Clarion Housing Association Limited (202201723)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201723

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 July 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The mutual exchange and associated issues regarding the condition of the property (garden, flooring in the hallway) following the exchange.
2. Its communication regarding the resident’s rent increase.
3. The complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint cannot be fully investigated. It is noted from the evidence provided that part of the issues raised by the resident in her complaints to the landlord were about her concerns about a high rent increase and a data breach.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) and 42 (k) the Ombudsman will not consider the resident’s complaint regarding the level of rent increase since taking up the tenancy and her complaint about a data breach. Complaints that relate to the level of rent or liability to pay rent fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal. Likewise, complaints regarding whether there has been a data breach are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The resident is therefore advised to contact these organisations if she wishes to pursue these aspects of her complaint.

Background & Summary

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which she secured through mutual exchange on 28 February 2022. The property is a four-bedroom house.
The landlord said it has vulnerabilities recorded for the household members. The resident also informed this Service that she and her children are registered disabled (including her daughter who is blind).

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to this Service regarding the landlord’s handling of her mutual exchange, particularly the condition the property was left in on completing the process. The evidence shows that the application process commenced in December 2021 and that the mutual exchange was completed at the end of February 2022. The resident formally complained to the landlord about the condition of the property on 3 March 2022. This report therefore focusses on events that occurred from December 2021, when the mutual exchange process commenced, which is within 6 months of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord.
This Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Policies and procedural information

The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. The landlord would be required to comply with the provisions for public bodies under the Act. Under the Act the landlord had a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The landlord has a vulnerable resident’s policy which sets out its commitment to assist vulnerable resident’s to ensure that they receive the assistance they need to sustain their tenancy. Part of the policy objectives are:
1. To take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services.
2. Assist vulnerable residents in accessing additional services that they may need.
3. Consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability and where appropriate vary service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service.
4. To give new tenants the opportunity at the tenancy sign up to tell it about the needs of any vulnerable household member and any existing care and support services received.
The landlord’s mutual exchange application states that a tenant must repair any damage to their property before the mutual exchange can go ahead. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy issued April 2018 states that responsibility for any repairs that were the outgoing or former tenants will pass to the new or incoming tenant as they agree to accept the property as seen.
The deed of assignment of tenancy (signed by the previous tenant, the resident, and the landlord on 28 February 2022) states that the outgoing tenant assigns their tenancy to the incoming tenant, and the incoming tenant promises all parties that they will keep to all the conditions in the tenancy agreement.
Under the tenancy agreement:
1. The landlord agrees to repair and maintain the structure of the home.
2. The resident agrees to pay the rent for her home in advance on the first of each month.
3. The landlord may vary the net rent with effect from first April, following the start of the tenancy, by giving the resident at least one month’s notice. The rent increase notice will specify the new net rent payable.
4. The resident agrees to report any repair or defect for which the landlord is responsible promptly. The resident will not have to repair fixtures and fittings if they need replacing due to fair wear and tear.
5. The resident is responsible for maintaining their garden, keeping it clean, tidy, and cultivating it.
The landlord’s policy statement on repairs states that it aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely and efficient manner, ensuring that the repairs service represent value for money and achieves high levels of customer satisfaction. It will aim to offer an appointment for repairs within 5 working days of the resident making contact and attend:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or complete temporary repairs.
2. Non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The policy further notes that it may sometimes agree to carry out works that are not its responsibility in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. These do not form part of its repair policy and process and are addressed under a mutually agreed process with the resident.
Information relating to repairs on the landlord’s website states that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of floor coverings such as the carpets, lino, tiles, and laminate (except in the bathroom and kitchen which remain its responsibility.
The landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time of the complaint had no timescales for acknowledging or responding to complaints. Its interim complaints policy introduced in June 2022, states that it will acknowledge complaints within 10 working days of receipt and respond to stage one and two complaints within 20 working days and 40 working days respectively.
Its compensation policy allows for offers of financial redress where a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience or in recompense for loss of service by a direct result of the landlord’s actions or failure to act. It may award between £250 to £700 where it finds considerable failure but no permanent damage. Compensation payments will be used to offset rent or other arrears.

Summary of events

The landlord sent the resident a mutual exchange application form on 8 December 2021 and advised the resident in an accompanying letter to ensure that she could afford the rent of the property she wanted to move to. It advised her to check if she was in receipt of any benefits, and that they would cover her full rent before agreeing to a mutual exchange.
The resident noted on her mutual exchange application form on 10 December 2021 that her child was blind and that she needed to apply for a guide dog for her.
The acknowledgement letter sent to the resident on 17 January 2022 explained that:
1. The resident would take over the property in the condition it was in.
2. It would inspect the property to highlight any repairs the outgoing tenant needed to carry out prior to exchange, but if they chose to continue with the move, they would take on the responsibility for anything outstanding.
3. The resident should visit the property at different times of the day to make sure she was happy with the area. She should ask the outgoing tenant questions, check every room, and look behind furniture if she could.
The landlord completed a mutual exchange welcome telephone call with the resident on 25 January 2022, and advised her that the incoming tenant would be responsible for any non-standard decorative fixtures and fitting, floorings, and switches.
