair, there was no service failure.
12. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint with regards to the boiler issues and gas certificate. It offered compensation of £250 for distress and inconvenience.
Also on 13 April 2022 the landlord emailed its contractor and stated that the following works required completing to the resident’s property by the end of May 2022:
1. Replace missing loft insulation
2. Remove asbestos from behind shed
3. Pave/gravel agreed area of garden
4. Jet the outdoor WC manhole
5. Fix the outdoor WC roof.
The resident’s son reported to the landlord on 14 April 2022 that his parent’s boiler was not working and they were without heating and hot water “for the 20th time”.
On 20 April 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord and advised that since 14 April 2022 the resident only been able to access hot water when the heating was turned on. He said that he was having to assist his parents with the additional cost of having the heating on and the delay was unacceptable considering both the resident and her husband were disabled. The landlord replied on 21 April 2022 and advised that its heating contractor had stated it had tried contacting the resident to book an appointment to fit a new part to the boiler. The landlord asked that the resident call the landlord back to make an appointment.
On 25 April 2022 the resident’s son responded to the landlord’s stage one complaint response. He stated:
1. The compensation offer of £250 was not sufficient.
2. There had been 19 repairs logged and completed on the faulty boiler. The resident had been without heating and hot water on a number of occasions. The resident currently had been without heating and hot water since 16 April 2022 – a period of nine days. The resident’s husband was having to stay with his son as, due to his severe medical condition, he required access to hot water.
3. The stage one complaint was raised on 1 December 2021 and the landlord did not respond until 18 March 2022.
4. The contractor had advised that a drain away needed to be installed before shingles could be put down.
5. The landlord’s contractor had attended in January 2022 and inspected the brickwork, chimney, loft, damp, and holes in the WC roof. The resident was advised someone would be in contact as further works were required but no one got in touch.
6. The brickwork had been identified by the landlord’s contractor as requiring re-pointing in order to remedy the damp in the bedroom. The resident’s husband could not sleep in the bedroom which was damp due to his ill-health.
7. The resident’s husband required use of the outside WC due to his ill-health.
On 26 April 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord and stated that he attached photographs of holes in the loft area where birds could get in and missing pointing in the chimney.
The landlord’s heating contractor carried out an inspection of the heating system on 27 April 2022. The report states that several parts on the boiler required replacing, there was no insulation in the loft, and the bathroom radiator was undersized. The conclusion of the inspection was that the following work was required:
1. Fully investigate and replace the “3 port zone vale and cylinder stat”.
2. Install loft insulation to a thickness of at least 200mm.
3. Replace the undersized bathroom radiator with a larger one.
On 29 April 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord’s chief executive and asked that he get involved to resolve the situation. He said that he had “extreme concerns” about his parents wellbeing as they were disabled and had, at the time of his email, been without heating and hot water for nearly three weeks. He stated that his mother was unable to afford to use electric heaters and was “going to bed shivering” and that his father was having to stay with him some nights as the situation was worsening his COPD. The chief executive responded the same day advising that a member of the team would contact him the same day. Emails show that the resident’s son was contacted on the same day by telephone by the head of the landlord’s safer homes department.
On 4 May 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord’s chief executive to state that he was unhappy with the way he had been spoken to by the colleague handling his complaint. He stated that she had lacked empathy and professionalism and that he was no longer willing to communicate with her, he asked that a manager contact him. Internal landlord emails demonstrate that the complaint handler had spoken with the resident’s son on the phone and that she had stated that he had been “very unpleasant”.
The resident’s son contacted the landlord on 5 May 2022 to confirm that despite new parts being fitted to the boiler, it had continued to display further issues. The landlord responded on the same day to state that a new boiler would be installed and the contractor would contact the resident to book an appointment to complete the work.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord contacted the resident’s son and offered an appointment for 9 May 2022 to remove the asbestos from behind the shed. The resident’s son responded asking the complaint handler not to contact him anymore.
On 10 May 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord and stated that a contractor had attended the property to fit a new boiler but had said he could not complete the works and a further survey was required. On the same day the landlord responded and stated that it had spoken to the contractor who had said they were unable to complete the works as the resident had asked that the new boiler be positioned in the outdoor WC, this was not possible. The resident’s son denied that his mother had made this request. The landlord confirmed that the works would be booked back in and the contractor would contact the resident directly.
Also on 10 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor contacted the landlord and stated that they had attempted to contact the resident to book an appointment to jet the toilet but that it the resident hung up on them when they explained what they would not be replacing the toilet. When they tried to call back it appeared “their number [had] been blocked” by the resident.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord provided the resident with two vouchers for £30 each to top up their gas.
The landlord received an email from its contractor on 17 May 2022 which stated that the asbestos subcontractor had attended the resident’s property the previous day but was refused access which had incurred costs for the landlord. The contractor stated that it was managing the complaint to the best of its ability but that it was “becoming increasingly difficult to have any works undertaken due to reluctance of tenant”.
The landlord emailed the resident’s son on 20 May 2022 to advise that the following works would be carried out on 25 May 2022:
1. Shingle an area of the garden
2. Install loft insulation
3. Tile the outdoor WC roof
4. Jet the drain

