City of York Council (202503208)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property by mutual exchange in February 2025 and reported repairs to the landlord. He also reported the shower and bathroom not being suitable for his disability needs, which the landlord is aware of. In March 2025, he reported antisocial behaviour from neighbours. Its handling of these reports led to his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of poor property condition and outstanding repairs.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from neighbours.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor property condition and outstanding repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours.
   4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports of poor property condition and outstanding repairs

4. The landlord handled all but one repair in line with its repairs policy. It acknowledged its failures in relation to the kitchen skirting repairs and offered proportionate compensation in line with its policy and our remedies guidance.

The handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord did not manage the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its repairs policy. It is unclear whether works to inspect and treat the damp remain outstanding. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident.

The handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from neighbours

6. The landlord did not manage the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It outlined actions taken in its stage 2 response, including partnership working and speaking to the alleged perpetrator. However, it has no recorded risk assessment or action plan for the resident.

The handling of the resident’s complaint

7. The landlord missed several opportunities to record a complaint when the resident expressed clear dissatisfaction. It apologised for its delayed stage 2 complaint response but did not offer any other redress for this. It did not acknowledge its earlier failings to log a complaint.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident said the situation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for him to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

9. On 17 February 2025, the landlord completed an inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange. It found no issues during this inspection. It provided us with a copy of the form which shows a signature from the resident accepting the property as seen. However, he was not present at the inspection.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy divides repairs into 2 categories, same day and general. Same day repairs are those which require an urgent or emergency response to prevent risk or damage. General repairs are less urgent works which it aims to complete within 20 working days. If adaptations are needed, it will arrange an occupational therapy (OT) assessment and complete any reasonable minor or major adaptations for free.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy also says it will tailor its repairs service to meet the needs of vulnerable tenants. This could include a faster response to repairs where necessary.
12. Upon moving into the property, the resident reported several repair issues including front door repairs, poor shower pressure, a faulty bathroom extractor fan and loose cables in a wardrobe. The landlord raised works for these. It completed extractor fan repairs on the same day and loose cables within 20 working days. This was in line with its policy.
13. The landlord noted the property was in good condition overall following a visit in late February 2025. However, it had raised several minor repair issues. It asked internally if there was any support in place for the resident and made a referral for support. This was proactive following concerns about the resident’s mental health.
14. When the landlord inspected the property, it discussed the issue with shower pressure with the resident. He said the shower was not powerful enough for his needs due to his disabilities. It told him the shower was standard and if the resident needed adaptations, OT would advise. It referred him to OT in line with its repairs policy.
15. The landlord completed door repairs on 4 April 2025. While this exceeded its general repair timescales, it was not a failing. It had needed to order a replacement door which would take 6-8 weeks to arrive. This was fair so the landlord could complete a full and lasting repair.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided a repairs history. It said it addressed repairs promptly and residents accept mutual exchange properties in their existing condition at the time of exchange. This is in line with the signed inspection form from 17 February 2025.
17. The resident reported further repairs on 4 June 2025 including gaps in the kitchen skirting board, gaps in the windows and poor signal from the communal aerial. The landlord completed window and aerial repairs within policy timescales. He later asked it to check if the wires in his bedroom cupboard worked and to remove them if they did not. It marked this repair as complete within policy timescales.
18. In late June 2025, the landlord recorded missed repairs to inspect the kitchen skirting board. It is unclear whether this was due to landlord error or the resident missing an appointment. It logged on its system to rebook the job if the resident called back. It recorded these works as complete on 8 August 2025 but later raised new works and said it could not contact the resident. It marked works as complete on 17 October 2025.
19. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said it did not complete skirting board works due to not being able to access the resident’s property. It would have been good practice to ensure it clearly recorded this. It said its complaint investigation found outstanding works, but the resident’s lack of engagement prevented it taking works forward. However, it said it could have taken measures to try and further engage him. It apologised for this. It offered £300 compensation for the outstanding repairs.
20. Overall, the landlord handled most repairs well and in line with its policy timescales. It did not try and engage the resident to complete kitchen skirting board repairs. It kept confusing records about this, marking the works as complete on various dates despite being outstanding. However, its apology, compensation offer and offer to complete the repairs were fair and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