The mutual exchange home visit report dated 1 February 2022 noted that:
1. The condition of the garden was muddy and that it had several holes.
2. The outgoing tenant advised that the turf did not take root and that the holes had been there since sign up. They also advised that an inspection was completed 2 months before, but they heard nothing back.
3. The garden was in a very poor state since moving in and due for defects inspection.
4. There were outstanding repairs required by the outgoing tenant before the move could proceed. It did not specify any further details in the report.
5. A visit was not required by a surveyor and no repairs were required by the landlord.
6. The report did not comment on the condition of the flooring in the hallway.
The landlord informed the resident on 9 February 2022, that her mutual exchange application had been approved. It advised her that it would contact her with a moving date soon, but that she must not move in until it had agreed a date to sign all the relevant documents.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it had opened a rent account following her mutual exchange. The letter stated that her rent would be £771.40 (monthly according to the tenancy agreement), and it provided general advice regarding financial support towards her rent payment if required. It also informed her in a telephone call on the same day that it had arranged the sign up for 28 February 2022 and provided her a list of documents that would be required.
The deed of variation signed by all parties on 28 February 2022 noted that the rent payable was £771.40.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2022 to request a copy of her tenancy agreement.
The landlord noted that the resident made a complaint by telephone on 3 March 2022. She said:
1. She moved into the property on 28 February 2022, but there were a lot of outstanding repairs (which the repairs team were dealing with), and damage left by the previous tenant.
2. She was told that the previous tenant had informed the landlord that she (resident) would resolve the issues, but no one made her aware of the damage as she was unable to view the property before sign up due to covid.
3. Issues should have been picked up at the inspection, but the landlord cancelled the appointment at the property before sign up, so she signed the agreement without viewing it.
4. She had not been given any paperwork or any information about the tenancy.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 March 2022, to discuss her complaint. It noted some additional concerns raised by the resident during their discussion that:
1. She did not think the landlord had represented her best interests during the final inspection, which she was unable to attend due to its covid safety guidelines.
2. She felt the landlord just accepted what it was told by the previous tenant without confirming with her.
3. She found that there were repairs it should have dealt with proactively, rather than leaving them to her to raise.
4. She queried why an electrical test had not been carried out before she moved in.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 March 2022, stating that she had not been sent a copy of the tenancy agreement required to support her universal credit application and that she had been chasing for 10 days. The landlord’s records noted that it was sent to her by email the same day.
On 16 March 2022, she queried the document sent to her and said it was not her full tenancy agreement. She said the landlord would have to compensate her for any rent not paid, should the information not be sufficient to process her claim for universal credit.
The landlord issued a stage one response to the resident (in response to her complaint dated 3 March 2022) on 28 March 2022 regarding the condition of her property following the mutual exchange and the way the mutual exchange was processed. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and said:
1. A copy of her tenancy agreement was sent to her by email as requested 22 March 2022.
2. It inspected the property on 1 February 2022, and confirmed that she was not in attendance due to its covid safety rules. It accepted that it should have coordinated this more effectively to ensure that she was fully aware of the condition the property was being left in. It apologised for the service failure.
3. Other than this failure, it followed its mutual exchange process as it is the tenant’s responsibility to raise repairs, which is why its housing team would not have raised the repairs on her behalf.
4. When they spoke on 28 March 2022, she agreed to discuss the repairs outstanding with its repairs team. It explained that it could consider a new complaint should there be any dispute about any specific repairs after she had spoken with its repairs team.
5. The repairs to the floor and door lock would need to be passed to the repairs team directly by the resident.
6. It advised that an electrical safety check had been booked for 5 April 2022 and there was no specific requirement for it to have completed the checks prior to her moving in. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy however, outlines that the gas safety and electrical inspection will usually be conducted on the day of exchange.
7. It offered £100 for the failure identified in the mutual exchange process and £25 for the delayed response to her complaint. It advised that where applicable, money would be used to offset any arrears on her rent account or paid directly to her within 28 days.
On 1 April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that she telephoned earlier in the day to pay her rent, as the direct debit was not taken from her account. She said:
1. She set up the direct debit payment with an officer in its housing department, who assisted with the mutual exchange paperwork on 28 February 2022. The landlord should advise what happened with the information, as they were not used for the purpose of setting up her rent payment.
2. Whilst she was on the phone trying to make a card payment, she was advised that the rent had changed from £771.40 to £803.03, but she had no prior knowledge of this as she did not receive any notification of the increase.
3. She had just updated her universal credit with the new rent cost, but she had no evidence of the increase.
4. She paid £771.40; the amount received from universal credit as she did not have the additional amount.
5. She did not want her account to fall into arrears and the landlord should cover the additional charges due to its error.
6. The landlord should explain what happened to the direct debit paperwork she signed on 28 February 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 April 2022, and provided a breakdown of the cost incurred in completing her hallway flooring. She explained that the works cost £297 in total but that the landlord should only pay £198.
The landlord noted on 12 April 2022 that the resident called to find out why she had not received a response to her new complaint. It noted that:
1. This was a multifaceted complaint involving mainly the handling of her mutual exchange application.
2. The resident reported that there were drainage issues with the garden that needed to be resolved, but the defects team had not accepted responsibility for this.