The landlord added that, as the outside WC was functional, this would not be replaced.

The resident’s son replied to the landlord on 20 May 2022 and stated:
1. The landlord’s email had not mentioned a number of repairs that were outstanding.
2. A grounds inspection had confirmed the drain away was needed as the area was liable to flooding otherwise.
3. The landlord’s complaint process had failed and no resolution had been agreed.
4. The landlord’s repairs contractor had been trying to bully the resident and had been contacting her directly despite being advised to go via himself.
5. The only works that should go ahead the following week was the replacement of the boiler.
The landlord emailed the resident’s son on 23 May 2022 and advised that it was “confident [it had] the correct specification of works” and would continue with the work it had identified. The landlord said that its contractors had been prevented from completing work to remove asbestos on 16 May 2022. It stated that if access was refused it would “look to take action against the tenancy”. The landlord asked the resident’s son to confirm that access would be provided on 25 May 2022 for repairs to be carried out to shingle the garden, install loft insulation, tile the outdoor WC roof, and jet the drains.
The resident’s son responded to the landlord on 23 May 2022 and stated that the contractors had not been “properly briefed” and required access to the property next door to the resident to remove the asbestos. He stated that the landlord was using “bullying tactics” by threatening to take action against the tenancy and advised that all outstanding works were “on hold”. The landlord’s chief executive (who had been copied in to previous email communications by the resident’s son) replied and stated that the landlord was being prevented from addressing the resident’s concerns and there were financial costs to the landlord. The chief executive advised colleagues to agree an appointment within the next seven days.
The resident’s son further responded by stating that his parents were not refusing access but were concerned that the landlord was ignoring their reports of further repairs that were required including:
1. Waterlogged area of garden required a drain away to be installed prior to shingling.
2. Boundary fence posts were rotten and insecure and the garden gate had fallen off.
3. There was damp and missing brickwork in the loft.
4. The chimney was loose and unsafe.
5. The radiator in the kitchen needed turning back on.
The landlord replied on the same day stating it had communicated with its contractor who advised that a drain away was not required. The fence posts were in good condition and did not require replacement. The landlord had spoken to its contractor and asked that it “manage your expectations better when on site and avoid feeling pressured into agreeing things with you that they know are not necessary”. The radiator would be turned on when the heating contractor attended on 25 May 2022. The landlord stated that it felt that the outstanding loft insulation installation and outdoor WC roof were impacting on the resident and was therefore “not willing to delay this work”. It also felt that reported mould growth was a result of these outstanding works and would be treated on 25 May 2022 if the resident allowed access. The landlord stated it would cancel the works to shingle the garden, jet the drain, and remove the asbestos but would raise these again if the resident changed her mind.
The resident’s son again replied on 23 May 2022 stating that no access would be provided on 25 May 2022. He said he felt the landlord was using “bullying tactics” by threatening action against the tenancy. The landlord reiterated its position on 24 May 2022 that it had cancelled the external works but was unwilling to cancel the repairs appointment for the following day to the boiler, WC roof, and loft as it felt these works were impacting on the resident. The landlord stated it was not its intention to threaten the resident but it wanted to “progress these works for your parents and bring this case to a close for everyone”.
On 25 May 2022 the resident’s son contacted the landlord and advised that the new boiler had been installed that week and that the “service and workmanship…was excellent”.
The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord that access was refused by the resident on 25 May 2022 to complete works to the WC roof and loft. The landlord emailed the resident’s son on 26 May 2022 and advised that it would attempt again to access the property on 8 June 2022 to complete the repairs and if access was refused again would then seek a court injunction. The landlord noted to the resident’s son that “at times your frustrations are resulting in unacceptable and often personal comments being made to our staff and colleagues and I would ask that you refrain from this behaviour as we move forward”.
The landlord’s chief executive officer emailed the resident’s son on 26 May 2022 and stated:
