Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202531124)

Background

1. The landlord charged the resident £333.39 for removing carpets from the property after he moved out. The resident disputes his responsibility for removing the carpets and believes the charge is not proportionate. He has vulnerabilities known to the landlord and has received support from Citizens Advice in making his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The carpet removal charge.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the carpet removal charge.
   2. Reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the carpet removal charge

4. The tenancy agreement says that upon leaving the property, the resident must remove all furniture and personal possessions. If any items are left, the resident will be responsible for any removal charges that the landlord may incur.
5. The landlord provided a document that listed items that were ‘gifted’ to the resident at the start of the tenancy, which included carpets. Any items gifted became the resident’s belongings. The documentation explained that the gifted carpets were the resident’s responsibility and should be removed when the tenancy ended.
6. On 20 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming the end of his tenancy. The letter included the statement: “Here is a list of some of the things you might need to arrange during your 28 days’ notice period: clear the property of your possessions including the carpets and curtains.” While the landlord was not obligated to send an end-of-tenancy letter, it was good practice to do so. The letter informed the resident that the carpets needed to be removed.
7. Both parties told us that the resident planned to leave the property in July 2023 to move to another property. However, that move did not go ahead, and the resident remained at the original property until October 2023, when he moved to a different property than originally planned.
8. The landlord did not send a further end‑of‑tenancy letter when the resident gave notice again in September 2023, which may have caused some confusion. However, the earlier letter clearly set out the landlord’s requirements, including that carpets must be removed, and we have seen no evidence that the resident queried these instructions at the time. The carpets were not removed when the resident left the property. As such, we consider the removal charge valid and reasonable.
9. We cannot comment on the level of charge set by the landlord as such costs can be impacted by a range of factors. Nevertheless, it provided the resident with relevant information to support the charge in its letter dated 16 November 2023, when it informed him of the amount due. This was reasonable. It also showed regard for his vulnerability by offering a payment arrangement.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

10. The landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 1 February 2024. Its policy states it will issue a response within 8 working days. However, the landlord did not respond until 14 March 2024, which was 22 days beyond its 8-working-day timescale. This was a failure and not in line with its complaints policy. The landlord did not apologise for the delay, which was inappropriate.
11. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 October 2024. Yet the landlord did not record the escalation until 18 November 2024.
12. The landlord’s policy says it will issue its stage 2 response within 5 working days. It provided its response – which was confusingly dated 20 December 2025 – on 17 January 2025, 60 days outside its 5-working-day timescale. The landlord apologised for the delay and acknowledged that it had failed to record the resident’s escalation in October 2024. To put things right, it offered to reduce the carpet removal charge of £333.39 by 50% to £166.70. The offer adequately compensated the resident for the inconvenience caused by failures in complaint handling.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.