Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231277)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231277

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 March 2024

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 resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Repairs to the property following the mutual exchange.
3. Pest control within the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom property whose tenancy began in November 2022. The resident lived in the property with her 3 children.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints made after 17 June 2022 within 20 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states the definition of an unusable room will be considered on a case by case basis. Where a household has not had the use of a room(s), beyond published repair response times, it may offer compensation as a proportion of the weekly/ monthly rent. The amount paid will be based on a pro-rata amount of the net rent according to the number of unavailable rooms. It states for the loss of use of a whole room in a 3 bedroom property, it would pay compensation of 25%, and for the loss of use of a kitchen, it would pay 50%.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that incoming residents have the same right to repair for repairs that are its responsibility as other residents. Responsibility for any repairs that were the responsibility of the outgoing resident will pass to the incoming resident as they accept the property as seen.
The landlord has been unable to provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement, as such the Ombudsman has relied on information for repair responsibilities from the landlord’s website. Its website states it is responsible for repairs to wall tiles in the bathroom and kitchen. It is also responsible for the walls, ceilings, plastering, flooring, floorboards, internal doors, skirting boards, stairs, and handrails. It also assumes responsibility for remedying damp and mould. It finally states that pest control is the responsibility of both it and the resident.
The landlord’s repairs policy states responsive repairs fall into two main categories, emergency, and non-emergency. It explains:
1. Emergency repairs are classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. These should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at the visit.
2. Non-emergency repairs are dealt with at the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. The policy further states all services, and appointments are offered from 8:00 to 17:00 with an out of hours service covering emergencies outside of these times.
3. Complex repairs such as disrepair cases are also completed through the responsive repairs service. Major component replacement such as kitchens and bathrooms, were not responsive repairs and should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.

