East Devon District Council (202420353)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420353

East Devon District Council

9 June 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with her partner and two children. The landlord’s records show one of the resident’s children has hypermobility and the other child is autistic.
4. On 27 September 2024 the resident received a stage 2 response about a complaint she initially made in August 2024. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response and contacted the landlord about this on 2 October 2024. The resident said she refused the compensation offered by the landlord and wanted her issues further investigated. As the resident’s email included some new issues that had not been raised in her previous complaint the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint.
5. The resident raised many outstanding repairs in her email including damage to some carpet, a hole in the kitchen ceiling, problems with the kitchen plaster, holes in some kitchen furniture, the staircase banister coming away from the wall, the condition of the internal doors, doorframes and skirting boards, cracks in the ceilings and the previous tenant’s belongings left in the loft.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 October 2024. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said in order to address the points raised it had arranged an appointment for a surveyor to attend the property on 21 October 2024. It said following the surveyor’s visit any necessary work orders would be raised. In relation to a sink repair the resident had raised in her complaint the landlord said it had identified an error had occurred with the works order for that matter. The landlord said the work order was re-raised on 1 October 2024 and the appointment raised for 7 October 2024. It said this was rescheduled to 15 October 2024 at the resident’s request. The landlord was sorry that the resident felt the surveyors had not been truthful and that she felt it had not taken her concerns seriously. It apologised that the resident had needed to bring these repairs to its attention and said the repairs would be addressed promptly once the work orders were raised. The landlord also apologised for any inconvenience caused.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2024. She reiterated the long list of repairs. The resident also referred to missed appointments which she stated was unacceptable and had unnecessarily required days off work. She said the repair issues were not being resolved. The resident was dissatisfied with the standard of the property that her and her family had been living in for 5 months. She felt the landlord should have offered her household temporary accommodation. The resident told the landlord the effect on her household had been profound. She also said a lot of time and money had been spent chasing up the landlord and its contractors.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024. It partially upheld the complaint. The landlord apologised for the missed appointments stating it had experienced some scheduling challenges. It acknowledged the carpet had been damaged and was no longer suitable for use. The landlord said its contractor had contacted the resident to discuss this. It said the surveyor’s report had been passed onto a manager to review and agree a schedule of remedial works for the blown plaster, internal doors, doorframes, skirting boards and the cracks in the ceilings. The landlord apologised that the previous tenant’s belongings and an old water container had been left in the loft. It said a manager would arrange for their removal. The landlord stated temporary accommodation was only offered when a property was deemed uninhabitable for an extended period of time. It said this was not the case for the resident’s property. The landlord apologised for the lack of clear communication and regretted the frustration caused. It said the compensation of £1,824 offered in the resident’s previous complaint was its final position.
9. On 15 May 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the repairs and actions the landlord said it would address in its stage 2 response were still outstanding. The resident expressed how disruptive the situation had been and how it had particularly affected one of her children who has autism. She felt the household should have been offered a decant due to the level of disruption. The resident said the landlord was hard to get hold of and there had been poor communication and at times no communication at all.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

10. The resident told the Ombudsman that the delays and disruption had affected the family’s health and wellbeing, especially one of her children who is autistic. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine.
11. The resident had raised a previous complaint with the landlord in July 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to this previous complaint on 27 September 2024. In the resident’s complaint dated 2 October 2024 she referenced many aspects of her previous complaint. This was because the resident was not intending to raise another complaint but was expressing her continued dissatisfaction with the final response of her previous complaint. The matters included solar panels, bathroom repairs, a bathroom refurbishment, heating and hot water system repairs and a new boiler installation. The resident’s previous complaint also addressed how budget constraints were given as the reason why some work was initially denied. The previous complaint has already been investigated by the Ombudsman (case reference 202440094). This investigation will only address the new elements the resident raised which resulted in the landlord logging a new stage 1 complaint on receipt of the resident’s email dated 2 October 2024.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.