3. She was unable to build a guide dog toilet in the garden until the repairs were resolved. She also stated that a repair to the downstairs toilet or sink was still outstanding.
4. She needed handrails installed for her daughter urgently as the works had been outstanding for a month.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 April 2022, to discuss her complaint. It noted that the following issues were raised by the resident:
1. She was told that a rent increase notification was sent earlier in February 2022 to the previous owner.
2. Her rent account had fallen into arrears due to the difference between her tenancy agreement and what she was being asked to pay.
3. When she raised this matter with its service charge team, she was sent a ‘revised rent increase’ notification addressed to her but dated 22 February 2022, when she was not yet a tenant. She would like a new rent notification sent to her, with the correct date, as the law requires thirty days notification.
4. She had contacted universal credit (UC), but they were yet to update her account with the new rent.
The resident contacted the landlord through social media on 21 April 2022. She reiterated the importance of having a guide dog for her daughter and how this process had been delayed due to the unresolved repairs in the garden. She explained that this was a life changing service for her daughter so she could be more independent, and this was made clear to the landlord when she applied for the mutual exchange.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 April 2022 and advised her that her complaint regarding the drainage in the garden had been referred to the relevant team to look into. It said it was unable to provide a timescale for the response and that it would reiterate the urgency of the matter. The resident was unhappy with this response and asked how long it would take to complete the repairs to her garden and if the landlord would pay her back if she borrowed money to do the works herself. She also raised the following:
1. How long the garden repairs would take and if the landlord would pay her back if she completed the works herself.
2. It had not yet re-imbursed the money she spent on the repairs to the hallway flooring.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint (received on 1 April 2022 and 12 April 2022) regarding rent increase and a drainage issue in her garden. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said:
1. Rent increase notification. Its customer support team confirmed that she was provided with a letter confirming her rent was £771.40. They stated that she was not informed of the rent increase from April 2022, but that she was provided the correct rent amount for when she moved into the property.
2. The rent review letter was not produced on the system until 22 February 2022 and the sign-up documents containing the rent amount were produced on 17 February 2022, before the sign-up appointment on 28 February 2022 when she accepted the property.
3. She was liable to pay rent from the date the tenancy was assigned to her, as it was the responsibility of the incoming and outgoing tenants to exchange all relevant documents, including the rent increase notification. It acknowledged that the team who handled the mutual exchange should have however ensured that the incoming tenant knew when the annual rent reviews were.
4. Its rent team said the rent increase should not have been applied as the resident was not properly informed. It would be reversing the net rent back to what was being charged to the account when she took on the tenancy. A letter would be sent to her confirming the adjustments.
5. Drainage Issue – It became aware of the drainage issue when it visited the property on 21 April 2022 for a different job. It sent her an email proposing to inspect the garden drainage on 18 May 2022 at 13:00pm which she had confirmed.
6. It noticed that her rent account was now in credit and that she had been trying to speak to its customer accounts team regarding a credit refund. It advised her to wait for the confirmation letter from its rent team before contacting universal credit to make the necessary adjustments.
7. Having investigated her complaint, it acknowledged that there was a lack of communication regarding her rent when she signed her mutual exchange, which had caused inconvenience to her. In recognition of this, it awarded compensation of £100.00 and said this would be used to offset any arrears on her rent account.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint (It said this was in response to her complaint dated 12 April 2022, but a copy was not provided to this Service) regarding the replacement of her hallway flooring on 10 May 2022. It responded that:
1. On 3 March 2022, she raised a complaint regarding the handling of her mutual exchange and the condition of her new property following sign up.
2. It acknowledged following an investigation, that there was a service failure during the mutual exchange process, and it awarded £100 as discretionary compensation payment and a further £25 for the delayed response to her complaint.
3. On 5 April 2022, she sent pictures of the work completed to the hallway flooring together with details of the costs incurred. She advised the landlord when they spoke on 28 April 2022, that she had reported the issue with her hallway floor to its repairs team and she had received a call back asking her to supply the receipts. It had reviewed the repairs team’s records, but it had not been able to find any record of a report being made regarding her hallway flooring between 28 March and 5 April 2022.
4. In addition, it had not been able to identify that a call was made to her regarding this matter between the same time periods. Its records showed that the resident contacted its customer accounts team on 1 April 2022, and following its review of the call, there was no discussion regarding her hallway floor or an agreement to cover the cost of the repairs.
5. During its investigations it had been unable to identify any employee who had agreed to her installing new flooring in her hallway or for the costs to be covered, under the circumstances.
6. It was unable to agree to these costs being met as it had not identified a service failure.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 May 2022, regarding its complaint response about her rent (sent to her on 9 May 2022) and said:
1. Its response did not cover the extent of the problem and financial hardship caused to her due to the time she had spent trying to update her information with universal credit due to its error.
2. She was not happy that it expected her to wait 28 days to action a proposed resolution which would only add to her distress and financial hardship.
3. It did not explain why it sent her a backdated rent increase letter. It was not the outgoing tenant’s responsibility to advise on rent charges.
