Canterbury City Council (202109390)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109390

Canterbury City Council

31 January 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 resident’s concerns about:

a.     The offer of accommodation.

b.     The landlord’s management of the resident’s personal information.

c.      The reported repairs.

d.     The arrangement of repair appointments.

e.     Damp in the bathroom.

f.        Staff conduct.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:

a.     Record-keeping

b.     Complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced in March 2019 when she had a flexible tenancy.
4. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities, including mental health conditions and dyslexia. The resident lives with her two children. Her eldest child has learning difficulties.
5. On 7 March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her repair requests and complaints. In April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again regarding the ongoing repairs and complaints.
6. On behalf of the resident, we wrote to the landlord outlining the resident’s complaint on 16 May 2024. The complaint was about:

a.     multiple repairs

b.     damp in the bathroom

c.      contractors arriving without pre-arranged appointments

d.     the suitability of the property.

7. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 6 June 2024. It said:

a.     The resident was responsible for maintaining the driveway, hedge, internal doors, and kitchen cupboard doors, and no further action would be taken.

b.     It would replace a section of the missing skirting board and inspect the damp reported in the bathroom.

c.      It was sorry for any miscommunication with its contractors. Although its records indicated that all appointments had been pre-arranged, it had asked operatives to ensure appointments were agreed upon before attending.

d.     It made every effort to facilitate work promptly. It noted some difficulties with access, which it hoped would be resolved through pre-arranged appointments.

e.     The toilet had been replaced under a disabled adaptation, so it would not be referred to an Occupational Therapist (OT).

f.        It only shared personal information when there was a specific need to. It did not share personal information with its contractors.

g.     The resident had cancelled a further inspection to ascertain remedial works for other miscellaneous repairs, including the front and rear doors. The landlord confirmed repairs to the doors had been undertaken by 3 different contractors.

h.     She was asked to contact the landlord to arrange a convenient time to complete repairs.

8. In her escalation request on 5 July 2024, the resident disagreed with the stage 1 response, which she described as full of “untruths”. She was unhappy with the condition of the property and the conduct of a visiting officer, whom she reported as rude.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 26 September 2024 following a request from our Service. It apologised for the delay in its response and reconfirmed the points made in the stage 1 response, adding that:

a.     It would instruct the repairs team to inspect the damage to the driveway and render at the back of the property.

b.     It had not provided the correct information regarding the times the resident reported the hedge. It apologised and organised refresher training to prevent similar mistakes.

c.      It had instructed the repairs team to inspect the render, the toilet position and the damp in the bathroom.

d.     It would post-inspect the repairs to the missing skirting board and apologised that this was not offered.

e.     It assured the resident that it was keen to work with her to ensure a mutual understanding.

f.        It apologised if an officer had been rude during a visit. The officer was no longer employed, but it assured the resident that all officers are expected to behave professionally, and it was sorry if this had not been the resident’s experience.

10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested that we investigate her complaint in October 2024. She stated that to resolve her complaint, she wanted all repairs completed and to be compensated for the distress that had been caused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

11. The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction refers to what we can and cannot consider. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which outlines what issues fall under our remit to investigate and when we can decide that a complaint is not within our jurisdiction.
12. The resident complained about the offer of accommodation and said she felt bullied into accepting her current property, which she said was not suitable for her. The evidence shows that the landlord offered the property under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, as the resident was homeless and in temporary accommodation at the time. It was deemed to be a suitable offer.
13. Local authorities are responsible for assessing homeless applications as the property offer was made under the local authority’s homelessness duty and not in its role as a landlord. Complaints that relate to homeless applications under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 fall within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s (LGSCO) jurisdiction.
14. Paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the offer of accommodation is outside of our jurisdiction. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she should contact the LGSCO for advice.
15. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s data protection and information management, such as the details the landlord held about her mental health and how it used this.
16. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
17. Complaints about data protection and how an organisation handles information are better suited for consideration by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Therefore, the resident’s complaint about concern about the landlord’s data protection and management is outside of our jurisdiction to consider. The resident has been advised how to complain to the ICO regarding how the landlord has recorded and used her personal information.

Scope of investigation

18. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s concerns about repairs and the property’s condition have been ongoing for some time.
19. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint on 16 May 2024, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 16 September 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before our Service is involved.

Reported repairs

20. The landlord has not provided detailed repair records, making it difficult to establish what happened. Also, we have not been able to contact the resident to provide a timeline of events. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s actions with the limited information available, as far as possible.
21. Each repair addressed in the landlord’s complaint response has been addressed individually for ease of reading.