Summary of events

Prior to the mutual exchange the previous resident had raised repair requests with the landlord. These included uncontainable leaks coming from underneath the floorboard which it said was the former resident’s responsibility due to their action in May 2019. Disrepair works were completed in 2021, and the previous resident also raised issues with a roof leak and with electrics in 2022.
On 5 December 2022 the resident raised a complaint about her mutual exchange. She explained she had moved into the property in November 2022, and it was in a state of disrepair. A surveyor had attended who said it should not have been signed off in the state it was in. She told the landlord that there was a rat infestation and that rats were coming up through the floorboards which were damaged and had gaping holes in them. She said she had reported this when she first moved in and was having to find somewhere to stay with her children due to the rats. She queried what would happen if her family were hurt by the rats, and why nobody was responding to her. The landlord responded on the same day and told the resident it was sorry to hear about her concerns. It confirmed it had logged a complaint and someone would contact her to discuss the matter further.
The landlord’s repair logs show that an emergency job was raised about the resident’s boiler on 27 December 2022. Its electrician attended and told the resident they did not have time to do the necessary work identified as they had too many jobs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 December 2022 and explained she had moved into the property in November 2022 and had watched it fall apart. She advised she knew when accepting it that it needed work, but she did not realise that the works were beyond cosmetic issues. She stated the previous occupier had a leak which went unreported, leaving the kitchen floor half up, half pulled apart, rotting, and smelly. The cupboards had been put in place for her visit but since she moved in, she realised she could not pull open a cupboard. Doing so led to it slamming back on her head or the “footboards” falling on her children constantly. She said it was dangerous, provided photographs, highlighted she had a surveyor attend the property, and she raised health and safety concerns. She stated she had spoken with its subcontractors who fitted its kitchens and they had advised her that if the landlord asked them to fit a kitchen, they would do so. That they had completed kitchen replacements recently, and that left her wondering why she could not have the same done. The resident asked it to look at her kitchen and advise her what she should do next regarding the issue.
On 29 December 2022 the landlord discussed the resident’s email of 28 December 2022 internally. It asked for contact to be made with her to establish how it could resolve the issues she had raised in her complaint. On the same day, the surveyor asked for works to be escalated to the relevant teams.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 8 January 2023, reiterating the issues she had with the property and that its surveyor had attended and left with a list of issues in November 2022. Since then, she said they had ignored her efforts to contact them, and no repairs had been booked following the visit. She told it that:
1. There had been several repair operatives who had attended and made comments. She advised on some occasions contractors did not show up when promised and rebooked appointments for over a month later.
2. She had requested for an area manager to attend her property over 15 times, and this had not been done.
3. She could not cook as the electric oven could not be connected properly as the electrics were trapped behind a gas pipe. She had reported this when she moved into the property in November 2022, and it had not been addressed.
4. The holes in the flooring were big enough for her child to fall through. There was damp and mould which was creeping up the ceilings. She was aware of kitchen and bathroom replacements taking place in the local area. She was aware of individuals whose facilities were not as bad as hers but were receiving replacements, but she continued to be ignored.
5. She wanted a response within 24 hours otherwise she would post every email, picture, and video onto social media as proof she was being ignored. She said she would go to the papers and seek legal action and further expressed her dissatisfaction.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 9 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and explained what her complaint was about and the remedies she sought. It then provided its findings and said:
1. It had contacted its surveyor’s team to ask if they had inspected the property and raised the works that were due. They had been tasked with a list of repairs to complete including fixing the living room door, renewing a cracked toilet pan, renewing the thread of the staircase, renewing floorboards across many rooms, replacing damaged wall tiles, renewing the bath panel, and securing the handrail on the first floor landing.
2. The works had been scheduled to be completed on 5 and 18 January 2023. There had been two appointments booked in due to the level of work required.
3. It had asked for the details of its pest control team to be provided and it had raised a block treatment with its contractors. They had been unable to contact her regarding the dates for treatment and a request was passed to them to contact her by 6 January 2023 and confirm the date directly with her.
4. It acknowledged there was a service failure in the time it had taken to resolve the outstanding works that she had reported, including reporting and raising the works for the infestation. As such it was upholding her complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It hoped that following the repairs, the complaint would be fully resolved.
5. In recognition of the issues, it awarded her compensation of £300 and said if there were any arrears on her rent/ service account, it would be offset against them. It broke the compensation down as:
  1. A £100 discretionary payment for the repairs due to inconvenience suffered, having to chase, and a recognition of the failure to follow its process.
  2. £150 discretionary payment for the infestation, for the inconvenience suffered, her having to chase and recognition of its failure to follow process.
  3. £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord and told it she was traumatised by the issues around her home. She reiterated the issues with the surveyors visit, said they knew parts of the property were inhabitable, and that the floors and the kitchen were hazardous. The resident:
1. Raised concerns about its response to the repairs and pointed out that it had 28 days “legally” to have them booked in from its visit. She raised issues around the safety of herself and her children.
2. Informed the landlord that a rat had jumped onto her child’s leg whilst they were playing, and it had ignored her. She told it that her father had paid for someone to rectify the issue for her, and she was still waiting to hear from its pest control team and expressed her dissatisfaction.
3. Highlighted that the property was in disrepair and raised repair issues throughout the property.
4. Informed it that it had told her in its stage 1 response that it would begin works on 5 January 2023, but it had not. She queried if all the works would be completed by 18 January 2023, as it had provided her with no timescales.
5. Said that her child had asthma and could not live with mould in the property. They had a cough and constantly used their inhaler. She raised further issues around the electrics and rodents accessing her property through the back of the cupboards.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 26 January 2023. It apologised that it was unable to resolve the matter and for the delay in contacting her following her escalation on 9 January 2023. It told her it aimed to provide a response by 24 February 2023, and it would inform her if its response would take any longer. It apologised for the inconvenience and stress caused.
The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns internally in February 2023. It confirmed that:
1. It would reimburse the costs she had incurred with treating the pests in her property, provided she was able to provide receipts.
2. There was a service failure, as during its property inspection in July 2022, it had taken three photographs of the kitchen, bathroom and main bedroom which showed the bathroom tiling and kitchen floor were in poor condition. These were not detailed accordingly in the inspection form. The residents had moved into their new properties before signing the paperwork and were still happy to proceed with the signup on 12 January 2023. As no repairs were identified on its system, it continued with the exchange. The matter needed to be explored further by those who completed the inspection, as the report indicated that the property was in a good condition.