4. She was only partially credited the initial compensation due to arrears on her account, which was not her fault.
On 24 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and said this was about her unresolved complaints (regarding the garden, rent increase and flooring) and the negative impact they were having on her health. She said:
1. Due to the landlord’s mismanagement of time, her exchange signing was moved from 26 February 2022 to 28 February 2022. This caused her some inconvenience as she was not informed on time and therefore unable to cancel the movers. This appeared to be a new issue that was not previously raised in her previous complaints.
2. She was told to raise the issues relating to the flooring, missing lock, and garden separately and was advised that the garden would be sorted.
3. The landlord agreed in a telephone call with her that it would reimburse costs incurred in competing the works to the hallway flooring as the uneven floor tiles (due to missing flooring) were a trip hazard for her daughter. It however failed to pay the expenses and said it could not find any evidence confirming that it agreed to the arrangement.
4. The £125 compensation was awarded but she was not told that the payment would not be made until 28 days after the offer had been made.
5. Due to the delays in adjusting the rent, her account fell into arrears, so she was only offered a partial refund.
6. The landlord should provide an update on when handrails would be installed as recommended by her occupational therapist, along with additional lighting for her daughter.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 6 July 2022 and said it was experiencing some disruption to its systems following a cyber security incident. It said it could not check its systems or make any payments at the time and that it was working urgently to resolve the issue. It said it had been communicating actively with residents about the disruption.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 26 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing a final response to the complaint and explained that this was due to a cyber-security incident. It said it was responding to her complaint received on 12 April 2022, regarding the replacement of her hallway flooring and compensation for the costs incurred (and additional concerns raised in her email of 24 May 2022). A copy of the complaint dated 12 April 2022 was not provided to this Service by the landlord, but the resident sent screenshots of a complaint (with no date) matching the issues addressed in this response. It said:
1. Its inspection did not identify any grounds related to the property’s condition to refuse the exchange, but the inspection also did not identify all the issues she was unhappy about before she agreed to exchange.
2. It was apparent that the inspection findings were not discussed with her before she moved in and both her and her exchange partner had already arranged and booked removals before it ensured that it had staff available for the assignment appointment. She had therefore already taken up occupation of her new home before a local team member could go through the assignment paperwork with her.
3. It did not advise her until very close to her proposed sign update that it was not able to accommodate this date, but facilitating her early move clearly impacted the service it could provide.
4. It had reviewed the inspection and had noted that its inspection report did not identify that the door entrance was missing laminate or vinyl flooring for an area of approximately 5ft of walking into the hallway. This was raised with the previous tenant who advised that the resident was fully aware of this and that she was going to replace them with flooring of her own choice. It took the previous tenant’s word which was a mistake, as it should have followed this up with the resident. This error would have occurred regardless of whether or not she had physically exchanged properties before it could complete the assignment process.
5. It recommended that £250.00 compensation should be awarded to cover the cost of this issue in addition to the amount already agreed. The landlord had offered financial redress for other failings it had identified but had not offered any other payments in relation to this issue. However, the landlord was not very clear here, as it had not previously agreed to pay the resident.
6. In respect of the condition of the garden, this was in a poor condition most likely due to problematic drainage when it inspected the property and had been so for a long time.
7. This was something that the resident should have been aware of, following any visit she would have made to the property before she agreed to exchange. It was also identified on its inspection report as a significant issue, and it spoke to the outgoing tenant about this.
8. Under the tenancy agreement, gardens are a responsibility of the tenant, and it was advised by the outgoing tenant that the garden had been an issue since she moved in. As this was a new home the house builders were looking into it. The previous tenant also advised it that the resident was aware of the issue and that she had advised that she (the resident) intended to deck the whole area. Its contractors had however decided that it would not be taking responsibility for the repairs as it was outside the 12 months period to rectify defects.
9. Although she physically exchanged homes before the assignment paperwork was completed, it was its view that it could have done more to ensure that she was fully aware that she would be responsible for the condition of the garden and for any improvements she intended to make to it once she became the tenant.
10. This was therefore a significant issue that would normally become her responsibility after she exchanged and was something that should have been made clear to her before she moved. It recommended on this occasion that £1000 should be paid to the resident to assist her with the garden maintenance (including making provision for the alterations required for a guide dog) as its repairs team would not undertake such works.
11. It apologised that the property was left in this condition and that she was left with these problems.
12. With regards to her request for adaptations, it had received specifications from her occupational therapist (OT) and the following jobs had been raised:
- Repair WC downstairs.
- Fit additional lighting to staircase.
- Additional banister rails to be fitted on all three flights of stairs, left side ascending.
1. It would arrange for the responsible team to contact her directly to arrange a convenient appointment to complete these works and this would be monitored by senior management to ensure it is completed.
2. Regarding her complaint about her rent increase, it reverted the rent increase back to the original amount to acknowledge the fact that she had not been informed.
3. The original letter was updated to reflect her new address, her new tenant and customer reference numbers and watermarked as a “revised” letter. It said this was not fraudulent, but it could see how this could give the impression of that.