Driveway

22. Section 5.1.2 of the tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord will maintain the fences, pathways and other means of access.
23. Section 5.18 of the repairs policy confirms that any driveway for which the landlord is responsible will be maintained.
24. The timeline for when the driveway issue was reported to the landlord is unclear. However, the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had no record of the reported repair. Due to the limited repair records provided, we cannot confirm whether this issue was raised previously or if the landlord had comprehensive records to review to provide its response.
25. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident was responsible for maintaining the driveway under the tenancy agreement. Consequently, no further action would be taken. The tenancy agreement does not explicitly mention driveways. However, the phrase “means of access” could include pathways and driveways leading to the property, which the landlord must typically maintain, which creates some ambiguity.
26. In its stage 2 response dated 26 September 2024, the landlord recognised the necessity of investigating to ascertain whether repairs to the driveway were required. This acknowledgement was a positive step. However, the absence of evidence confirming that this inspection has occurred is unreasonable.
27. In correspondence with our Service in January 2025, the landlord said it could not provide a comprehensive update on the latest position regarding the repairs. Therefore, we cannot confirm what, if any, repairs have been completed to the driveway, which is unreasonable.
28. Our spotlight report on repairs emphasises the necessity of clear communication to ensure effective dialogue between landlords and residents, thereby preventing delays in addressing repairs. The lack of communication and follow-up is concerning and does not demonstrate the landlord’s commitment to resolving the matter effectively. Furthermore, the landlord has provided the resident with conflicting information regarding its responsibility to repair the driveway, which has led to confusion. Residents should receive timely information regarding maintenance concerns that affect their living environment.

Hedge

29. The tenancy agreement confirms that residents are responsible for the maintenance and tidiness of any garden, including the trimming of hedges. The repairs policy further reinforces this obligation.
30. Due to insufficient records, the details of the resident’s complaint about the hedge are unclear. However, it seems the resident requested its removal.
31. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about the hedge in 2019 and 2021. As such, the information presented in stage 1 that it had not received previous reports was inaccurate.
32. This oversight prompted her to escalate the complaint because the landlord had made statements that were “untrue.” The landlord recognised the need to implement better practices for reviewing its records to prevent similar mistakes in the future, which was an appropriate step to take.
33. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that in 2021, the resident acknowledged her responsibility for maintaining her garden. Consequently, the landlord was not required to perform any work related to the garden. Therefore, the landlord’s response was reasonable and consistent with the tenancy agreement and repairs policy.

External doors

34. The landlord’s repair policy confirms its responsibility for maintaining and repairing external doors, including all related hardware.
35. The resident raised a concern regarding the size of the doors to her property, claiming that they were too small for their frames. In response, the landlord provided information during the stage 1 response. The landlord indicated that 3 different contractors had made repair attempts, and it determined that a further technical inspection was essential to assess the situation properly. However, the landlord acknowledged that the resident opted not to accept the appointment scheduled for this additional inspection.
36. Despite this, the landlord has failed to provide any inspection reports, detailed findings, or documentation regarding the completed door repairs. This lack of information prevents us from confirming the specifics of what repairs were conducted, the timeline for these repairs, and whether the landlord met its obligations to maintain the property in accordance with the established repair policy.
37. While the landlord asserts that the resident declined a further appointment, it has not provided any evidence demonstrating attempts made to arrange this or any prior appointments. We do not have evidence that the landlord responded to the repair within a reasonable timeframe, which is a failure and does not show overall compliance with its repair obligations.

Internal doors

38. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the internal door frames. The repairs policy confirms that residents are responsible for maintaining and carrying out minor repairs on internal doors, including repairing or replacing their hardware.
39. In her complaint, the resident said the internal doors were misaligned and several were missing handles.
40. Throughout stages 1 and 2 of the complaint process, the landlord reiterated that the resident is responsible for repairing and/or maintaining internal doors.
41. The landlord would be obligated to repair the doors if:

a.     Repairs were required to the door frames.

b.     The repairs were not classed as minor.

42. We have not received a copy of an inspection to clarify what issues were identified with the doors. However, based on the residents reports about the doors, we can conclude that the landlord was not obligated to carry out repairs.

Window repairs

43. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the windowsills and frames.
44. In her complaint, the resident said the windows did not meet building regulation standards.
45. It is unclear when an inspection of the windows was completed. The landlord confirmed that the windows had been inspected by a qualified expert who confirmed that while they were old, they were serviceable and fully compliant with building regulations when installed.
46. The landlord was entitled to rely on a qualified expert’s evaluation to confirm that the windows did not require further repairs. While this was a reasonable response, the landlord has failed to provide evidence for us to verify the expert’s finding, which is unreasonable.