3. The surveyor had provided a scope of works in December 2022, works were booked for 18 January 2023, but it spoke with the resident on 9 January 2023, and she did not agree to the scope of works. It visited her on 12 January 2023 and agreed with her about the required work. It changed the scope of work to include the extra works required.
Following contact from the resident on 24 February 2023 informing it she was expecting her complaint response by the end of that day, the landlord:
1. Chased internally and explained the resident had mentioned about a survey which said the property should have been voided prior to the exchange. She suggested handing the property back to it and being moved to a different one across the country. She raised concerns about her and her family’s safety and reiterated the issues with the flooring. She told it the property was in a significant state of disrepair. It said it had explained to her that she did not meet the criteria for a management move. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the correspondence referred to by the landlord from the resident, or a copy of the survey.
2. Spoke with her and apologised for not contacting her. It told her that the review of her complaint had not been completed but it was in its final stages. It hoped to be able to provide her with the final response that week. It provided her with the reasons for the delay and confirmed its complaints officer had relayed the notes of their conversation on the same day. It told her it had diarised to contact her again by the end of the week with a view to providing the stage 2 response.
The resident responded to the landlord and told it that she had to go stay with her parent especially during the cold snaps as she only had 1 working radiator in the property. She had chased its contractor who told her that the landlord had not approved the work to be conducted so they could not complete the works for the replacement radiators. She queried why she was not considered a priority despite having children.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord stated internally that the resident remained dissatisfied, while some repairs remained outstanding, and it had completed others. She maintained the condition of the property was illegal and said her child’s bedroom wall could fall apart if prodded or pushed too far. She advised it was beyond hazardous, and raised issues with the electrics in her home, and repairs to her toilet had been outstanding. She stated it had taken 16 weeks to stop her top toilet leaking and replace it. She advised she reported the issue on 7 November 2022, and it remained outstanding.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 March 2023 and said she was frustrated with the delays. It apologised and assured her that it was chasing the final response, and it would be provided “ASAP”. It also updated her on the same day and said it had raised her latest feedback to be considered with her complaint including her desire to move. It had requested an update from its heating contractor, and this should ensure any delay was progressed. It confirmed reconsideration of compensation was being undertaken and her request around arrears not being charged due to the condition of the property would also be considered. It apologised for any additional time being taken to complete the review.
The landlord’s internal notes on 8 March 2023 provided a summary of a conversation and said:
1. Works were prolonged due to raising of new issues and additional works were agreed. For example, it agreed the previous week to install a breakfast bar. The resident’s expectations were beyond its responsibilities.
2. The top toilet was completed before her email of 27 February 2023. The remaining works which was originally agreed was for plastering in the bedrooms but that was due to take place that evening.
3. The electrical issue mentioned were now historic; they were raised on an emergency call out before Christmas and addressed at the time.
4. In light of the resident continuing to raise issues, once works were completed its surveyor would go to inspect and sign the completed works off.
On the same day, the resident chased the landlord for its response to her complaint. She said it was now 2 weeks overdue and reiterated the issues had been ongoing since she moved into the property in November 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the response to her complaint and advised why. It explained what her complaint was about and the timeline of the complaint. It then provided the reasons she remained dissatisfied following the stage 1 response and the remedies she sought. It detailed its actions, findings, the works it had completed and the actions of its contractors around the pest control and repairs and:
1. Said it had reviewed its responses, arranged for a quote from its pest control contractor on 8 December 2022 and placed an order by the following day. It identified that it had provided its contractor with an incorrect telephone number, and this led to 3 missed opportunities to arrange an appointment and attend to her reports. It provided them with an alternative telephone number in January 2023, and an appointment was arranged for 1 February 2023.
2. Acknowledged that its contractor failed to meet their service level agreement (SLA) as they failed to contact her within 24 hours after it provided the correct telephone number. They contacted her 6 working days outside of the SLA and this was due to an administrative error. It concluded that due to two administrative errors there was a significant delay (23 working days) between the time it referred the job and her being contacted. It said the impact of the delay was exacerbated as she had young children in her home.
3. Explained she had raised issues around the mutual exchange, and it had interviewed the relevant members of staff. During the property inspection in July 2022, 3 photographs were taken of the kitchen, bathroom and main bedroom. The purpose of the inspection was to complete a visual inspection and note any structural faults or outstanding repairs.
4. Confirmed its internal findings of a service failure around the bath tiling and kitchen floor. It apologised and said it would have expected to have arranged for a surveyor to attend the property to ascertain the full extent of the repair requirements. There were however other repair issues it could not have reasonably detected through the visual inspection, such as the gap in the floorboard which it believed was covered at the time of the inspection. It awarded her an extra £150 compensation for the service failure.
5. Advised changes were currently being made to its mutual exchange policy and procedure and an internal working group had been created to attempt to improve the customer journey. It was also having internal discussions with its regional maintenance managers on how to improve how repairs and property issues were identified at home visits.
6. Discussed the outstanding repairs and explained about the issue with the scope of work, her disagreement with them and the agreement reached after a visit on 12 January 2023. It confirmed it had incorrectly advised her works would begin on 5 January 2023 and apologised. It clarified that they were meant to begin on 18 January 2023. It listed the repairs it had included and confirmed the kitchen replacement, including plastering, retiling, and replacement flooring were completed.
7. Said the upstairs toilet had been renewed and works completed, including the replacement floor covering and door, stairs, to include all issues with the staircase, floorboards and plastering was completed in the bedrooms. It explained works remained outstanding for flooring to be levelled in various bedrooms, plastering in the lounge and its agreement to install a breakfast bar.
8. Advised that the project was being managed by a supervisor in the area and they were speaking with her at least once or twice a week. It acknowledged there had been delays and explained the duration of the works was extended due to requests she had made for additional works. It had completed the agreed plastering, but she had made further requests for some plastering in the lounge which it agreed.
9. Once all works were completed it would organise for a surveyor to attend, inspect, and sign off the repairs and it had created a future task to ensure the works were monitored through to completion.
10. Although she asked for the arrears on her account to be taken off as the property was not ready to let. It had identified service failures in the handling of the exchange home inspection and repairs and provided compensation. It was satisfied that the works it had completed had been above and beyond and far exceeded the lettable standard. As such it would not agree a rent rebate. It told her it could not offer her a management transfer as her case did not meet the criteria required.
11. Its heating team had confirmed that there had been a visit arranged for 15 March 2023 for her radiator replacements.
12. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and awarded a total of £350 in compensation broken down as:

£100 for the handling of the reported rat infestation, inconvenience and having to chase;

£200 for the handling of the mutual exchange home inspection and the inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household and the time taken to resolve the complaint and;
£50 for the late response at stage 2.

It told her that if there were any rent arrears on her rent/ service charge account, it would offset the compensation against the arrears.

On the same day, the landlord confirmed an appointment had been made for 15 March 2023, for removing flooring and laying down heating pipes related to radiator replacement works.

Post complaint

Following the landlord’s response, on 29 March 2023, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint and the landlord referred her to the Ombudsman. The resident explained the damage, situation and its impact on her and her family in her complaint to the Ombudsman.
She also continued to contact the landlord about the issues in the property between April 2023 and December 2023. She raised issues around subsidence within the property and raised a second complaint on 22 April 2023 with the landlord about the ongoing repairs since January 2023, damage to her belongings, and the reported subsidence. The landlord referred the resident to its insurers around the damage to her belongings. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a complaint response about the subsidence or repair matters, nor the outcome of the insurance claim.
The landlord had 2 surveys completed in July 2023 and September 2023 following the subsidence issues raised by the resident. Both surveys identified the same findings that there was no/little subsidence and gave options for the landlord to deal with the issues identified. Two of the options provided involved decanting the resident so it could address the issues with the floor as structural engineers identified “creep” in the property. Following the surveys, the landlord decided to permanently decant the resident from the property, and she was placed on the management transfer list.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about the impact of the property and the repairs on hers and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.
The resident raised a second formal complaint about issues including subsidence on 23 April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord provided her with a complaint response. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 9 February 2024, that it had looked through its records and could not identify that she had raised a complaint about the matter. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale. Although the landlord has failed to provide a response to the resident around the complaint, the Ombudsman is unable to consider it. This is because the Ombudsman considers it fair to provide the landlord with an opportunity to appropriately respond to the resident’s complaint. Once a response is received, and the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, if the resident still wishes to pursue the complaint, she can then make a referral to the Housing Ombudsman.

The resident’s mutual exchange.

Often during mutual exchange inspections, properties contain the belongings of exchanging residents. This can make it difficult for the landlord to identify all outstanding repairs, as some repairs may be covered and not visible. The landlord has explained that some repair issues were not identified such as with the floorboards as they were covered with carpets and the holes in the wall. The resident has identified that she became aware of the holes in the floorboards after removing the carpet. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to believe that there were no issues with the flooring or the walls if they were covered up. Often, a mutual exchange inspection is a visual inspection, by a suitably qualified person and not a detailed survey. As such the landlord was reasonable in its approach.
Although the Ombudsman understands that the situation would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord acted in line with its policy. Its policy states that residents accept the property “as is”, but incoming residents are entitled to have repairs it is responsible for, completed. Once she raised the required repairs, the landlord agreed to complete the necessary repairs.
A landlord is generally entitled to rely on the opinions of its surveyor’s report about the condition of the property. However, in this case, the landlord has detailed there were photographs taken during the inspection which directly contradicted the findings of the inspection as they showed damage in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged the error, and that it should have taken further action based on them. Despite this however, where there was a further failing, is that it failed to consider if the resident was aware of these issues with the property, if she would have been willing to agree to the exchange. Although generally, repair issues are not grounds for a landlord to refuse a mutual exchange, the failure to consider the resident’s perspective was unsatisfactory. This is especially the case when the resident reported she was told that the property should never have been “signed off”. The failure to properly consider all the evidence from the report led to the landlord and resident making a decision based on inaccurate information and this led to frustration and distress for the resident.
The landlord explained in its complaint response that it had investigated the matter of the inspection and photographs. It told her it had interviewed the members of staff involved, appropriately, advised her of the steps it had taken to identify if this was a wider issue in its organisation and how it would address it. This was an appropriate step and a good demonstration to the resident that it had learned from the complaint.
In summary, as several of the issues identified were covered up during the inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe that there were no issues. Although the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its expert, it failed to consider all the evidence provided which did not align with the “good condition” of the property stated in the report, and it signed off on the mutual exchange. This led to it failing to act on identified repairs to the property in a timely manner. It also meant that the resident was not fully informed about the condition of the property prior to agreeing the exchange. It however appropriately investigated the matter internally, explained the actions it had taken following the investigation, and demonstrated its learning. Despite this however, the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. The landlord has recognised that there was a failing in its handling of the mutual exchanged. It however failed to separate its compensation offer for this issue from its offer for the outstanding repair issues. The Ombudsman also did not believe the landlord’s offer went far enough to address the level of frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 around this matter.

Repairs to the property following the mutual exchange.

