Eastbourne Borough Council (202213599)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213599

Eastbourne Borough Council

24 October 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:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about multiple property moves prior to her latest move;
2. response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her previous housing officer;
3. response to the resident’s concerns about incorrect information being supplied about the number of bedrooms in her current property;
4. response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her current property when let;
5. handling of repairs needed in the property;
6. handling of bathroom adaptation needs;
7. response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about multiple property moves prior to her latest move;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her previous housing officer.
Under paragraph 42(k) and (m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, or seek to raise again matters which any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. As a local authority, the landlord’s housing allocations function falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO investigated and determined a complaint made by the resident in relation to her previous accommodation and property moves in March 2023 (reference 22 007 419). The housing officer whose conduct the resident complained about was employed by the landlord as a homelessness advisor, and so their role falls within the remit of the LGSCO rather than the Housing Ombudsman.
Other complaints which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in March 2021. She lives in the property, an adapted 2-bedroom house, with her young child. The resident is disabled and has a number of physical and mental health conditions known to the landlord, including limited mobility. She is supported by a floating support worker and personal assistant (PA).
The landlord’s tenant handbook states that, when a tenant moves into a new property, it is their responsibility to report this to Universal Credit (if they have an active claim). It is also the tenant’s responsibility to complete certain repairs, and to report to the landlord repairs which are its responsibility. Repairs for which the tenant is responsible include those relating to sheds, internal doors, and small cracks; repairs for which the landlord is responsible include those relating to fences (if the boundary is owned by the landlord), front and back doors, outbuildings and stores, windows, walls, guttering, drains, waste pipes, sinks, baths, showers and toilets. The landlord divides repairs into 4 categories: priority 1 (‘emergency’), which it aims to complete within 24 hours; priority 2 (‘urgent’), which it will complete within 7 days; priority 3 (‘routine’), which it will complete within 28 days; and ‘planned’, which it will complete within 85 days.
The tenant handbook further states that the landlord can help if a tenant needs equipment or adaptations to manage a disability and maintain independence, and that it will usually require recommendations from an Occupational Therapist (OT) in order to do so. The handbook also refers to the landlord’s lettable standard document, a copy of which it will provide to tenants on sign up. This “outlines the condition that properties should be in when they are let and is based on the principles of safety, security, cleanliness and all services being in working order”.
The lettable standard document provides more detail regarding the checks that should be carried out, and the condition a property should be in, before it is let. These include: inspecting windows to ensure ease of operation; inspecting the property for evidence of mould; inspecting all internal doors for damage; ensuring all stairways are sound and compliant for use; inspecting gutters and pipes for evidence of leakage, blockage or damage; ensuring toilets, baths and basins are free of substantial defects; ensuring flooring is fit for purpose and ready to accept floor coverings (with timber floors being left “sound and level”); ensuring internal decorations are “clean and tidy” and walls “in reasonable condition” (ie sound with no major faults or new plastering required); and cleaning the property ready for occupation. The garden should be “in a maintainable condition” and fencing “in a safe and reasonable condition”. If an incoming tenant is disabled, the landlord will redecorate the property. The document notes that the landlord will not change any fitted equipment or carry out adaptation works unless a recommendation has been received from an OT.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will do all it can to resolve complaints informally. If this is not possible, it operates a 2-stage formal complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 days, and provide responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The procedure notes that these timeframes may not apply if there are “special circumstances”.
The landlord’s response to a complaint may include the offer of a remedy, where appropriate. Its compensation schedule sets out the circumstances in which it will pay financial compensation. These include missed appointments (£10), time and trouble (£50 to £100), distress (£100 to £300), risk of harm (up to £500), and material loss. It may also offer a goodwill gesture with a value up to £25. For payments over £100, complainants are asked to sign a settlement agreement, and payments exceeding £500 are referred to the landlord’s legal team prior to the offer being made.