1. Relations between the resident’s son and the landlord had broken down.
2. The communications from him were “confrontational and aggressive to [landlord] colleagues who are trying to support” and were causing a “distraction to serving other customers”.
3. The landlord had attempted to complete the repairs requested by the resident which were its responsibility but access had been refused on numerous occasions.
4. Where the requested repairs were not the landlord’s responsibility, this had been made clear.
5. There were rights and obligations on both the resident and landlord under the tenancy agreement to facilitate keeping the property in good repair. When access was refused for repair appointments this came at a financial cost to the landlord and caused a delay in repairs to other customers homes.
6. The formal court injunction process was “a way of facilitating entry to allow repairs. It is not a process to remove or evict your parents who should have the comfort of being safe in their home”.
7. The resident’s son had refused to work with the named repairs team colleague. This colleague would remain the names point of contact but would only liaise with the resident (not her son). If the resident required another representative or advocate, one could be agreed.
On 5 June 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to report that the resident’s pipes had started banging around a week previously and that it was so loud that the neighbour was complaining about the noise. The resident had contacted the contractor who installed the boiler and they had advised that it sounded like an air lock but that they needed the landlord to raise a callout.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 6 June 2022 and asked that all scheduled repair appointments at the resident’s property be cancelled as his father was unwell. He stated that he was not refusing the completion of the works but said his father’s health needed to be the priority.
On 8 June 2022 the resident’s son emailed the landlord to complain that despite him cancelling the appointment that day, operatives had still attended. He said that the operative had been aware that he had cancelled the appointment due to his father’s ill-health but had attended anyway. He also stated that the operative had been sarcastic and unprofessional. The landlord replied to this email stating that, as it had advised on 26 May 2022, it would no longer engage with the resident’s son and would liaise with the resident or another advocate. It stated that it was “committed to resolving the concerns that [it was] responsible for” and had instructed its legal team to begin the process of applying to court for an injunction to gain access to complete the works.
The resident’s son replied on 8 June 2022 that it was “disgusting” that the landlord was threatening to take legal action when his father was “seriously unwell”. The landlord replied on the same day that court action was not its “preferred route” but that this provided “structure and support where relations break down and an agreement cannot be reached”.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord provided a final response to the resident’s complaint. It stated:
1. It was sorry that the resident had experienced issues with their boiler.
2. The resident had also made a complaint about outstanding repairs to the inside and outside of their home.
3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 13 April 2022 had explained that the boiler works would be completed by the end of May 2022.
4. It was sorry it had been unable to provide appointments for the works in its stage one response but it had to wait to confirm contractor availability.
5. The landlord’s contractor had completed a boiler install and moved the boiler into the kitchen. The resident had advised she was happy with the works.
6. The landlord had provided appointments for the garden paving, damp issue and loft insulation replacement but the resident did not allow access for the works. Had the resident allowed access, the work would have been completed within the timeframe outlined in the stage one response.
7. The resident had raised repairs that the landlord had not identified in any surveys it had completed. These included:
  1. outside toilet roof damage
  2. fence posts are insecure
  3. garden Aco drain
  4. chimney is unsafe and loose.
8. The landlord could not do works that the resident would like but that were not essential to the maintenance of their home.
9. The landlord’s asbestos removal contractor had attended to remove the concrete contamination but the appointment was aborted due to “interference” from the resident who wanted the landlord “to do [its] work a certain way”. The costs incurred by the landlord of the failed appointment may be recharged to the resident as per the terms of their tenancy.
10. The landlord would no longer communicate with the resident’s son as communications had “completely broken down”. The resident would need to communicate with the landlord themselves or via a different advocate.

