Derby City Council (202536211)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property on 18 June 2025. He lives with his partner and 1 year old son.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

1. reports about the condition of the property on letting
2. reports of poor staff conduct
3. repair requests
4. request for a kitchen refurbishment

3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports about the condition of the property on letting.
5. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of poor staff conduct.
6. There was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
7. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen refurbishment.
8. There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Condition of the property on letting

9. The landlord did not apply its Empty Homes Management Policy when carrying out the tenancy sign-up and follow up review after the start of the tenancy. The evidence strongly indicates that the property was not at a lettable standard when the resident moved in. This failure caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.

Staff conduct

10. The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation into the allegations of poor staff conduct and appropriately provided the resident with its findings.

Repair requests

11. The landlord identified some failings in its handling of the resident’s repairs and apologised. However, after identifying a communication issue in its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to communicate further delays, which caused distress to the resident

Request for a kitchen refurbishment

12. The landlord surveyed the kitchen and explained that the kitchen was not eligible for replacement but it offered a makeover. When the resident opted not to have a makeover, it continued to engage with the resident to ensure it met its repair obligations.

Complaint handling

13. The landlord failed to use its complaints policy effectively to identify failures to follow its own Empty Homes Management Policy. When it identified failings, it did not uphold the complaint. As such, it did not appropriately put things right for the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling caused frustration to the resident.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

14. The evidence shows that the landlord inspected the property as a void on 25 April 2025 and identified a number of repairs to be carried out. On the same void inspection sheet, a handwritten entry marked the property as ready to let on 16 June 2025. This was accompanied by 4 images of the internal of the property.
15. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 18 June 2025 and moved into the property the next day. The landlord’s Empty Homes Management Policy sets out that its sign-up process for new customers includes a “sign up checklist” which confirms the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. We have not been provided with any evidence that it completed a sign-up check list, and it has not referred to the tenancy sign-up check list in its complaint investigations. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not complete this checklist when it completed the viewing. As such, the resident did not have the opportunity to raise concerns at the beginning of his tenancy. This was inappropriate.
16. On 2 July 2025, the landlord records show that the resident reported a list of required repairs. In response the landlord surveyed the property on 24 July 2025. It found a number of repairs that fell outside the lettable standard. It emailed its Empty Homes team to follow up with the resident about these repairs. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take after the resident raised issues about the condition of the property.
17. Given the high level of repairs reported by the resident shortly after the beginning of the tenancy and the findings of the survey, it is reasonable to conclude that the inspection during the void period may not have been thorough. It is recommended that the landlord considers if its staff are fully trained to identify all issues in a property before it is let.
18. The landlord’s Empty Homes Management Policy sets out that it will review the property again with the resident usually within 4 weeks of the residents move in date. There is no evidence that this review was arranged with the resident at tenancy sign-up. Furthermore, when the landlord’s surveyor highlighted repairs that fell outside the lettable standard, the evidence shows that its Empty Homes team did not arrange the further review until after the resident raised a complaint. This was inappropriate and caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in chasing the repairs.
19. When carrying out its complaint investigation, the landlord reviewed the repair issues raised by the resident and its surveyor’s records. It found that some repairs were outside the lettable standard. When assessing the front and rear door the landlord stated, “It is not possible to confirm exactly how or when this damage occurred, but it may have happened after the property was signed off but before the tenancy began, while the property was still unoccupied.” This further demonstrates that the landlord did not carry out an inspection at tenancy sign-up as it should have in line with its policy.
20. On 29 October 2025, the landlord’s call record show that the resident believed the Empty Homes team would return to the property to carry out any repairs identified. The landlord explained that the property was “ready to let” when he moved in and the Empty Homes team would not return. This advice was contrary to its Empty Homes Management Policy which said it would return and review the property within 4 weeks.
21. The landlord’s failings caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in chasing the repairs. We have ordered compensation of £150 to reflect these failings in line with our compensation guidance where a failure has adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact.