Summary of events

In January 2021, the resident was living in temporary accommodation when a property was identified as being potentially suitable for her needs. The property was provisionally offered to her on 4 February 2021 following an OT assessment. The resident viewed the property on or around 9 March 2021 and was concerned that it did not meet her needs as it did not have a bath. The landlord explained that she could appeal the suitability of the property, but advised her to accept the tenancy, as this would prevent her from becoming homeless if her appeal was not upheld. The resident agreed to move into the property on 10 March 2021. A tenancy was formally offered to her on 23 March 2021, and she signed to accept it on 26 March 2021. A void report completed on 24 March 2021 showed that all necessary works and checks at the property had been completed. The resident moved in on 29 March 2021.
On 30 March 2021 the resident reported the following issues to the landlord:
1. There was no handrail at the property, despite the fact that she had been promised one prior to moving in. She needed this as a backup in case the stairlift did not work.
2. The internal doors did not open and close properly. They stuck and were difficult for her to open.
3. Air vents on the windows were not functioning properly.
In response, an internal email by the landlord noted that there was usually no handrail in properties with a stairlift as this could impede the function of the stairlift as well as reducing knee space. It therefore required an OT recommendation to install a handrail. The landlord had met the OT at the property with the resident and had not subsequently received a recommendation for a handrail, although recommendations for grab rails to the front and rear doors had been received and were being progressed. It arranged for the internal doors and window vents to be inspected.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord entered the property details onto a portal used to share information with Universal Credit. Based on information held about the property on its system, which stated that the property had 3 bedrooms, it entered the weekly rent for a 3-bedroom property.
On 7 April 2021 the resident’s floating support worker contacted the landlord regarding issues with the property, including the lack of handrail and grab rails, the lack of a bath, and other repairs. They informed the landlord that the stairlift was not working and that the resident’s benefits had been suspended because of a discrepancy regarding the number of bedrooms; the resident had told Universal Credit the property had 2 bedrooms, whereas the landlord said it had 3. An internal email by the landlord on 8 April 2021 noted that the resident had also phoned it several times that week regarding these issues. It confirmed that, while its systems said the property had 3 bedrooms and it had relayed this information to Universal Credit, it agreed there were 2 bedrooms. It requested that a surveyor attended the property to confirm this. It also discussed contacting Universal Credit to clarify the position, but concluded that it could not do so as it did not have a point of contact and could only update information on the portal.
On 12 April 2021 the resident’s PA requested contact from the landlord regarding repairs and alterations that were needed to the property in order to make it liveable for the resident. These included the handrail, exposed nails, and the fact that the back door was “breaking off the walls”. They also mentioned the bedroom issue, which was urgent as the benefit suspension meant the resident had no income. The same day, the resident’s floating support worker contacted the landlord to say that the landlord’s contractor required authorisation from the landlord to complete some of the repairs, including works to the internal doors. After speaking to the landlord, the floating support worker updated the resident regarding the outstanding repairs:
1. The company that installed the stairlift would contact her to arrange an appointment to fix the broken arm rest clips, exposed wires and controller issue.
2. The landlord’s contractor would contact the floating support worker to arrange an appointment to inspect the boiler, which was making a banging noise.
3. The contractor had contacted a drain specialist regarding some drainage works that needed to be done, and would contact the resident when it received a reply.
4. A plasterer would visit regarding cracks in the property on 22 April 2021.
5. The contractor would visit on 29 April 2021 regarding issues with the floorboards, front and back doors, downstairs toilet window, vents, and a gap between the floor and wall in the front room.
6. The contractor would visit on 30 April 2021 regarding the shed door.
7. The contractor was awaiting authorisation regarding some other works.
On 13 April 2021 the local authority informed the resident that it had discharged its duty to house her, as she had accepted an offer of housing made through its allocation scheme. Its letter stated that if the resident felt the accommodation offered was unsuitable, she could request a review of its decision within 21 days. The resident’s floating support worker contacted the landlord the same day regarding continued issues with the property, and the resident also made a formal complaint. This stated that:
1. She was disabled and had not been supported appropriately.
2. Because the landlord told Universal Credit she had moved into a 3-bedroom property rather than a 2-bedroom property, her benefit claim had been suspended. This meant she had no income until the issue was resolved. The landlord had said a surveyor needed to visit and confirm the house had 2 bedrooms, which could take up to 6 weeks. During this time she would be unable to pay her bills or buy food and other essential items for her child.