Once the landlord became aware of the necessary repairs to the property, they became its responsibility. Instead of resolving the issues she raised shortly after she moved into the property within a reasonable period, it did not carry out various repairs until March or April 2023. This was a significant delay during which the landlord left the resident living in a property with damp and mould, reported excess cold, pests, and electrical hazards (loose electrical wires and unresolved leaks into plug sockets). These were all potential category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and there were also other repair issues. Throughout that time the resident had repeatedly raised concerns with the landlord about whether the property was suitable for human habitation and said its surveyor had indicated that parts of the property were uninhabitable.
After the resident identified the repairs to the property, the landlord was obliged to investigate to understand how best to deal with them. It appropriately did so and identified a scope of works. Once the landlord became aware of the level of repairs to the property, it did not show that it reevaluated its position and considered other options on how best to complete the repairs. The failure to do so saw the resident having to make lifestyle changes to accommodate the ongoing repairs, such as eating at relative’s homes, altering the way she prepared meals, and having her children share bedrooms.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it provided the resident with any timescales for when the works would be completed, and this was unreasonable. This led to her taking the time to chase updates on when they would be completed. The landlord has not shown that it explained how it planned to manage the works to the property to her. The resident reasonably assumed that they would be dealt with within the same timescales as responsive repairs of 28 days. When asked to demonstrate it had explained how it would deal with the repairs by the Ombudsman, the landlord appears to have confused matters. The evidence it provided of 15 September 2023 to complete the works as planned works was in relation to her reports of subsidence, which occurred after the required repairs were reportedly addressed. It has not shown that it informed the resident that it planned to deal with her repairs as either planned works or responsive repairs. This was inappropriate, and doing so would have allowed it to manage her expectations on its timeframes to deliver the works. The failure to do so caused the resident frustration and distress and led to a loss in confidence in its actions.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with repair records for the property. This demonstrated that it raised the required works, including emergency repairs, however, from reviewing the records, some of the dates of completion provided do not correspond with information given to the resident or within the records themselves. For example, one record shows that it raised works on 8 November 2022, marked them as complete on 30 November 2022, however the matter continued into January 2023. Further, the landlord’s labelling of the job status for several of the raised works was confusing. This was because it had entered completion dates for the works, but then did not update the status or leave any notes to suggest the works were done. Often, there was no information provided about the works which the landlord did complete. This raises issues with the landlord’s record keeping and may have caused issues with it keeping track of what works remained outstanding to the resident’s property.
The landlord was under an obligation to ensure that all the required repairs were completed in a timely manner. It has provided evidence that it raised the required repairs. It was its responsibility to monitor the repairs and ensure they were completed within the necessary timescales. It was also responsible for ensuring the resident was provided with timely updates to keep her informed of any changes or delays and to manage her expectations around repairs. It failed to evidence in its repair records what actions it took to manage the works and ensure they were completed effectively, and this was inappropriate. It also has not demonstrated to the resident that it explained the reason for certain appointments, for example informing her that they were there to assess what works were required, or to make safe some of the issues. The resident’s expectation would have been that as she had raised repairs, any appointments attended would be to rectify the issues, and if not, this was explained to her in advance. It appears from the records often this was not the case. This would have contributed to the overall delays faced by the resident, added to her frustration, and caused distress to her.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs identifies that landlords must monitor progress and have accessible records of inspection reports. The landlord has failed to provide details of the further surveys/inspection visits of the resident’s property or their findings, when she raised her repair requests, which identified the scope of works, and this is unacceptable. These were another opportunity for it to reevaluate its position and decide on the best approach to deal with the repairs. The resident also identified there was a heat loss survey completed on the property, which was a positive approach by the landlord to try to rectify the resident’s heating issues. However, it is unclear when this survey took place, and when the landlord acted on the findings of the survey. As such the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord acted in a reasonable and timely manner around its findings. The failure to provide the survey to the Ombudsman also raises questions about the landlord’s record keeping.
It is also acknowledged that the landlord changed the boiler in the property which was another appropriate step in trying to resolve the resident’s issues. However, other issues remained around the heating. This would have been another opportunity for the landlord to review its approach, and it failed to do so.
The resident reported comments to the landlord from its contractors and surveyor about the state, habitability, and sign off, of the property. Such comments would have caused the resident concern. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated these comments. Doing so would have allowed it to both gain further context into the reports and also assure itself about the suitability of the property. It also would have provided an opportunity for it to consider whether its approach remained appropriate. The failure to show that it investigated the reports was unreasonable, and added to the resident’s frustration and belief that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
The resident had also raised issues which should have led the landlord to consider whether the property was habitable. She had raised issues with her boiler which led to heating and hot water difficulties for a period of at least 3 months between November 2022 and January 2023. It is acknowledged that the landlord attended to investigate, as demonstrated by its repair logs. However, the resident reported she was left with no heating and hot water for a period of 12 days on an occasion. The resident explained her family were sharing 1 electric heater, however it is unclear if this was provided by the landlord. It has also not evidenced that it kept her informed about the repair and how it was handling it. She also told the landlord that she was unable to remain in the property during “cold snaps” and this was unacceptable. The landlord has provided no evidence that it investigated or acted to resolve this matter in a timely manner, and this was unsatisfactory. This caused the resident distress, frustration, and inconvenience. The reports around the heating and hot water issues should have led the landlord to consider the habitability of the property and it failed to demonstrate it had any consideration around the potential category 1 hazard. This was another opportunity for it to reevaluate whether its approach to the repairs was appropriate, or whether it should have taken an alternative approach such as a decant.
The resident also informed the landlord she was informed by its contractor that it had not approved works for her radiator. The landlord has failed to show that it contacted the resident after this to either identify what works she meant, or to explain the reason it had not approved the works if it had not. This was inappropriate and added to the resident’s frustration and distress with the landlord. It also shows that it did not take a customer focused approach in this instance and added to her loss of confidence in the landlord. This also further demonstrates the landlord’s poor communication with the resident.
The resident also repeatedly raised health and safety concerns around the required repairs to the property. For example, she highlighted that her child’s foot could go through the floorboards, the holes were big enough for her child to fall through, and an issue with the cupboard doors which led to trapped fingers. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s reports around health and safety but has not shown that it did so. Considering the level of repairs, and the fact it acknowledged that were aggravating factors around the need for prompt repairs, its lack of action was unacceptable. The landlord did not demonstrate that it completed any health and safety or risk assessment following the resident’s report, and this was inappropriate. The failure to do so led to her believing it was not taking the matter seriously and caused her frustration and distress.
Although it is acknowledged that surveys were completed in June 2023 and September 2023 which identified that the property was habitable, this was after it had completed some of the repairs to the property. Further these surveys were about the subsidence issue with the property, as such cannot be considered as evidence of the habitability between November 2022 and April 2023.
The resident also raised issues of damp and mould within her kitchen as well as other repairs in November 2022. She also identified other issues with the electrics in the kitchen which prohibited her from being able to cook. The landlord has not shown that it took prompt action to try to allow the resident proper use of the room. Although its records show that it raised works to address the damp and mould, flooring, and cupboards, they do not detail if it did make it safe or address the necessary issues satisfactorily and this was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlord’s need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effect resolution. The landlord’s logs further show that it raised works to address the damp and mould in the flooring, but this was cancelled. No explanation has been provided to explain why it was cancelled. From this point, the landlord’s records provide no information on what it did to address this issue, and this was unsatisfactory.
The resident again raised issues of damp and mould in January 2023. The records do not explain what the landlord did to deal with these issues either. There is also no evidence provided that it kept the resident appropriately informed on the required works to address the damp and mould within the property and this was inappropriate. This would have caused the resident frustration, and a lack of confidence in the landlord’s actions.
She further identified to the landlord that her child had a vulnerability which was impacted by the damp and mould. She explained there had been an increase in her child’s medication use as a result. The landlord failed to show that it reconsidered its position once it became aware of this or that it took prompt action. This was unreasonable, and caused the resident distress, a belief that the property was unsafe, and she needed to be moved immediately.