22. When the resident escalated his complaint, he reported that a surveyor was rude, arrogant and dismissive of some repair requests. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, we decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
23. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately followed up the report with the staff member involved and another operative that was present at the time of the alleged incident. While the landlord did not identify any unprofessional behaviour, it reminded the staff member to ensure that all correspondence with the resident is courteous and clear. The landlord reported its findings through its complaint response and apologised if the resident perceived the operatives tone to be disrespectful. This was an appropriate and proportionate investigation in the circumstances.

24. It is not disputed that there were service failings with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is our role to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
25. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to routine repairs within 5, 25, or 60 working days.
26. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord identified that routine repairs assigned to its contractor were outside of its timescales by 6 days and chased up the contractor to complete the works. It apologised for the delay and failure to communicate these delays to the resident. The evidence shows that it completed the works on 21 October 2025, which was 33 working days beyond its target.
27. While it is sometimes the case that a landlord may not be able to keep to a defined timeframe, it is basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible. There was no evidence that the landlord communicated its delays with the resident after its stage 1 complaint response. This was unreasonable and caused distress to the resident.
28. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for this distress. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
29. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord identified further routine repairs that had not been recorded and apologised for the delay. It logged the further repairs and completed them within its repair timescales. It said that it would use the resident’s feedback to improve communication in the future. It offered a £100 decoration voucher. These were reasonable steps to take to put things right for the resident.

30. The landlord surveyed the property on 24 July 2025 and found damaged doors in the kitchen units and a broken hinge in a cupboard. When the resident raised a complaint, he also reported that the vinyl was coming away from the doors. As a resolution he requested a new kitchen.
31. On 4 September 2025, the landlord advised the resident that the kitchen was installed in 2012 and rather than renewal it would need to repair the kitchen. It said it would assess the kitchen. On 5 September 2025, it carried out a video inspection with the resident and referred its findings to its kitchen team to see if it qualified for a refurbishment. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take in the circumstances.
32. On 29 October 2025, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord clarified that his kitchen was not due for replacement for another 5 years however, it would provide a makeover. This would include replacement of door fronts and drawer fronts. This was appropriate.
33. On 26 February 2026, the resident reported to us that the kitchen cupboard doors were falling off. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to engage with the resident after the stage 2 complaint response to resolve the issue. It surveyed the property again on 12 March 2026 and when it explained that a kitchen makeover would push back the date for replacing the kitchen, its notes show that the resident opted to repair the existing kitchen and await the full refurbishment. It raised work orders to refix and secure the existing doors. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

34. Our Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to the residents complaint within its timescales.
35. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a thorough complaint investigation. However, it did not identify failings in the application of its Empty Homes Management Policy. It should have identified that it did not carry out a tenancy sign-up checklist and that its Empty Homes team did not arrange a further inspection within 4 weeks of the tenancy as per its policy. This failing was significant because it was central to the resident’s complaint.
36. When it identified some failings, it did not uphold them. In its stage 1 complaint response, it accepted that its surveyor “raised several repairs outside of the lettable standards” and it apologised that its Empty Homes team had not contacted the resident since the survey. It is unclear why it did not uphold the complaint with this information.
37. It also said that because it could not fully determine the condition of the property when the tenancy started it would not uphold the complaint. The landlord identified record keeping issues and it would have been appropriate to have fed this back to the relevant departments to improve its processes. Instead, it used its own poor record keeping as a reason not to uphold the complaint. This was unreasonable and caused frustration to the resident.

Learning

Complaint handling

38. This investigation identified complaint handling practices that did not comply with the Code. The landlord must set out clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. It did not reference its Empty Homes Management Policy in its complaints response. We encourage the landlord to review this case against the Code and implement any learning it finds to improve its complaint handling.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s tenancy sign up practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Communication

40. In this case, the landlord accepted that it had not regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits
    2. maintain good relationship management with its contractors and monitor work in progress
41. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs team followed our spotlight report recommendations.