Events after the complaint process

The landlord emailed the resident’s son on 13 June 2022 advising that it could not take instructions from him but that it would put the contractor on standby so that “when an alternative advocate has been identified and a request is made, the contractor can expedite a visit”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 June 2022 and said that its contractor had advised that the resident had not been “permitting access for essential repairs” despite appointments being booked. The landlord stated that the resident’s tenancy agreement required her to provide access to the property to allow the landlord to complete repairs with a minimum of 24 hours’ notice. The letter stated that refusal to allow access for the works was a “tenancy breach and further enforcement action could be taken” if the resident did not allow access.
On 21 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it would attend on 4 July 2022 to instal loft insulation and repair the external WC roof. The resident responded to the landlord on 23 June 2022 and said that she had been admitted to hospital the previous day with severe chest pains and breathing difficulties. She stated that due to her poor health she could not allow any work to commence at her property. The landlord replied on 28 June 2022 confirming that it had cancelled the appointment for 4 July 2022 and advising that it was “keen to carry out these essential repairs as soon as possible” when she felt able to allow access.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 3 August 2022. He stated that the resident had been trying to arrange for an operative from the contractor who installed her boiler to attend but was “not getting anywhere”. He advised that the boiler was making a loud noise throughout the night and day. The following day the landlord replied confirming that it had passed this information on to its heating contractor. It reminded the resident that her son should not be “intervening” in the case and should he be at the property when the contractor attended, they would withdraw their services.
The resident advised this Service on 5 August 2022 that the landlord had not advised in writing that it was removing her sons ‘delegated authority’ to speak on her behalf. She said that this was “blatant victimisation” and that her son was being “unfairly silenced” as he had not been rude to the landlord or its contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident severe distress as she has experienced repair issues including intermittent heating and hot water in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her husband. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident’s husband suffered from COPD and other health issues, unlike a court however we cannot establish what caused the health issue to worsen or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.

Handling of the mutual exchange process;

The landlord has acknowledged that it did not follow its policy or procedure during the resident’s mutual exchange. It states that, due to Covid guidelines and to ensure staff and resident safety, it was not possible for the viewing and pre-tenancy inspection to be carried out in person and therefore this was done via video. Having considered the landlord’s position, this Service considers that the landlord had sound reasoning for its decision to complete the inspection via video call. It is understood that this form of inspection would not have ordinarily been the format that would have complied with the landlord’s policy; however, due to the Covid lockdown, the landlord had to make reasonable adjustments to allow the mutual exchange process to be reasonably progressed.
With this being said, the mutual exchange process requires the incoming resident to agree to accept the property in the condition it is in and therefore accept responsibility for any non-responsive repairs. It was not reasonable of the landlord to expect her to do so when only a superficial virtual ‘viewing’ had been carried out. This was a failing that impacted the resident’s rights. The responsibility for identifying the repairs was not on the resident, but on the landlord. The landlord’s responsibility was to inspect the property and identify any repairs that would have fallen within its remit and ensure these repairs were reasonably completed. As the virtual inspection did not allow the landlord to thoroughly inspect the property in the way it would have needed to identify the relevant repair issues, detriment was caused to the resident as she accepted and moved into a property that subsequently had multiple repair issues (particularly ones relating to the boiler) which caused distress and inconvenience to her vulnerable family. The landlord’s reasoning for why it had to complete a virtual inspection does not deter from the fact that detriment was caused to the resident.
The landlord has accepted that, whilst it had carried out the required gas and safety tests on the property and had an EPC available, these were not provided to the resident during the mutual exchange. This was not in line with its policy and procedures, or with statutory requirements, and was therefore a failing. The landlord has however demonstrated that the testing was carried out and therefore the failing did not have a detrimental impact on the resident as the property was safe.
Overall, the landlord failed to carry out a thorough inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange and failed to provide the resident with copies of the gas, electric and EPC electric certificates on the day of the exchange. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its own policy and procedure and there was maladministration.