21. On 27 February 2025, the resident reported a smell from the cupboard in his bedroom. The landlord removed old underlay from the cupboard during its visit and recommended that he let the cupboard air.
22. In early March 2025, the resident reported problems with the drains. It attended within 24 hours and marked the works as complete. It removed bamboo growing outside the property which were causing drainage problems. It noted if there were further issues, it would need to complete a CCTV survey of the drains due to previous drainage issues.
23. The resident continued to report problems with external sewerage and the bedroom cupboard. In his complaint, he said he had not slept in his bedroom due to the ongoing damp and mould. This was the first recorded report of damp and mould. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time, but it did not attend to this report in line with its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days for general repairs.
24. In its complaint response, the landlord said the resident’s complaint was the first report it received. It said it would contact him within 20 working days to inspect the damp. It would provide a schedule of any required works after this. We have not seen evidence of the inspection.
25. On 4 June 2025, the landlord raised works to inspect damp from the bedroom cupboard. The resident reported a smell from a hole in the wall making the room unusable. He reported silverfish coming through woodwork in the property. The landlord did not complete these works within its repairs policy timescales.
26. The landlord raised works to investigate a leaking stack pipe and completed these within general repairs policy timescales. It then completed emergency works to clear a blocked drain within 24 hours. It completed a damp inspection on 29 July 2025, finding it needed to remove shrubs and bamboo from the exterior of the property. It said it needed a drain survey, and it needed to move the living room radiator.
27. The landlord completed the drain survey within 9 days and found no problems. It did not complete the remaining identified works.
28. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it found damp in the bedroom cupboard during its inspection. It said there was a large bamboo shrub which could be the cause. It said it needed a follow-up inspection after the drain survey found no evidence of damage. It said it had been unable to move the radiator as the resident had not responded to the repairs team.
29. The landlord said it would schedule the outstanding damp repairs upon the resident’s agreement and would contact him within 15 working days of its response. It offered £300 compensation as an apology for not raising follow-on works as it should have.
30. The landlord has not provided evidence it has completed the follow-on repairs. The resident said he is still sleeping in his living room as of March 2026 due to damp in the bedroom. The landlord has said the property is habitable, but it did not follow its repairs policy correctly when responding to his reports of damp. It has since implemented a damp and mould policy which should improve its handling of reports going forward. However, in this case it did not treat the resident’s reports with urgency, and it is unclear whether works are still outstanding.
31. Our order for the landlord to pay £600 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has made an offer which is not proportionate to the findings in our investigation. In ordering £600 compensation, we have considered the impact of the issue on the resident and found the landlord’s offer was not sufficient in the circumstances.