4. It apologised for the confusion caused and offered total compensation in the amount of £1350 in recognition of the issues and service failures that it had identified. This was broken down into:
  1. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  2. £250 for the service failure identified with the mutual exchange process (it said earlier in the response that this was to cover the cost of the flooring works).
  3. £1000 discretionary compensation towards her garden maintenance.
5. It was unable to process compensation payments due to the disruption that had been caused by the cyber security incident and the effects that this had had on its systems. It would contact the resident once this problem had been resolved. It further advised that it offset compensation against any arrears in the first instance, otherwise payments would be made directly to her bank account.

Post complaint actions

The resident contacted this Service on 7 October 2022 and said:
1. She was unhappy about the landlord’s response regarding the rent increase.
2. The landlord’s offer following the final response did not specifically acknowledge her costs in renewing sections of the flooring themselves, just that she would be paid £250.00 generally for issues with the mutual exchange. She had asked the landlord to clarify this, but it did not respond.
3. The £1000 offered for the garden maintenance was not enough to cover the costs she would incur doing these works.
4. The delay in completing the garden caused a delay to her guide dog application which was the sole reason she had exchanged her home.
5. Someone contacted her to process her compensation, but she did not accept it as the offer should reflect the extended delays, inconvenience, distress, and the overall impact on her disabled daughter who had not been able to proceed with her application for a guide dog.
On 22 November 2022, the resident informed this Service that she wanted the landlord to pay between £3000 and £4000 for the garden works or complete the required works itself. She said although the gardens are the responsibility of the tenant, she felt the repair was structural. She said there were 4 manholes that needed to be made safe for her daughter who is visually impaired.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 February 2023, and said the landlord had still not reimbursed her for the works completed to her flooring as promised.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 May 2023 and said the letter was in confirmation of what it agreed with the resident on 19 April 2023 and 10 May 2023. It said:
1. They agreed on 19 April 2023, that it would pay £350 in compensation, to cover the flooring complaint and this had already been added to her account as requested.
2. Regarding the garden, it agreed to arrange for a landscaping contractor to provide a second quote for the works to her rear garden, as she had already obtained a quote.
3. On 10 May 2023, it advised her that the quote it received was higher than the one she had obtained, and it agreed on a compensation payment of £3500 to allow her to use her own contractor to resolve the issues with her rear garden.
4. It had reviewed the compensation previously offered and arranged a further £1000 to be paid to her in recognition of the issues and service failures that it had identified with her complaint and would therefore be making arrangements to pay her a further £4150. The full breakdown is detailed below:
  1. Delay in responding to stage 1 – £50.
  2. Delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint – £100.
  3. Service failure with the mutual exchange – £250
  4. Inconvenience, stress, and time spent on pursuing the matter – £250.
  5. Discretionary payment towards her garden – £3500
  6. Discretionary payment towards her flooring (already paid to her) – £350.
  7. Total £4500.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The mutual exchange and associated issues regarding the condition of the garden, flooring in the hallway and the rent increase following the exchange.

Based on the evidence, the inspection report completed on 1 February 2022, by the landlord noted longstanding issues reported by the previous tenant concerning the garden and that it was due for an inspection by the defects team. It is further noted that the report did not include any comments regarding the condition of the flooring in the hallway, which became one of the pertinent issues (as well as the condition of the garden) the resident complained to the landlord about. The landlord assured the resident in its letter dated 17 January 2022, that it would inspect the property and notify her of any repairs the outgoing tenant would need to carry out prior to the exchange, but we have seen from the evidence that it did not do so.
Whilst the landlord has a policy and process in place for handling mutual exchange applications, it is clear from the evidence that it did not adhere to it. The landlord stressed the importance of viewing the property before an exchange is agreed to the resident. It explained in its stage two response to the resident that mutual exchanges are usually a process where each tenant agrees to assign their tenancy to the other, and properties were therefore not subject to its standard pre-tenancy checks or the normal preparation work that it would complete under its void works for vacant properties. It however accepted responsibility for inspecting it and informing the resident of any outstanding repairs that they may inherit should the outgoing tenant not resolve them. It did not adhere to its policy and process, covid used as mitigation, but it should have gone further to ensure that any adjustment to its process did not cause any detriment to the resident and impact the service that she experienced.
The landlord noted in the inspection report that there were outstanding repairs required by the outgoing tenant, before the move could proceed, but it failed to pass on this information to the resident. Its actions here were not appropriate, as it failed to make the resident aware of the condition of the property denying her the right to all the facts that would have assisted her in making an informed decision about the mutual exchange. This would have caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The resident noted on the mutual exchange application dated 10 December 2021 that her daughter was disabled. The failure to appropriately assess the condition of the property and risk assess any issues that may impact the resident’s daughter’s ability to use her home freely is a significant failing which would have caused further distress and frustration to the resident.