3. The property did not have adaptations that were supposed to be completed before she moved in.
4. It was also “in a complete state” when she moved in, with nails sticking out of the floor, a damaged stairlift, blocked drains, and other issues.
5. She had requested an appeal regarding the lack of bath before she moved in, but had now been told by the landlord that her appeal was not on its system. She was told she had only 21 days to appeal.
6. The situation was causing her “endless stress and anxiety”, which in turn was causing her health conditions to flare up and be more painful.
7. To put things right, she wanted the landlord to:
  1. Provide written confirmation that the situation was not her fault and an explanation of what had happened, which she could share with her energy supplier to show why her payments were late.
  2. Consider her appeal, taking her circumstances and experience into account.
  3. Pay her compensation to cover the costs she had incurred.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 16 April 2021, noting that it would be looking into the points she had made as a matter of urgency, but that Covid-19 restrictions had affected working arrangements for many of its staff. It thanked her in advance for her patience and understanding, and provided a point of contact.
The landlord enquired internally regarding progress of the repairs on 19 April 2021, and chased this on 29 April 2021. It also confirmed on this date (29 April 2021) that the rent had been recalculated to reflect the correct number of bedrooms. It then provided an update on the repairs, noting that an appointment originally arranged for 1 April 2021 had been moved to 30 April 2021 as the resident did not hear the door. It attached photos showing the condition of the property when it was void, and stated that it was “to the lettable standard”.
On 4 May 2021 the resident’s PA assisted her in telling the landlord that she would like to “appeal for a bath to be installed in the property”. She explained that she had previously had access to a bath which she used daily to help ease the pain associated with her health conditions, and since moving she was struggling to manage with a shower. This was causing her to neglect her personal care. She had previously suffered with ligament tearing and her doctor agreed a bath would be beneficial to help ease cramping. She felt she would be able to use a bath with equipment from OT. Her child, who was suspected to have autism, also did not cope well with the shower and lashed out, sometimes causing the resident to lose balance and fall over. The landlord acknowledged the bath request on 5 May 2021.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord liaised with Universal Credit regarding the number of bedrooms in the property. The landlord clarified the position, and Universal Credit confirmed that direct rent payments had been approved from the housing element of the resident’s benefits.
On 10 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to request an update on her complaint, and to inform it that she wished to add further repairs to the complaint. On 13 May 2021 the landlord’s contractor informed the landlord that an operative had visited the property; they had fixed some of the issues and were due to return to “do the floorboards and a few other bits”. The contractor said it understood the drain works were completed, and overall the repairs were “all in hand and being dealt with”. On 19 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident, and she advised that her back garden was unsafe for her child as the fence was laying in the garden and there were screws left around. The landlord updated the resident’s complaint record with this information.
On 25 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord that its contractor had attended to install a galvanised rail beside her front steps, but the operative had left holes in the wall and the rail was wobbly and dangerous. She said she was promised a callback but had heard nothing.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord received a payment from Universal Credit at a higher than expected rate. It was unclear as to whether the increase was to cover previous arrears on the resident’s rent account.
On 24 June 2021 the resident requested a callback from her housing officer as she was unhappy with the ongoing repairs. She said operatives had visited that day to repair her guttering; they had to move her washing machine and had left it in the middle of her kitchen. Other operatives who had visited 2 weeks before still had her shed key, which she had requested back but not received. She told the landlord she wanted to make “an official complaint”. The landlord advised that this would need to be in writing, and the resident declined to pursue this as she said she had done so before and no action was taken.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord followed up internally regarding the resident’s complaint. It noted that the case had been closed but it was “not sure there has been a resolution”. The resident called the landlord to ask what was happening with her complaint the following day (12 August 2021), as she felt it was taking a long time. She asked for a callback in relation to her complaint and bath request. Having received no response, she made further callback requests on 23 August 2023 and 8 September 2021.