Response to the resident’s reports that her boiler was not working properly;

The resident first reported issues with the boiler within one month of moving into the property. Within a 16-month period between December 2020 and April 2022 the landlord accessed the property 13 times to carry out inspections and repairs and within this period the landlord fitted several new parts including a new pump, installed two new radiators, flushed the heating system a number of times to clear suspected blockages, and applied a leak sealer.
This Service accepts that it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the heating system before making the decision to replace the boiler. This does not however diminish the impact that the boiler issues had on the resident and her family and, in the view of this Service the landlord delayed unreasonably in making the decision to replace the boiler.
The resident reported being without heating or hot water for six days in December 2020, without heating on 12 March 2022, and on 21 March 2022 reported having neither heating nor hot water. On 14 April 2022 the resident again reported having no heating or hot water. An operative attended and reinstated both heating and hot water but the hot water only worked when the heating was turned on. The resident’s son reported that this had financial implications on the resident.
In May 2021 the landlord did provide the resident with £60 of energy top-up vouchers. Whilst this was provided through the landlord’s ‘foundation scheme’ and not through its complaint procedure, the vouchers will no doubt have reduced the financial impact on the resident of having to run her heating all the time.
The resident reported that her disabled husband had to stay with their son on many occasions as, due to his poor health, he required access to heating and hot water and his health was declining without them. This clearly caused distress and inconvenience to the whole family.
In November 2021, a year after the resident had moved into the property and 11 months after she first reported issues with the boiler, the landlord’s heating contractor told her that a new boiler was required but that no one was paying any attention to his reports. It is reasonable that this caused the resident severe frustration and distress and she felt that the landlord was ignoring the advice of specialists which was causing detriment to her family.
This Service has not seen any evidence that demonstrates that the landlord ignored any advice from its specialist contractor. It was a failing however that the contractor made such a statement and that the landlord did not address the statement with the resident having investigated with its contractor.
Overall, this Service considers that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the boiler issues and resident’s reports of no heating or hot water. Whilst the landlord was within its rights to attempt to repair the existing boiler, it should not have taken 16 months to determine that the boiler was beyond repair and a new one was required. The resident and her disabled husband were without heating and/or hot water on four occasions totalling 16 days which resulted in her husband having to sleep at his son’s house due to the impact on his already poor health. The landlord also failed to acknowledge comments made by its contractor which left the resident feeling that the landlord was ignoring expert advice and intentionally leaving her family without a fully working boiler. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler issues.

Response to various reports of outstanding repairs at the property

Asbestos

This Service has not seen evidence of when the resident first raised her request for asbestos to be removed from behind the shed but it was first referred to by the landlord in May 2021 during its stage one complaint response. The landlord stated that the resident had not raised the issue to its surveyor when he had inspected the property in March 2021 but that it would arrange for it to be removed.
When the resident raised a new formal complaint in March 2022, the asbestos had still not been removed. This Service has seen no evidence that there was a good reason for this delay and therefore it was unacceptable.
The landlord assured the resident in its second stage one complaint response in April 2022 that the asbestos would be removed by the end of May 2022.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler offered the resident (via her son) an appointment for 9 May 2022 to remove the asbestos. The resident’s son responded stating that he did not want any further contact with the complaint handler and did not confirm the appointment. This action by the resident’s son delayed the removal of the asbestos.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor states that it was refused access by the resident to remove the asbestos. This is refuted by the resident who states that the contractor required access to her neighbour’s garden to remove the asbestos and this had not been arranged. This Service has not seen independent evidence to confirm one parties version of events and therefore cannot determine what caused the delay on this occasion.
The landlord advised the resident that it wanted to attend the property on 25 May 2022 but the resident’s son stated that no access would be provided as the landlord had not confirmed that it would complete all of the works that the resident had requested. Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident’s son was attempting to obtain assurances that further works would be completed, his actions prevented the landlord from carrying out removal of the asbestos. The removal of the asbestos has still not been completed.
This Service considers that the landlord, had it carried out a full in-person inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange may have identified the asbestos and arranged for its removal prior to the resident moving in. This Service also considers that the landlord delayed unreasonably between May 2021 and May 2022 in removing the asbestos and this was a failing. The delay after May 2022 however was out of the control of the landlord as it was refused access by the resident’s son.