This was also similar with the bedroom wall which was reportedly crumbling. She raised the issue as a health and safety concern, and she could not make use of the room due to this. The landlord was obliged to ensure the safety of the wall and did not demonstrate that it did. It also failed to reassure the resident that it was safe taking into account her circumstances, this was unreasonable, and this would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress. The resident informed the Ombudsman she did not make use of the room until the end of March 2023, after it had completed the necessary works to it.
As a result of the landlord’s unreasonable delays, the resident was left without the full use of her kitchen and 1 of the bedrooms in the property for a period of 4 to 5 months. During that time, she had to make lifestyle changes to mitigate the impact of its failings, such as purchasing an air fryer and changing how she cooked her meals, only eating cold meals in the house, or eating at relatives’ homes. She told the Ombudsman she had to put a mattress on the floor in her other childrens’ room for her child to sleep on as she could not use his room. These were significant levels of disruption for a prolonged period, and the landlord has provided no evidence of taking any steps to mitigate the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, or any acknowledgement of the detriment its actions/inaction caused.
The resident was left without full use of her kitchen, for a number of months as she was unable to cook in there. She further reported inability to store food in the kitchen as pests were reaching the food she put in there. She reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord queried if she could purchase items such as an air fryer and this was inappropriate. The landlord could have provided her with such items temporarily whilst the repairs were outstanding. She also explained her child’s bedroom, was not usable. She had put the landlord on notice of her perception of a hazard with the wall. The landlord then failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately investigated the matter. This led to the resident taking control of the situation to safeguard her family and not use the room. This was because the necessary repairs were not completed in a timely manner. She also explained after the repairs, the room remained unusable as a result of the levels of dust left behind after the works were completed. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took steps to consider the reported loss of use and the effect this had on her family. It is not possible for this service to determine whether the rooms were completely or partially unusable for the period, and so a compensation amount based on approximately 25% weekly rent, for the partial loss of use of the kitchen, and bedroom. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £969 in relation to the loss of use of the rooms. This additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her and her family by not being able to make full use of the property and is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.
The landlord has explained that delays were contributed to by the resident’s further requests. However, it has not demonstrated that it explained to her that her further requests would lead to delays in its/its contractor’s abilities to complete the required works and this was inappropriate. The landlord should have ensured it kept her fully informed, and the failure to do so demonstrates issues with its communication with the resident, and a failure to appropriately manage her expectations.
The landlord provided the resident with a specific point of contact around the repairs. She reported to the Ombudsman that the reason for this was that whenever she contacted the landlord about repairs, it would only provide her with appointments within 1 month of her calls. The provision of a specific point of contact to arrange the necessary repairs was a positive and customer focused approach by the landlord, as it tried to ensure the repairs were completed in a timely manner. However, despite this, she reported that appointments were often during unsociable hours and weekends. She provided an example of repairs taking place at 10pm at night on 1 occasion, it failed to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated this and addressed the concerns with the point of contact. Its own internal conversation of 8 March 2023 also evidences that it looked to complete some plastering that “eve”. Such work being completed at such a time is not suggestive of an emergency appointment. It is also unclear if this was done around the resident’s schedule, or as the next available appointment. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to identify around the other jobs, what type of appointments these were. It should then have explained to her if they were emergency appointments, then they may take place outside of its normal operating hours. Its failure to do so was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration and distress.
She also raised concerns about the conduct of its contractors as they had damaged her property (her cooker). The landlord was responsible for explaining the level and standard of service it expected from its contractors to residents. It has not demonstrated that it did this following her reports, and this was unsatisfactory. Showing the resident that it had addressed the matter with its contractors would have demonstrated to her that it took the issue seriously.
She repeatedly told the landlord she believed the property was in a state of disrepair. Despite this, the landlord did not show that it reevaluated its position during either her stage 1 or stage 2 complaints, to consider if a temporary relocation was required while it completed the required works, and this was unreasonable. The resident had also identified she did not believe the works should be completed whilst she remained in the property. It failed to show that it had considered her full circumstances when making the decision around the repairs. The landlord should have explained to her why it felt a decant was not necessary and why it believed it was better to complete the works with her in the property. The lack of consideration around these issues added to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
The resident told the landlord she felt traumatised due to the issues surrounding the property. When residents approach landlords raising such concerns, a responsibility is placed on the landlord to consider the wellbeing of residents. It should have completed a risk assessment to establish any action it needed to take to support her. It failed to evidence that it took any action following her reports and this was unreasonable. For example, it could have signposted her to organisations which might have been or assistance, or considered the appropriateness of any safeguarding it could put in place to support her and her family. The failure to do so would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress with the ongoing situation. It added to her feelings of not being supported by it and added to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
There were also issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident. Given the level of repairs she had identified were required to the property, the landlord should have been proactive in providing regular updates about the repairs. It could have also used its communications as an opportunity to manage her expectations and agree a frequency of communication. Agreeing actions and timescales for response is referred to as good practice in the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs. The evidence shows it only provided her with updates whenever she contacted it, and this was unreasonable. It failed to manage her expectations around the repairs and the actions it could take at specific times, and this was inappropriate. This led to her taking the time to repeatedly request updates from it, and caused her distress as she believed it was not being empathetic to her situation or taking it seriously.
The resident raised specific concerns about being ignored for 5 weeks after trying to speak with a member of its staff. Although the landlord appropriately asked them to contact her, it failed to demonstrate that it investigated to identified why there was such a delay and the failure in contacting her. It also failed to show that it had put measures in place to ensure that this did not occur again. This was unreasonable, and caused the resident frustration, and inconvenience as she had to take the time to repeatedly try to contact them and chase responses. It was especially important that she was provided with timely updates and information given the level of repairs required to the property.
The resident also raised issue with the fact she had made 15 requests for a senior member of staff to attend her property and view the situation. The landlord has not demonstrated that it acknowledged, her requests. It also has not demonstrated that it provided her with a response even after she raised this as a concern with it, and this was unacceptable. This would have added to the resident’s lack of trust in the landlord and caused her frustration.
On another occasion, the landlord’s records detail that its operative attended the resident’s property to complete some works. They identified other works which needed to be completed and told her they had too many jobs for them to complete the other works required. It is acknowledged that operatives often have time pressures attached to their work, however, the approach shows a lack of customer focus, and would have added to the resident’s frustrations. This would have been especially disappointing to the resident, and it did not evidence that it explained to her whether another appointment would be needed. This demonstrates poor planning by the landlord, as it should have had a reasonable expectation on how long works would take, and ensure the appropriate operative attended to resolve the matter.
The landlord also raised the resident’s expectations about when works would begin. It provided her with inaccurate information in its stage 1 complaint response, and she had to inform it that the works had not started before it commented on its mistake. It has not demonstrated that it informed her of the mistake earlier, as such the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to believe there was a delay of 2 months before it realised the information it provided was incorrect and rectified this.
In summary, the resident was left living in a property with several repairs required for a period of 4 to 5 months. She identified potential hazards and health and safety issues, including a lack of heating and hot water for a period. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it completed any form of health and safety or risk assessments. She was only partially able to use her kitchen for a period of 4 to 5 months and took safeguarding action for her child as she believed their bedroom was hazardous. This also led to her making lifestyle changes. The landlord failed to reevaluate its position at several points and there were issues with its communication with the resident. It failed to take consideration of the resident’s child’s vulnerability around the damp and mould and when dealing with the repairs. This also meant that it did not consider the practicality of her remaining in the property whilst it completed the necessary works. It also did not show that it investigated numerous concerns she had raised including issues around the habitability, communication, and appointments. It raised her expectation on when works would begin to rectify the issues she raised. She had to tell it that it provided inaccurate information, and it then delayed 2 months before informing her its information was inaccurate. It further failed to manage her expectations on numerous occasions around repairs, and its communication with her. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation around the repairs, however given the issue went on for a prolonged period of 4 to 5 months before all repairs were completed, this did not go far enough. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.