On 8 September 2021 the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint and Universal Credit payments internally. It identified that overpayments had been made in June, July and August 2021. It asked internally how this could be resolved, but did not immediately receive an answer. It also requested an update from its contractor regarding the repairs, as it was “looking to close this complaint”. The contractor confirmed that its operative had removed nails from the resident’s hallway.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it was investigating the outstanding repair works and Universal Credit issue. The resident’s PA agreed to email the landlord a list of outstanding repairs so that these could be matched against its contractor’s records. They did so on 14 September 2021, confirming that works were required to an outside security light (booked in for the following day), insulation leakage, broken vents and a doorstop. They also noted that the bath situation was unresolved. The landlord discussed the bath request internally between 14 and 20 September 2021, and decided to agree to the request. It informed the resident of this on 21 September 2021. The resident chased the bath installation on 20 October 2021, as she had contacted the landlord’s major works team regarding the likely timeframe and it had no record of the approved request. The landlord liaised with its contractor, which arranged a joint visit for a bathroom survey on 22 October 2021. This was booked in for 18 November 2021.
On 26 November 2021 the resident’s PA contacted the landlord on her behalf. They said she was unhappy as she had received a letter stating the remaining repairs were booked in for 6 January 2022. She felt this was “utterly ridiculous” as she had been waiting for some of the works since March 2021, and the broken trickle vents were causing a draught throughout the property in the colder weather. The contractor had told her it would need to take her case to a panel in order to consider bringing the works forward, and had also cancelled an appointment to survey for her bath installation before arriving unannounced another day. The landlord liaised with its contractor before telling the resident the trickle vents would be replaced on 30 November 2021. It explained that an appointment had been missed as the person due to attend was required to self-isolate.
On 3 December 2021 the resident’s PA informed the landlord that an operative visited as arranged on 30 November 2021 but “had no idea what [they were] there to do”. They did not have any information about the job or the parts to fix the vents. The landlord raised this with its contractor on 7 December 2021, which provided an explanation and contacted the resident on 10 December 2021. The landlord and contractor both noted that the resident was now represented by solicitors. The contractor asked if it should complete only emergency jobs at the property, but on 14 December 2021 the landlord advised not to put any works on hold until it received a formal disrepair letter. The resident informed the landlord on 6 January 2022 that she was no longer involved with solicitors regarding the repairs, and the contractor subsequently rebooked the trickle vent appointment for 14 January 2022. The vents were later fitted on 17 January 2022, and a bath was installed in the property on 24 January 2022.
On 21 April 2022, following a period of several weeks in which there were no updates, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the broken fence with “dangerous nails” in her garden. She said she had been told the fence would be removed but this had not been done, and her dog had injured itself on it.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2022. This stated that:
1. It was sorry to learn of the issues the resident had experienced.
2. Regarding issues with rent and Universal Credit:
  1. There was a “human error” in initially confirming the number of bedrooms in the property on its database. This led to an incorrect rental figure being generated (based on a 3-bedroom rate rather than a 2-bedroom rate).
  2. When the error was discovered following an enquiry from Universal Credit, it was corrected and the rent figure was updated. It informed Universal Credit so that the correct housing element could be paid.
  3. It was now satisfied that the resident’s housing element was in line with the correct rental amount for a 2-bedroom property.
  4. It apologised for the stress that the suspension of her benefits caused.
  5. It had discussed the case with its Housing Benefit team, who had agreed to consider clearing the resident’s remaining rent arrears via a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). It enclosed a form for her to complete in order to progress this.
  6. It upheld this portion of her complaint.
3. Regarding the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations and other repairs:
  1. It had installed a new bathroom in the property on 24 January 2022. It apologised for the “significant period” the resident had waited for the installation, which was raised in her complaint in April 2021 and agreed to in September 2021, and thanked her for her patience.