Waterlogged garden

The first mention seen by this Service that shingle/slabs were required in the garden was on 21 March 2022 when raised by the resident’s son. This Service considers that such work would generally be considered an improvement rather than a repair, however as the landlord agreed to carry out the works as a repair it is reasonable that it fulfilled its undertaking.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response in April 2022 that it was willing to apply shingle/slabs but that when its contractor had attended to install this, the resident had asked it to shingle an area larger than had been agreed. The landlord stated it was willing to shingle the garden but only the previously agreed area.
On 25 April 2022 the resident’s son stated that he had been told by the contractor that a drain away needed to be installed prior to applying the shingle or the area would continue to flood. This Service has seen no evidence that the contractor recommended such works to the resident or to the landlord and therefore considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to continue with its plans to shingle the garden.
The landlord contacted the resident to advise that it would install the shingle on 25 May 2022 along with other outstanding repairs. The resident’s son responded stating that the resident would not allow access for any works other than the boiler replacement. The landlord emailed the resident’s son a further two times to try and arrange access for the other works on 25 May 2022 and 8 June 2022 but the resident’s son continued to refuse access.
This Service considers that the landlord made reasonable attempts to complete the shingling to the garden and therefore there was no service failure in respect to this repair.

Fence posts

The resident has stated that she believes the fence posts require replacement as they are in poor repair.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has inspected the posts and that the twisting in one was caused by the resident installing a cat flap.
The landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the fence and posts to satisfy itself that the workmanship was acceptable and that the fence was safe. Therefore there was no service failure in relation to this repair.

Outdoor WC

The first time this Service has seen mention of issues with the outdoor WC was in March 2022. The landlord, in its April 2022 stage one complaint response stated that it had carried out a camera survey and found the pipes blocked with scale. It stated that it would not replace the toilet or pipework but would jet the pipes. This Service considers that this was a reasonable and proportionate response.
The landlord agreed to carry out the works before the end of May 2022 and offered the resident an appointment of 25 May 2022. The resident’s son refused this appointment as the landlord had not agreed to other requested repairs.
This Service considers that the landlord attempted to carry out reasonable repairs to the outdoor WC within a timely manner but was prevented from doing so. Therefore, there was no service failure.

Roof works and associated damp in the bedroom

In 2021 the landlord carried out works to the roof to remove birds’ nests, debris and droppings. During these works it appears that the insulation was removed.
The resident’s son has stated that, in January 2022, the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof and stated that work was needed. This Service has not seen evidence of this visit or these recommendations and therefore cannot determine whether work was required or what work this was. An order has been made for an inspection of the loft and roof to be carried out.
In March 2022 the resident’s son reported to the landlord that there were missing bricks in the roof, the chimney breast was damaged, and there was no insulation in the loft. He stated that the issues with the chimney breast were causing damp in both bedrooms in the property. In response, the landlord stated that its surveyor had found no damp in the bedrooms or issue with the chimney breast during his inspection in March 2022. It did however agree to replace the missing insulation to the loft which it asserted was the likely cause of any damp.
The landlord offered the resident an appointment for 25 May 2022 to install the insulation (along with carrying out works to the garden and outdoor WC) but the resident’s son advised it would not be given access as the landlord hadn’t agreed to complete other requested works.
It is the view of this Service that, as the resident reported damp and mould and as her husband was unwell and vulnerable due to COPD, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey rather than disregard the resident’s reports. This could have been arranged at the same time as the landlord carried out the remaining works and meeting the resident halfway may have made the resident more amenable to providing access. This was a failing. Orders have been made for the landlord to inspect and carry out all necessary works to the roof, chimney breast and insulation. The landlord has also been ordered to carry out a damp survey in the bedrooms and complete a mould wash if required.