12. The landlord has repairing obligations for its rented properties, which are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The act requires it to repair and maintain the structure, fixtures and fittings of its properties. It must also complete repairs in a reasonable time.
13. The landlord’s Tenant Handbook states that it has two categories of repairs with timescales. One category is “emergency” which are repairs that need to be made safe within 4 hours and rectified within 24 hours. The other category is “at resident’s convenience” which enables residents to book an appointment for their repair when they contact the landlord.
14. The resident raised in her complaint that her carpet had been damaged when a new boiler was installed. The surveyor that visited the property on 21 October 2024 acknowledged that the carpet had been damaged and could no longer be used. The surveyor felt this was the responsibility of the contractor who carried out the boiler installation. In its stage 2 response dated 11 December 2024 the landlord acknowledged the damage and said its contractor had contacted the resident to schedule a visit and address the matter directly with her. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the contractor rang and told her she needed to go through the landlord for this matter. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that this matter remains outstanding.
15. In her complaint and escalation, the resident raised that there was a hole in the ceiling from where the boiler engineer had removed pipes. The resident advised the Ombudsman that this hole was in the kitchen. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the surveyor could not see where this was and that the resident was unable to show him during the visit on 21 October 2024. The resident disputed this account and told the Ombudsman that she did show the surveyor. The landlord said the surveyor believed this issue was potentially a small hole within the boxing in the corner of the kitchen which would be the resident’s responsibility. However, this statement did not fully align with the surveyor’s report. The surveyor’s report did not state the hole was small or that the resident should complete the repair herself. Moreover, any damage or holes that had been created by the installation of the new boiler was the landlord’s responsibility to repair, not the resident’s.
16. The resident stated in her complaint that the failed kitchen plaster was still unresolved. The surveyor’s report after the visit on 21 October 2024 stated that there was failed/brown plaster throughout the property within all rooms and the hallway. The surveyor stated the only way to remedy this would be to strip back entirely all the walls in the areas that are blown and reinstate. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that its surveyor had noted there was failed/blown plaster throughout the property. It said the surveyor’s report had been passed to a manager to review and agree a schedule of remedial works to address this matter. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she had not heard from the landlord regarding this work and the repair remains outstanding.
17. Another repair the resident told the landlord about was that there were holes in her kitchen furniture. The resident advised the Ombudsman that she was referring to the kitchen cabinets and that kickboards had not been installed. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that during the surveyor’s visit no holes were pointed out. The resident disputed this account and told the Ombudsman that she did show the surveyor the problems. This section of the surveyor’s report was left blank with no comments. It told the resident if she sent in some photos, it would review them and take the necessary steps to address the issues. There was no evidence to show that either party followed up on this offer.
18. The resident had complained that some old telecoms wires had been left in place with the cut wires hanging out. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that the wires can be left in situ and do not pose any threat. However, the surveyor’s report stated the wires should have been removed as part of the voids works. The report said the wires required full removal from inside and externally.
19. In responding to the resident’s concerns that her banister was coming off the wall the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that its surveyor found no issues with the stair rail. It said the banister at the top of the stairs required minor patch filling and decoration which was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord stated the mop stick rail had been removed by the resident and as such it was her responsibility to fix it. The surveyor’s report only stated the resident had removed the mop stick handrail as multiple brackets had failed so this was no longer in situ. The resident told the Ombudsman that she does not deny removing the mop stick rail. She said that was not what she was complaining about. The resident said she was referring to the banister coming away from the wall.
20. The resident complained that a doorframe and some skirting boards were coming away from the wall. She also said that numerous skirting boards had missing chunks and some were missing completely. The resident had also complained about the condition of the internal doors. The surveyor’s report stated that it appeared the doors had not been given any attention at the void stage. It said the doors required full redecoration, stripped back with an undercoat and topcoat. The report also stated there were over 10 doors in the property all of which were in extremely poor condition. The surveyor said this should have been addressed when the property was void and did not meet the void standard.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the internal doors, door frames, and skirting boards would be assessed as part of the larger works to be planned in. It said a manager was reviewing the surveyor’s report and agreeing a schedule of remedial works to address the matters. The resident advised the Ombudsman she had not heard from the landlord about this work and the repairs are still outstanding.
22. In her complaint the resident raised that the ceilings had cracks and dips throughout. The surveyor’s report confirmed this. It said that the ceilings throughout had cracks. The report stated the upstairs coffered ceilings did not appear to have been filled or any damaged areas repaired or decorated as part of the voids process. The surveyor said the ceilings required repairs throughout the upstairs elevation and full redecoration throughout. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the ceilings would be assessed as part of the larger works to be planned in. It said a manager was reviewing the surveyor’s report and agreeing a schedule of remedial works to address the ceilings. The resident advised the Ombudsman she had not heard from the landlord regarding this work, and it was still outstanding.
23. The resident reported that the windowsills in all the bedrooms were peeling and required extensive work. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the windowsills had been encapsulated in UPVC, and while there were small gaps around the UPVC boards, they were in suitable condition and did not require further attention at present. However, the surveyor’s report stated all windows had been cladded in UPVC but that the sills themselves had not. It said the original timber seals were still installed, and the paint was peeling extensively throughout all the rooms. The surveyor said the best course of action would be to install new UPVC sills throughout the property.