Pest control within the property.

The landlord’s website places the responsibility for pest control on both the landlord and the resident. The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the property is not accessible to pests.
The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that there was a delay in its service provision around the resident’s concerns. However, due to the delays, the resident had to take action. Due to her concerns such as the rats hurting her family, she reported she was looking for somewhere else to stay due to the reported rats. The resident identified she had health and safety concerns, and the landlord failed to act on them, and this was unacceptable. It is unclear what actions the resident took; however, she explained her relative paid for the pest infestation to be rectified. She also explained she got a cat. The resident also described an event where a rat had jumped at her child. This was unreasonable, as it failed to show that it offered any form of support around the concerns she identified. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, distress and contributed to her frustration with the landlord.
Although it acknowledged the failing in its service provision due to the inaction of its contractor. The expectation was that it would address this with the contractor and hold them accountable as their inaction failed to meet the SLA. It could have for example explained once they realised, they were unable to contact her, the contractor could have been proactive in its attempts, informed the landlord sooner of the issue and confirmed if the telephone number was correct. This would have potentially allowed for it to take prompt action. The landlord has failed to evidence that it raised the issue with them. This was unreasonable as taking necessary action to remind contractors of their obligations when they fall short of them is an important step for a landlord to take to ensure that residents are being provided with the best services. The failure to evidence that it did this to the resident would have caused her frustration. It was important for the landlord to address the issue not just to reassure the resident it took the concerns seriously, but also to assure itself that its contractor was aware of the standards it expected them to adhere to.
Once it became aware that the resident had tended to the pest control issue, it appropriately confirmed internally that it would refund her the costs upon the provision of receipts. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it ever communicated this to the resident, and this was inappropriate. As such it is unclear whether it followed up on the matter and provided her with the refund.
In summary, the delays by the landlord’s contractors led to the resident taking control of the situation. Although it acknowledged there was a service failure, this was due to its contractor’s inaction. It failed to take other issues into consideration and offer the resident the necessary support and reassurance. It failed to acknowledge the impact of the issue on the resident causing her to try to find somewhere else to stay with her children. She then reportedly bore the costs of rectifying the issue. Although the landlord advised internally that it would reimburse the resident the costs of the pest control work, it has not provided any evidence that it queried what works were completed, or that it did provide any reimbursement. It failed to act on her concerns around health and safety. It also did not demonstrate that it addressed the delays with its contractor taking action and their lack of proactivity around their communication with the resident, with the contractor. Although the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in relation to its handling of the pest infestation, this did not go far enough to address the other failings identified, and the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Based on this there was maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following the mutual exchange.
3. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation.