Decision not to replace the kitchen in the property;

The resident requested, during her first stage one complaint, that the kitchen in the property be replaced as she stated that it was more than 30 years old.
The landlord stated in its complaint response that the kitchen was in good condition, was not beyond economical repair, and therefore did not require replacing.
Social housing landlords are required to ensure that their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. A property fails to meet this standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout;
3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC;
5. Adequate external noise insulation; and
6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
Whilst the kitchen in the property was more than 20 years old, the property did not lack any of the other facilities.
This Service has seen photographs of the kitchen which appears to be in good condition. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the kitchen required replacement and therefore the landlord’s decision not to replace it was reasonable.

Handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered.

This Service notes that the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s complaint process states that a stage one response will be provided within 20 working days. This timeframe was not in line with the ten working day timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord delayed unduly in providing a response to the resident’s first formal complaint made in March 2021. It took the landlord 40 working days to provide a stage one response, four times the timeframe outlined the Code. This caused the resident to have to invest unnecessary time and trouble to pursue a response and was a failing.
The landlord did not contact the resident to advise that it would require more time to consider her complaint until 12 May 2021, 30 working days after the complaint was made. This exceeded the response timeframe and therefore, according to the landlord’s policy, it should have escalated the complaint automatically to stage two of the process. This did not happen and the landlord refused the escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of May 2021 was extremely thorough and responded to each of the resident’s complaints individually. This was good practice and in line with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a service failure in its repair of the boiler and offered compensation of £75 for this. This Service does not consider that this offer of compensation provided proportionate redress. The resident’s husband had additional vulnerabilities due to ill-health and the impact on the household of the loss of heating and hot water was significant. An order has been made for the landlord to pay further compensation for the delays to the boiler repair and replacement.
The landlord failed to acknowledge in its stage one complaint that it had not carried out a sufficiently in-depth inspection of the property and it was therefore unreasonable to expect the resident to sign to accept the property in the condition it was in when the tenancy started. This was a failing of the complaint response.
The Code states that landlords must consider a complaint, or complaint escalation, unless an exclusion ground applies meaning that there is a valid reason not to. Such reasons would include the length of time since the issue arose or that legal proceedings had started. The landlord’s complaint procedure outlines circumstances where it would not escalate a complaint, these circumstances did not apply in the resident’s case.
The landlord delayed excessively again when providing a response to the resident’s second stage one complaint which she made in November 2021. The landlord did not provide a response until 93 working days later. This extended delay was unacceptable and caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and distress in chasing for a response. Whilst the landlord may have been making attempts to complete the required repairs and struggling due to challenges in gaining access, it should have made the decision to issue its formal response sooner. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the distress and time and trouble caused by this delay.
As the landlord did not respond or request an extension during the response timescale, the complaint should have been escalated straight to stage two in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s complaint response thoroughly addressed the issues raised by the resident. This was good practice however does not justify the lengthy delay.
The landlord acknowledged failings in its repair and replacement of the boiler and in failing to provide copies of gas and electric certificates at the start of the tenancy and offered the resident £250 compensation. This Service considers that the level of compensation offered does not proportionately reflect the lengthy period during which the resident and her vulnerable husband experienced intermittent heating issues. Not does it consider the inconvenience experienced by the household when the resident’s husband had to stay at his son’s property to avoid the cold and lack of hot water in the property.
The landlord finally took 30 working days to provide a final complaint response following the resident’s escalation request, ten days more than the timeframe given in the Code. This again caused time, trouble and distress to the resident.
The landlord’s final response did however thoroughly address all of the resident’s issues in turn and the landlord’s explanations were reasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were very thorough and addressed all of the issues raised by the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling was however excessively slow, did not bring about an efficient resolution to the substantive issues reported by the resident, and failed to proportionately compensate the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she had experienced. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Decision to stop communicating with the resident’s representative