Internal plaster

47. The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for maintaining the internal decoration of the property to a reasonable standard. The landlord is responsible for the repair of major plasterwork.
48. The resident reported that the internal plaster was defective because it did not support the curtain rails. It is unclear from the records when an inspection took place, however, the landlord concluded that the plaster was not defective and decided no further action would be taken.
49. The landlord was justified in this decision based on the surveyor’s opinion and the repair responsibilities outlined in the tenancy agreement. However, we have not seen an inspection report to confirm this conclusion, which again, is unreasonable.

Missing render

50. The landlord said it was unaware of a section of defective render at the back of the property. However, it did confirm that external pointing had been carried out.
51. The landlord recognised that arranging an inspection of the render at stage 1 would have been beneficial for the resident. It committed to inspecting the repair which was reasonable.

Kitchen cupboards

52. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents are responsible for maintaining and adjusting kitchen units, cupboards, drawers, shelves, and worktops.
53. The resident said that the cupboard doors were misaligned. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that the kitchen was in good condition during its last visit.
54. The landlord responded appropriately by confirming that the maintenance of kitchen units—except for the sink base unit—was the resident’s responsibility, as detailed in the repairs policy.

Skirting boards

55. It is unclear from the evidence when the resident first reported missing skirting boards.
56. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that work had been initiated and new skirting boards would be installed.
57. Based on the stage 2 response, we can reasonably conclude that the work was completed, although it did not meet the resident’s expectations. Due to insufficient records, we cannot verify when the repair was finished or if the landlord adhered to its repair timeline.
58. The landlord’s commitment to conducting a post-inspection was appropriate. This would help ensure that the quality of the repairs met acceptable standards. However, we cannot confirm whether the post-inspection occurred.

Toilet

59. The resident reported that her toilet was not positioned correctly. In the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that since recent works had been carried out as part of a disabled adaptation, the issue needed to be referred to the Occupational Therapist (OT).
60. After the resident escalated her complaint and upon further review, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that the Aids and Adaptations team did not complete any work on the toilet as part of their responsibilities.
61. To address the resident’s concerns, the landlord stated that the toilet would be inspected to ensure the resident’s safety and comfort while using the facility.
62. However, we lack evidence that the inspection was conducted or that any repairs were identified and completed. This raises concerns about the toilet’s functionality and could suggest unresolved issues.

Conclusion

63. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it fulfilled its obligations to inspect the repairs and carry out the necessary work. Although the landlord expressed a willingness to work with the resident to ensure a clear understanding of the required repairs, it has not provided any evidence of following through on this commitment. The absence of updates and transparency contributed to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty about the repairs.
64. Despite its commitment to inspecting the repairs at stage 2, the landlord has not demonstrated that it fulfilled this commitment. In January 2025, we requested an update on the repairs from the landlord. The landlord informed us that it could not provide a comprehensive update until it completed an inspection. Although the landlord stated that it attempted to access the resident’s property regarding the repairs in January 2025, access was denied.
65. This response appears to be a response to our inquiry about the status of the repairs. The delay in evaluating the repairs highlighted in its stage 2 response in September 2024 is unreasonable and unexplained. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not have an effective process to ensure that the repairs it was responsible for were completed. As a result, we have determined that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reported repairs.
66. When assessing the level of compensation to award in this case, we have considered the landlord’s failings, which include:

a.     Ineffective communication with the resident regarding the repairs. 

b.     Ambiguous information about repair responsibilities that led to confusion for the resident. 

c.      A lack of documentation, including inspection reports and records of logged and completed repairs. 

d.     No evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities or adjusted its service approach accordingly. As a result, the resident felt ignored over a six-month period, which she indicated had an impact on her mental health. 

e.     At the time of our investigation, the landlord could not provide a comprehensive update on the repairs.

67. We have also considered how the resident’s actions may have contributed to the delays. The landlord said that the resident had refused access even after scheduled appointments. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of these scheduled appointments, making it difficult to assess their impact on the delays.
68. The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that compensation will take into account the duration of the issue and a resident’s vulnerabilities, recognising that any impact may have been exacerbated. Therefore, we have reviewed our remedies guidance in cases of failings that adversely affected the resident, which suggests awards of £100 to £600. We have awarded £500 in consideration of the distress and inconvenience, as well as the time and trouble caused over a minimum of six months (May 2024 – September 2024) due to the landlord’s failings.  Further orders have been made aimed at learning from this complaint and putting things right.

Arrangement of repair appointments

69. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will agree on an appointment date and time with the resident when a non-emergency repair is reported.
70. As part of the complaint, the resident expressed concern that contractors arrived at her property without arranging prior appointments. This lack of notification created confusion and inconvenience for the resident, who expected to have agreed-upon visit times.
71. The internal records confirm that the landlord experienced difficulties in accessing the resident’s property or being turned away when appointments had been arranged.
72. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and apologised for the miscommunication. The landlord reiterated to its contractors the importance of arranging appointment times with residents to avoid unexpected visits.
73. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated the importance of effective communication and scheduling. These responses addressed the resident’s concerns and ensured that future visits respect the resident’s time and convenience. The landlord’s response was appropriate.