24. The belongings of the previous resident and a water container had been left in the loft. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed a full clearance of the property should have taken place when the property was void. It apologised that somebody else’s belongings and an old water container had been left in the loft. The landlord said it had arranged for the removal of the items. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the items have not been removed and are still in the loft.
25. The resident complained that prior to an electrical safety check occurring at the property there had been an open light and plug sockets in the bathroom. She also expressed concern that prior to the electrical safety check there had been insufficient fire alarms in the property. The landlord mistook this part of the resident’s complaint as her requesting plug sockets to be installed in the bathroom and for more alarms to be installed. This was not what the resident had raised in her complaint.
26. If the landlord had carried out a more thorough investigation it would have identified that the removal of plug sockets in the bathroom and the installation of additional fire alarms had occurred because of the electrical check. If the investigation had been more thorough or the landlord had spoken to the resident about her concerns, it would have identified that the resident was complaining that her household had been living in the property without sufficient alarms and with an open light and plug sockets in the bathroom. The resident believed these were hazards that should have been identified while the property was void. The landlord referenced in its stage 2 response that electrical remedial work was completed during the electrical safety check on 9 September 2024.
27. While trying to get the outstanding repairs addressed the resident stated she experienced missed appointments. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that the resident had experienced missed visits from housing officers and surveyors. It said that due to high demand for these services, it had experienced some scheduling challenges. The landlord said it had reminded its teams to attend all scheduled appointments wherever possible or to inform residents in advance if rescheduling was necessary. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and remind its staff of the need to attend scheduled appointments.
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on loss of earnings due to taking time off work to facilitate repairs appointments. It said that it was not its policy to cover earnings for days off to allow access for repairs as it is acknowledged that anyone managing a home will need to do this from time to time. This was an appropriate approach to repairs appointments.
29. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would take the resident’s comments about her experience of missed appointments into account as part of the overall review of her complaint and any remedies offered. However, the landlord did not offer any compensation for this complaint. The resident was only referred to her previous complaint for compensation. The previous complaint covered different issues. This complaint covered new issues and the missed appointments the resident referred to had taken place after the previous complaint’s stage 2 response was issued.
30. The landlord had not offered the resident a decant during the work that had been undertaken at the property. The resident felt the landlord should have offered her household temporary accommodation due to what she described as “extensive work” being carried out. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that temporary accommodation had not been offered. It stated it only arranged temporary decanting where the property was deemed unhabitable for an extended period. The landlord said this typically applied when there were no toilet facilities, running water, or when extensive works affected every room in the house simultaneously. It stated that as this was not the case for the works undertaken at the resident’s property, a decant was not considered necessary.
31. While the landlord did not deem it necessary to decant for the work it had undertaken by the date of the stage 2 response, the Ombudsman has noted that the surveyor’s report suggested a decant might be necessary for the remaining work that was identified in the report. The surveyor was under the impression, possibly wrongly so, that the resident did not want a decant for the outstanding work due to her son having autism and the affect a decant could have on him. The surveyor’s report said for the outstanding work to be carried out, if the household did not want a decant, the landlord could possibly carry out the required work room by room, but the other option was to decant the household.
32. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had difficulties communicating with the landlord. She said it was hard to get hold of the landlord. The resident said she either received no communication or poor communication. The resident said due to staff changes she did not have a housing officer and did not know who to contact. In its stage 2 response the landlord sincerely apologised for the lack of clear communication the resident received. It said it understood how important it was to keep the resident informed and regretted any frustration this had caused. The landlord stated it had raised the issue of communication with its teams to ensure it improved its communication moving forward.
33. The resident had advised the landlord that her and her partner were sleeping on the sofa in the living room due to the household’s belongings being stored in the main bedroom. The landlord witnessed that the children were sleeping on mattresses on the timber floorboards. The resident said the household were sleeping like this because the property repairs were not resolved. The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family in its stage 2 response. It said it deeply regretted the significant disruption and distress the ongoing repairs had caused. It acknowledged the “considerable impact” on the resident’s living conditions and the challenges this had posed for the resident’s son, given his additional needs. The landlord sincerely apologised for the lack of empathy or care the resident may have felt from its staff or its contractors. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused.
34. Despite the landlord’s apology, the repairs acknowledged in the stage 2 response are still outstanding. On 15 May 2025 the resident advised the Ombudsman that the repairs had not been completed. This was 156 calendar days after the stage 2 response was issued.
35. The surveyor’s report stated the property had not been let to the resident in a suitable condition. It suggested the best course of action would be to attend the property with a nominated contractor to quote for all the works required. The surveyor stated the matters needed to be reviewed as a matter of urgency to produce a plan of action. As the repairs are still outstanding, it is evident that the landlord has not acted with the urgency it should have.
36. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the property. This is because of the volume of repairs required and the length of time the work has remained outstanding.
37. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident, the landlord should award the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the number of repairs and the length of time these have been outstanding. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman has made some further orders which are detailed below.