The landlord has a duty to protect the wellbeing of its staff and prevent them from being treated in a way that may cause them distress. The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour procedure assists it in doing this.
This Service accepts that the resident’s son was representing his mother, the resident, and that his concerns regarding her wellbeing caused him to be distressed and frustrated.
The behaviour of the resident’s son did meet the definition of unacceptable behaviour outlined in the resident’s policy as the frequency and tone of his communication were numerous and heated.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident’s son refused to communicate with four members of landlord staff and, by the end of the complaint process, was repeatedly contacting the chief executive directly. He also refused access to the landlord on a number of occasions preventing repairs from being undertaken. This would have impacted on the landlord’s complaint handling and ability to complete the repairs required to resolve the complaint.
The landlord raised the unacceptable behaviour of the resident’s son on a number of occasions and accommodated his requests to liaise with different staff members prior to eventually advising the resident that she would need to find an alternative representative. The landlord therefore showed it had attempted other lesser options to avoid restricting contact with the resident’s son. This was reasonable.
When advising the resident of its decision, the landlord signposted her to a number of independent organisations who could assist her in finding a representative. This was reasonable and proportionate.
The landlord did however fail to advise the resident that she had the right to appeal the landlord’s decision and that the decision should be reviewed in the future. The landlord should have done this in line with its policy.
Overall, the landlord’s decision to cease communication with the resident’s son was reasonable. It had a duty to protect its staff and had attempted to appease the situation to avoid this action. The landlord should however advise the resident of her right to request a review of this decision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange process;
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that her boiler was not working properly;
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to various reports of outstanding repairs at the property;
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace the kitchen in the property;
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint including the level of compensation offered;
6. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision to stop communicating with the resident’s representative.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out a thorough inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange and failed to provide the resident with copies of the gas, electric and EPC electric certificates on the day of the exchange. It therefore failed to adhere to its own policy and procedures.
The landlord delayed unreasonably for a period of 16 months to determine that the boiler was beyond repair and a new one needed to be installed. During this time she and her disabled husband were without heating and hot water on four occasions and her husband had to stay at his son’s house. The landlord’s contractor made unprofessional comments which left the resident feeling that the landlord was ignoring expert advice and intentionally leaving her family without a fully working boiler. The landlord failed to acknowledge these comments.
The landlord delayed unreasonably between May 2021 and May 2022 to remove the asbestos. The delay after May 2022 however was out of the control of the landlord as it was refused access by the resident’s son.
The landlord made reasonable attempts to complete the shingling to the garden and therefore there was no service failure in respect to this repair.
The landlord attempted to carry out reasonable and timely repairs to the outdoor WC but was prevented from doing so. Therefore there was no service failure in respect to this repair.
The landlord could have done more, considering the vulnerabilities of the resident’s husband to investigate the reports of damp in the bedroom. It would have been reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould survey. This compromise may have made the resident more agreeable to providing access.
The landlord was not obliged to replace the kitchen in the property which, despite being over 30 years old, is in good condition.
Whilst the landlord’s complaint responses were very thorough, the landlord’s complaint handling was excessively slow and did not bring about an efficient resolution to the substantive issues reported by the resident.
The landlord’s decision to cease communication with the resident’s son was reasonable as it had a duty to protect its staff and had attempted other options to avoid this action. The landlord has however failed to advise the resident of her right to request a review of this decision.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of the report and provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman:

A senior officer from the landlord to apologise to the resident in person within four weeks of the date of this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident £1,050 which comprises:
1. £200 for the time and trouble caused by failing to carry out a proper mutual exchange inspection in line with its policy;
2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by undue delays in addressing the boiler issues;
3. £100 for the distress caused by the landlord failing to address the comments of its heating contractor with the resident;
4. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Update its system within four weeks of the date of this report to include information regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.
Within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to contact the resident and arrange to carry out a full survey of the condition of the property to identify any required maintenance. At a minimum the landlord should survey:
1. The roof including the insulation
2. The chimney breast
3. The bedroom walls (for damp and mould)
4. Garden gate
5. Outdoor WC roof
Within four weeks of the date of the survey, the landlord should agree with the resident mutually convenient appointments for it to complete any required repair. If the landlord does not consider that repairs are necessary, it should set out the reasons for this to the resident.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of the learning of this case including:
1. Carrying out a review of its mutual exchange policy and considering what action it would take where it was not possible to carry out an-in-person inspection in future.
2. Ensuring that where a decision is made not to communicate with a resident’s representative (due to unacceptable behaviour or other reason), the resident is made aware of their right to request a review of this decision.
3. The landlord to consider cleaning the toilet due to the buildup of scale. If the landlord does not consider it is within its responsibility to clean the toilet scale, it should set out to the resident its obligations and why it is not within its responsibility.