Damp

74. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that upon receiving a report, an inspection and humidity measurements will be taken to complete this process within 5 working days.
75. In May 2024, the resident raised concerns about dampness in the bathroom as part of her complaint. However, by the time of the stage 2 response in September 2024, the inspection had still not been completed and remains outstanding at the time of our investigation. This delay significantly deviates from the landlord’s stated response time of 5 working days. Furthermore, the landlord has not explained the delays or followed its damp and mould policy to assess the severity of the issue and outline the necessary remedial actions to achieve an effective solution.
76. We have not seen any evidence to show the extent of the dampness in the bathroom. However, we understand damp is likely to cause concern and potential discomfort to a resident. Therefore, after reviewing our remedies guidance, we awarded £150 for the delays in addressing the potential hazard and for the distress and inconvenience this would have caused between May 2024 and September 2024. The landlord has also been ordered to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.

Staff conduct

77. Owing to a lack of records, it has been difficult to confirm the events that led to the resident’s complaint about a rude contractor. We have also been unable to contact the resident to verify her account.
78. From what we can establish, the resident said that an officer was rude to her during a home visit.
79. The landlord could not obtain the staff member’s account as the operative had left the organisation. However, it did apologise for any upset that may have been caused, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
80. Considering all the circumstances, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about its staff conduct.

Record keeping 

81. As outlined above, it is concerning that the landlord has been unable to provide us with:

a.     All correspondence between itself and the resident.

b.     All repair records, including the date repair was reported and date works were completed.

c.      Any inspection reports in relation to the repairs raised as part of this complaint.

82. We have received very limited information from the landlord. The landlord has confirmed that it was unable to locate full repair information and correspondence with the resident due to a team member leaving the organisation and documents transferring between systems. While we acknowledge this situation, the landlord is expected to maintain comprehensive records that are easily accessible. The lack of records has hampered its ability to provide an audit trail and makes it difficult for the landlord to identify and respond to problems as they arise. Consequently, this has affected our ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as noted at various points throughout this report.
83. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Our spotlight reports on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) recommend that landlords have databases capable of adequately capturing information which should be easily accessible, which is essential for evidence-based, proactive, and informed decision-making. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
84. The landlord has stated that they are in the process of completing a self-assessment for KIM. This aims to improve the accessibility of case files, ensuring they are not solely reliant on individual officers to retrieve information. While this indicates a willingness to learn on the part of the landlord, it did not resolve the issues faced by the resident.
85. Overall, we have identified maladministration regarding the landlord’s record-keeping.

Complaint handling

86. The landlord said it did not receive a complaint from the resident until our Service sent it. Owing to the lack of records, we cannot confirm if the resident submitted a complaint before our involvement.
87. Our spotlight report on KIM explains why vulnerable residents may go unheard and identifies poor communication as a barrier to good service. The landlord’s stage 1 response included inaccuracies, such as incorrect details about when the resident reported repairs and misleading information regarding the toilet and driveway. As a result, the resident escalated her complaint.
88. While the stage 2 response recognised the landlord’s failings, the landlord did little to “put things right” for the resident. The landlord should have satisfied itself that all repairs were satisfactorily resolved and/or completed as part of its complaint investigation. The landlord failed to consider the impact of its actions on the household sufficiently.
89. There is little evidence that the landlord took steps to “learn from outcomes,” as there were further failings post-complaint in the landlord’s completion and monitoring of repairs and communication with the resident.
90. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant the complaints procedure was not used effectively to resolve the dispute. This compounded the failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues. The landlord’s failings in its complaint handling constitute maladministration, and we have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination 

91. In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s offer of accommodation was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.
92. In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s management of the resident’s personal information was ruled outside of our jurisdiction.
93. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the reported repairs.
94. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the arrangement of repair appointments.
95. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the reports of damp in the bathroom.
96. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to staff conduct.
97. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping.
98. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

99. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

a.     Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.

b.     Pay the resident £900, comprising of:

1. £500 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp.
3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. This money should be paid directly to the resident.

c.      Contact the resident and arrange a convenient time to inspect the property. Following the inspection, the landlord should provide the resident with a report outlining the scope of the works and the completion date for the repairs. A copy of this report should also be provided to us.

100. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

a.     Conduct a review into how it managed, reviewed, and organised the ongoing repair issues, in this case, with its contractors/third parties.

b.     Identify the reasons for the failings and what actions have/will be taken to prevent a recurrence in the future.

c.      Write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review, detailing its findings and any actions that have been or will be taken as a result.

d.     The review should consider the Spotlight reports on damp and mould and Knowledge and Information management (KIM).