Complaint handling

38. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
39. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024. This was 37 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was not in line with the Code or its policy which states stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
40. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the response. It stated this had happened due to it experiencing a very high demand for its complaints service. The delay in issuing the stage 2 response meant the resident was delayed in being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, delaying the resident being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
41. The Code states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord did not address all the points the resident raised in her complaint in its stage 1 response. It missed out many key elements that the resident raised about the affect the outstanding repairs were having on the household, the lack of communication, electrical concerns and that the resident thought her household should have been decanted. As the landlord had missed out many of the resident’s concerns raised at stage 1, the resident highlighted this in her escalation email and asked the landlord to address all points “in clear step-by-step answers”.
42. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord did not address all the points the resident made in her complaint and the stage 2 response was delayed. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £100 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of outstanding repairs at the property.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the property.
    2. £100 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
46. The landlord is ordered to carry out all the work identified in the surveyor’s report email dated 22 October 2024. The work must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by completed work orders detailing the work carried out for each point listed in the report. This evidence must be appropriately labelled when uploaded to the portal, so it is easily identifiable which work orders relate to which points in the report.
47. The landlord must allocate one named staff member to be the point of contact for the resident regarding the repair work. This staff member must coordinate the work to ensure there is minimal disruption to the household and to ensure the resident is kept up to date. This must be evidenced by sending the Ombudsman a copy of the email it has sent the resident about the allocated point of contact within 2 weeks of the date of this report.
48. The landlord must replace or reimburse the resident for the damage to the carpet by the method it deems most appropriate. This must be evidenced by sending the Ombudsman a copy of the relevant communication regarding this matter within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
49. The landlord should inspect the stair banister again and discuss the resident’s concerns with her to ensure that both parties are looking at the same issue. If any work is identified because of the stair banister inspection, the landlord must commence this work within 4 weeks of the date of this report. To evidence compliance with this order the landlord must provide a copy of the stair banister inspection report within 4 weeks of the date of this report and details of the work order, if work is required.

Recommendations

50. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and advise her of the name and contact details of her housing officer.