The landlord appeared to have learnt from this error and acknowledged in its stage one response dated 28 March 2022, that this was a service failure and that it should have handled things better and taken steps to ensure that she was made aware of the condition that the property was being left in. Having admitted early in the process that it had gone things wrong, it did not proactively manage the resident’s case or take ownership for the issues identified. It rather asked her to contact its repairs team and raise another complaint if she remained dissatisfied. This would have left the resident feeling uncertain as to how the outstanding issues would be resolved.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord, given its earlier admission to its error in communicating these outstanding repairs to the resident, to have taken the responsibility of liaising with the relevant teams regarding the repairs to ascertain what could be done to put things right and manage the resident’s expectations. It had therefore not learnt from its errors and had again left the resident to chase between its departments to get a resolution. Moreover, the tenancy agreement is quite clear that the tenant is responsible for the repairs to their flooring and garden, so it should have sought ways to address the detriment caused to the resident as a result of the failure identified. This is not appropriate and would have led to further frustration and distress to the resident.
The resident raised further concerns to the landlord in April 2022, that there were still outstanding repairs in the property particularly a drainage problem with the garden. She expressed the importance of resolving the matter urgently as her daughter, who is disabled, required a guide dog. On 21 April 2022 she stressed to the landlord that this was a life changing service for her daughter and that she could not have the process delayed.
The landlord responded to the resident on 9 May 2022, that it only became aware of the drainage issue on 21 April when it attended for a different job. This shows some inconsistencies in the landlord’s responses, as the inspection report for the property dated 1 February 2022 noted concerns about the condition of the garden. This shows a lack of collaborative work or poor communication within its internal departments. It also indicates that her concerns about her vulnerable daughter’s needs were not taken into consideration despite her previous contacts regarding the matter.
Nevertheless, it advised the resident that it had sent an email proposing to inspect the drainage issue in her garden on 18 May 2022. The landlord has however not provided evidence confirming whether the appointment went ahead as planned or provided a copy of the inspection report following its visit. This is unreasonable as this Service remains unclear of any actions that were taken to address the problem, and if any advice was offered to the resident regarding a resolution.
The landlord concluded in its response about the repairs to her hallway flooring that it would not be reimbursing costs incurred by the resident in putting right the repairs. This response is unreasonable given that the landlord had previously admitted a service failure in the mutual exchange process, where it did not notify the resident of these outstanding repairs. Its reason for this decision was that it could not find evidence confirming that any of its staff assured the resident that it would reimburse costs incurred in replacing the missing tiles in her hallway. The landlord appeared to miss the key issue here, which was about taking responsibility for the detriment caused to the resident as a result of something it failed to do.
Its compensation policy states that it would consider compensation where a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience. The policy further states that it will take ownership where it has made mistakes. It is clear from the evidence and by the landlord’s admission that there were unresolved repairs which it failed to disclose to the resident. Not taking ownership or offering to reimburse the resident for putting right these repairs was inappropriate. It had the opportunity to intervene and resolve this matter when it responded to the resident on 28 March 2022, but it took several complaints and a six-month delay before it finally accepted responsibility and agreed to reimburse the resident. The unnecessary and avoidable delays would have caused further uncertainty, confusion, and distress to the resident.
This Service has also not seen any evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability in its decision making, despite its policy clearly setting out that it would consider any additional needs for vulnerable resident’s in its service delivery. The resident informed the landlord that the uneven flooring was a trip hazard for her daughter, but it did not take this into account when it responded on 10 May 2022, that it would not reimburse costs incurred in completing the repairs. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its policy and has not demonstrated that it gave due consideration to the resident’s personal circumstances or that it treated her fairly. The landlord’s actions are also not in keeping with the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 as it failed to have regard in making appropriate reasonable adjustments to its processes and service delivery, in light of the information provided by the resident regarding her child’s disability.
The resident sent further communications to the landlord expressing discontent with its responses. She explained in her email dated 11 May 2022 that the landlord’s delay in resolving her concerns had caused her financial hardship, frustration, and distress. Based on the evidence seen the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the garden until 26 September 2022, when it responded to her stage two complaint. This meant that it left the resident unclear of her options in resolving the drainage problem in her garden. This also meant that her application for a guide dog for her daughter was unnecessarily delayed despite the resident’s various communications about the urgency of the matter and how it would help her daughter’s independence. It is unreasonable that the resident was left for many months without a clear resolution to this outstanding repair, and a significant failing which clearly prolonged a much-needed service for her daughter.
The landlord appeared to have learnt from its earlier mistakes from its response to the stage two complaint. It again apologised and acknowledged that although the previous tenant had assured it that they had discussed all the outstanding repairs with her, it should have verified that this was indeed the case. It acknowledged that the garden works were a significant issue that should have been followed up correctly prior to the completion of the mutual exchange. It accepted that on this occasion, the resident should be compensated for this error and agreed to pay:
1. £1000 to cover the cost of the repairs to the garden, even though this would normally be a resident’s responsibility.
2. £250 to cover the cost of the repairs to her hallway.
3. £100 for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint.
Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes the landlord’s resolution, offer of redress and its attempt at finally resolving this longstanding issue, this was late in the process, that had left the resident feeling unheard and unsupported for many months. Its offer did not also take into account the detriment to the resident, and the time she had spent in pursuing the matter for over 7 months. The offer is therefore not deemed to be proportionate to the poor level of service the resident experienced. It is also unclear from the evidence how the landlord reached its settlement offer for the garden repairs, as it did not provide evidence demonstrating that it sought expert opinion on the extent of works that would be required to bring the garden to standard. This therefore indicates that it did not listen to the resident and had therefore not learnt from its errors or sought ways to provide a final and satisfactory resolution to the resident’s longstanding issue.