32. The resident reported ASB from neighbours on 19 March 2025. He said one was shouting and another dealing drugs. The landlord said this was the first time he had told it about problems with the neighbours. He reported it again 5 days later. It told him to report drug dealing to police and noise to its noise enforcement team.
33. The landlord’s ASB policy says a landlord should complete a risk assessment matrix within 5 days of receiving the report. It should consider any vulnerabilities and what support may be appropriate. It should outline any actions it can take and what it needs the complainant to do. It should share a completed action plan with the tenant.
34. The ASB policy also says it should refer all noise complaints to its neighbourhood enforcement officer. However, the housing management officer should remain involved in case of tenancy issues. If the alleged perpetrators deny ASB and there are no independent witnesses, the housing management officer (HMO) should inform the tenant it will monitor the case and investigate further reports.
35. Under the policy, it should discuss incidents involving drugs with a housing team leader. The landlord should discuss any incidents involving criminal behaviour with the local Police Community Support Officer. HMOs should develop action plans with police and consider joint visits.
36. Following the resident’s first reports of ASB, there is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment matrix or an action plan. This was not in line with its policy. However, it did correctly recommend that the resident report noise issues to its noise enforcement team as per its policy. It also recommended he report drug dealing to police as and when it happened. However, there is no evidence it offered to provide the resident with more support in reporting these issues in line with its vulnerable persons policy.
37. The resident made no further reports of ASB until an occupational therapy (OT) assessment on 5 June 2025. It is unclear whether the OT assessors shared this with the landlord. We then shared his concerns about ongoing problems as part of the resident’s complaint escalation on 10 June 2025. There is no evidence the landlord contacted him to discuss this in line with its ASB policy after our escalation request.
38. The resident reported problems with noise from his neighbours again in September 2025. The landlord logged this and recommended that he report it to its neighbourhood team. It did not complete a risk assessment in line with its policy.
39. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had received no further reports of alleged ASB since the last ones which it responded to at stage 1. We have not seen evidence of it responding to the resident’s ASB concerns in a stage 1 complaint response. It said it had spoken to the alleged perpetrator, along with police and its neighbourhood enforcement officers. It found no statutory noise issues or drug situation. It also said another neighbour was working with support services.
40. The landlord said the resident made no further reports and said he no longer wished for the HMO or housing management team leader to contact him. We have not seen recorded evidence of this. It said it would be unable to take further action against his neighbours without gathering evidence. It recommended that he report things as they happen to allow it to build a case for investigation. It said its HMO would contact him within 15 working days to provide guidance on reporting ASB.
41. The landlord hand-delivered a letter to the resident within 15 working days as advised. It provided factsheets on solving neighbour problems and good neighbourhood management. It said it would follow this with a call to talk him through the information.
42. Overall, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy when handling the resident’s complaints. From its stage 2 response, the landlord did take some action by speaking with the alleged perpetrators. However, it did not complete risk assessments or provide the resident with an action plan after his first reports. It only provided factsheets after his final complaint and did not consider his vulnerabilities.
43. Our order for the landlord to pay £300 compensation is in line with our remedies guidance which sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has not acknowledged its own failings. In ordering £300 compensation, we have considered the impact which adversely affected the resident.

44. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints at both stage 1 and 2 within 5 working days of receipt. It will provide responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of individuals. Its policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
45. The landlord missed several opportunities to raise and respond to the resident using its complaints policy between late February 2025 and his complaint to us in April 2025. He clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of adaptations and communications about a discretionary move. It did not log a complaint about these issues at any point.
46. As such, the landlord has never provided the resident with a response to these complaint points. This means we have been unable to assess its handling of these issues in this report.
47. Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the methods available for tenants to log complaints with the landlord. However, its policy outlines several ways tenants can make complaints including by phone, email, post, website or via advocates or representatives. This is in line with the Code. However, it is likely the resident felt there was no way to make a complaint to the landlord as it did not handle any of his clear expressions of dissatisfaction in line with its complaints policy.
48. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint within policy timescales. It acknowledged his stage 2 complaint within a day but did not provide its response for 5 months. This exceeded its policy timescale of 20 working days. In its response, it said it was facing challenges which affected its ability to respond and investigate complaints within policy timescales. It apologised for the delay.
49. There were significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not log complaints made by the resident. Instead, it placed the focus on his decision to move to the property by mutual exchange. While it faced clear challenges when communicating with the resident, it did not follow its policy.
50. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. In ordering £200 compensation, we have considered the detriment to the resident caused by the identified failures.

Learning

51. The landlord may benefit from some of the learning included in our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights in relation to complaint handling and vulnerabilities.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. The landlord handled repairs well except for the kitchen skirting. This repair element had confusing records over whether it had completed the repair.

Communication

53. The landlord communicated regularly with the resident and was positive in its approach to keeping him updated. However, it failed to recognise and respond to clear complaints.