Reasons

The landlord’s mutual exchange report contradicted the photographs taken during the initial property inspection. The landlord’s failure to consider all the evidence from the inspection properly led to it signing off on the mutual exchange without a full understanding of works required at the property. The failure to take proper consideration of the evidence led to the resident not being fully informed of the outstanding repairs and denied an opportunity to make an informed decision on if she would continue with the exchange.
There were significant delays in the landlord completing the repairs to the property. She was left living in a property with inadequate heating and at times had to stay away from the property due to the cold. There were also other category 1 hazards present within the property. She was also left partially unable to use 2 rooms within the property and this led to her having to make certain lifestyle changes as she could not cook in the property. She also informed the landlord about her belief that her child’s bedroom was hazardous because of the wall. She raised health and safety issues, and the landlord did not demonstrate that it completed any health and safety assessments. It also did not evidence that it completed risk assessments when she raised concerns about the effects of the situation with the property on both hers and her children’s health.
The landlord provided its pest control contractor with incorrect information, and this led to delays in communicating with the resident. When it did provide its contractor with the correct information, there were delays in its contractor contacting her. The delays led the resident to resolve the situation herself. Although the landlord agreed to refund any costs around works completed by the resident related to the pest control, it has not evidenced that it communicated this with her.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from the Chief Operating Officer about the failings identified in this report.
2. If not already done, provide the resident with a refund for the costs of the pest control if she provides receipts for works completed.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £2419 consisting of:
  1. £650 awarded across its stage 1 and 2 responses.
  2. £300 for its handling of the mutual exchange.
  3. £969 for the partial loss of use of some of the rooms in the property.
  4. £300 for its communication failings around the repairs.
  5. £200 for its handling of the pest control issue.

Recommendation

Provide the resident with a stage 1 response to her complaint of 22 April 2023. If the resident escalates following the stage 1 response, the landlord must follow the necessary procedure.