The resident however informed this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer for the garden repairs and that compensation for the flooring had still not been paid as of 2 February 2023. Its post complaint actions indicate that it sought expert opinion on the works required for the garden and agreed to offer the resident £3500 to complete the works herself, but this was 8 months after its final response to the complaint. This demonstrates at a later stage that it finally listened to the resident’s concerns and that it took responsibility for its earlier failures and sought ways to put them right. It also revised its compensation from £350 initially offered at the end of the stage two complaint to £1000. This action, whilst appropriate, was far too late in the process as the resident was left to continually chase the landlord for 15 months, during which she expressed the distress, financial hardship, frustration, and inconvenience caused as a result of the delays.
The landlord has demonstrated some learning in accepting that it had poorly handled her case and that it had not effectively communicated with her. It recognised that it should not have handed over the responsibility of checking the property condition to the resident and it apologised for this failure. It said it sought to ensure that tenants wishing to exchange are aware of what they would become responsible for and encourage them to thoroughly check the property condition themselves before agreeing to an exchange. It however recognised that it failed to fully identify all of the issues the resident discovered on moving into the property and that it failed to notify her of the outstanding repairs it found on its inspection.
Overall, there is evidence of several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property following the mutual exchange. Although it admitted that it got things wrong in the early stages of the process, it failed to learn from this and put things right. Its complaints policy states that it would ensure that its practices do not disadvantage disabled people, but the evidence shows that the resident was left at a disadvantage particularly due to the landlord’s failure to accept responsibility for the condition the garden (and the hallway flooring) was left in, thereby delaying her application for a guide dog for her daughter. This also caused financial hardship as she informed the landlord that she suffered out of pocket expenses, which the landlord failed to initially reimburse for the flooring works. It did not in fact agree to reimburse the expense until September 2022, 6 months after she provided receipts evidencing the works completed.
It said in its compensation policy that it will work with the resident when mistakes occur to put things right. There is no evidence of any active engagement with the resident to resolve her outstanding queries, throughout the life of the case, until after the complaints process had been exhausted. It missed several opportunities to resolve the matter thereby causing further distress and frustration to the resident. It should have promptly sought ways to put her back in the position she would have been, had the error with the mutual exchange process not occurred on its part.
The resident contacted the landlord for a period of 7 months during which she was unable to proceed with an application for guide dog for her daughter as a direct result of the landlord’s failure to take ownership of the matter. Its failure to act quickly to resolve the matter would have caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, loss of confidence in the landlord and disappointment. This Service therefore finds evidence of maladministration in its handling of the report about the condition of the property following the mutual exchange.

Its communication regarding the resident’s rent increase

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s communication about a rent increase, which she was not informed about before or during the mutual exchange process in a complaint to the landlord on 1 April 2022. She stated that she contacted the landlord to pay her rent, as the direct debit payment had not been taken from her account. She said that it was during this contact that she found out that her rent had gone up from £771.40 (as stated in the deed of assignment) to £803, and that her rent account had gone into arrears.
The landlord informed the resident that the rent increase letter had been sent to the previous tenant and that it was their responsibility to pass on this information to the resident. However, it also acknowledged that it should have notified the resident of the annual rent increase during the mutual exchange process. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not notify the resident of the rent increase, as it specifically informed her in its earlier correspondence dated 8 December 2021 to ensure that she could afford the rent of the property she was planning to move to. As stated in the tenancy agreement, the landlord is legally obliged to give the resident at least one month’s notice of any rent increase which would occur annually in April. A mutual exchange application has a period of 42 working days to be processed as set out under the Housing Act 1985. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider that they would have needed to advise of the rent increase through the application process and assess affordability.
It was particularly important for the resident to have received this notification ahead of time, to ensure that she could update universal credit of the rent increase. This did not however happen, and she later found out that her rent account had fallen into arrears due to the shortfall she was not aware of, which was not covered through her universal credit payment. Whilst the tenancy agreement stated that rent was subject to variations annually from 1 April, (which the resident would be informed of at least a month in advance) she was not given the paperwork or a copy of the tenancy agreement at sign up. The landlord clearly departed from its policy position, as the relevant information regarding the tenancy should have been made available to the resident when she took up the tenancy. This further demonstrates that the resident was not made aware of all the necessary information before the mutual exchange was agreed. This is inappropriate on the landlord’s part and would have caused the resident inconvenience, distress, and time in pursing the matter with the landlord.
The evidence shows that the landlord sent a revised rent increase letter to the resident backdated to 22 February 2022 (after her complaint in April 2022) which was a week before she signed up for the property. The landlord learnt from this in admitting its error as a service failure and it sought to put things right. It informed the resident in its complaint response dated 9 May 2022, that it would not be applying the rent increase to the resident’s tenancy and that it would reverse the rent back to the amount being charged at the start of the tenancy.
It also explained its reason for sending a backdated rent increase letter and assured her that it was not a fraudulent act on its part, but a means of updating her about the changes. It apologised for the failure identified and offered her £100 for the inconvenience caused due to the lack of adequate communication to the resident. Its actions here were reasonable as it recognised its error early in the process and put measures in place to minimise the impact and further detriment to the resident. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint about a rent increase.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage one. Although its complaints policy at the time had no timescales for acknowledging or responding to complaints, this Service’s complaint handling Code sets out that stage one and two should be acknowledged within two working days and responses sent within 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. The landlord received the resident’s stage one complaint on 3 March 2022, but it did not respond until 17 working days after (28 March 2022). Its stage one response to the resident regarding her rent increase was also sent 24 working days after it was received. She complained on 1 April 2022, but the response was not sent until 9 May 2022. The delays would have caused frustration to the resident especially since there is no evidence that it notified the resident of any delays and the expected timeframe for the resident.
The complaint responses were also not adequate as they did not fully address the issues raised by the resident. The resident specifically asked that as a resolution to her complaint, the landlord should ensure that there were no arrears on her account. It said her account was in credit, but it did not provide a clear explanation of how the credit came about. This is not appropriate as the resident was left with no choice than to escalate the matter again in order to get clear answers to her query. This also left the resident with multiple complaints running concurrently on the same matters, not providing effective communication or complaint handling.
The resident complained that she was not paid the full compensation previously offered to her as a result of the arrears on the account, which accrued due to its earlier error about the rent increase. She asked why it takes 28 days to pay compensation after it has been offered, and what had happened to the direct debit form completed when she signed up for the property. The landlord did not address these issues in its responses to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that its principles are to put things right, keep customers informed, manage expectations, and use lessons learned from the complaints to improve its service and prevent complaints. Based on the evidence, the landlord did not adhere to its policy. This Service’s complaint handling code states that complaint handlers should have access to staff at all levels to facilitate quick resolutions of complaints and have authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. The resident’s complaint originated from the initial failure identified on 28 March 2022 in its stage one response, but it failed to take ownership of the issue leaving the resident to continually raise complaints. The poor management of the complaints led to frustration and left the resident with no clear plan of the next steps for resolving the outstanding matter.
The landlord acknowledged the delays in responding to the resident’s complaints and offered payments of £25 in its response dated 28 March 2022 and £100 for the 4-month delay in responding to the stage two complaint. It also offered £50, several months after the complaint had exhausted its complaints handling process. This does not however reflect the failures identified in this report, the time and trouble to the resident and the frustration the delays would have caused to her.
In this case, the landlord failed to use its complaints process to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and it also failed to acknowledge this in its responses indicating that it had not learned from its errors. This left the resident in a complaints process, with no clear outcomes agreed, no clear timescale for works to be completed and being left unable to access this Service, as the process was not yet exhausted. This led to the resident not being able to access support for her disabled daughter, causing significant distress and inconvenience. Her vulnerabilities were also not taken into account at any point during the life of the complaint despite its policy setting out clear actions for this. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the mutual exchange and associated issues regarding the condition of the property (garden, flooring in the hallway) following the exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s report about its communication of the rent increase.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow the correct process when it dealt with the resident’s mutual exchange application. It admitted this error early in the complaints process and it apologised and offered compensation, but it failed to acknowledge the detriment to the resident especially her vulnerable daughter who is disabled. It did not take ownership for the repairs or seek ways to put things right at the earliest opportunity following its acceptance of fault. The resident was left to continually chase the landlord and raise multiple complaints about her concerns. It took almost 15 months from the time the matter was first brought to its notice to come to a resolution.
The landlord did not inform the resident about an upcoming annual rent increase when she completed the sign-up process for the mutual exchange. It acknowledged its error, apologised to the resident, and offered compensation for the inconvenience caused. It also agreed to revert the rent back to the previous amount agreed at the time of the exchange.
The stage one and two responses were both delayed and they failed to address all of the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not provide updates to the resident about the delays or provide an expected timeframe for the response. It did not use its complaints to resolve the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity, which resulted it unnecessary delays in resolving the outstanding issues. It offered apologies for the delays and offered compensation, but it did not acknowledge a failure in its complaint handling process or learn from its mistakes.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £4500 already offered.
3. Pay the resident an additional amount of £350 for the inconvenience, time and trouble and frustration to the resident as a result of the failures identified in its complaint handling.
4. Share this report with the relevant members of staff who handle complaints and ensure that they familiarise themselves with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, with a view to providing responses that address all points raised in complaints.
5. Ensure that staff who handle complaints and other relevant staff adhere to its vulnerable resident’s policy.
6. Respond to the resident’s outstanding query about her compensation which she said was used to offset the arrears on her rent account.
7. Provide this Service evidence of compliance with the above orders.
8. Any additional compensation order by this Service is not to be offset against arrears as stated in our remedies guidance.
The landlord should complete the following orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Review its complaint handling policy, particularly the timescale for responding to complaints and ensure this aligns with this Service’s complaints handling code.
2. The landlord should review learning from this case in respect to its handling of mutual exchanges. It should particularly ensure that staff who handle this process fully adhere to its policy and processes so that prospective resident’s are informed about the condition of the property they wish to move.