  2. It understood that “a few elements required fixing” in order to fully complete the works. These had been scheduled with its contractors and further works were booked in the following month.
  3. It hoped that with the new bathroom and other repairs that had been carried out over the past 12 months, the resident felt that she had been supported by its repairs team, despite the length of time it had taken to reach a positive conclusion.
  4. It appreciated the frustrations that had occurred during the resident’s time at the property, and the fact that other repairs had been reported since the complaint was first raised.
  5. It was sorry that the resident had “inherited” certain repair issues when she moved to the property, and its repairs team had attempted to address these issues as they had been raised.
  6. For a period of time, there was a legal disrepair claim that required any contact regarding repairs to be made via the resident’s legal representatives. When this claim was dropped, it was able to communicate with her more effectively and book in the remaining works.
  7. An appointment had been made for its contractor to fit a trickle vent to the lounge window, trim the kitchen door, seal the bath, fit non-return traps in the bathroom, and lag the cold water pipes in the downstairs toilet. A further appointment had been made on 17 June 2022 for a plasterer to make good the wall where a new boiler was installed.
  8. It partially upheld this portion of her complaint.
4. Overall, it partially upheld the complaint. This was because, in its opinion, it had responded to the repair issues as they had been reported. However, it acknowledged that the resident had waited a long time for her bathroom to be completed, and although there were some delays in late 2021 due to the legal disrepair claim, it found that its communication and booking of repairs could have been more effective once the claim was withdrawn.
5. It hoped that, with the new bathroom in place and other repair issues either completed or “in line for completion over the next few months”, the resident felt in a more positive position within her property.
6. It apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint.
7. In addition to its sincere apologies, it offered the resident £100 “in full and final settlement of her complaint and any claims she may have in relation to it”. This included the inconvenience and distress caused, and was conditional on the resident signing a settlement agreement.
8. If she was dissatisfied with its response, she could request a second investigation at stage 2 of its complaints process. This required provision of new or additional information to explain why she was unhappy.
The resident left 2 voicemails for the landlord on 3 May 2022, and spoke to it on the phone about the stage 1 decision on 4 May 2022. She said she was unhappy with certain aspects. On 17 May 2022 her PA assisted her in requesting to escalate her complaint, for the following reasons:
1. She found the landlord’s “sincere apologies” and offer of £100 to be an insufficient resolution to her complaint.
2. Some repairs which the landlord claimed to be completed had not been done, such as the removal of broken fencing from her front garden.
3. Various other works had not yet been agreed after the surveyor visited to list what needed doing. These included issues with the bathroom piping, mould in the downstairs toilet, and leaky guttering at the front of the property which caused flooding.
4. The stage 1 response did not take account of the fact that she was a vulnerable adult with disabilities, chronic pain and mental health conditions. It also did not address some aspects of her complaint (which are not part of this investigation).
On 25 May 2022 the resident’s PA contacted the landlord on her behalf, advising that she was not happy that she did not know who was dealing with her escalated complaint. She also said the landlord’s contractor, which had been booked in to complete longstanding repairs, had told her it may not be able to attend due to other works taking priority. The resident and her PA found this unacceptable, noting that “with her disabilities and mental health conditions it is not conducive to a positive living situation and causing her more anxiety”. The landlord rang the resident to acknowledge and discuss her escalation request the same day. On 26 May 2022 it asked its contractor to arrange removal of the broken fence, and it did so on 6 June 2022.
The resident reported a further issue with her stairlift on 9 June 2022, which was addressed the same day by the company who installed it. She also contacted the landlord regarding a recent drainage issue on 14 June 2022. On 15 June 2022, the landlord made a safeguarding referral after the resident became distressed and said she was thinking of handing the keys back and becoming homeless with her child. It also liaised with its contractor on this day, which spoke to the resident and sent her a list of works and appointments. On 17 June 2022 the landlord again liaised with its contractor regarding 3 outstanding repair issues, and told the resident it would respond to her stage 2 complaint the following week.
The landlord went on to issue its stage 2 response on 23 June 2022, stating that:
1. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s concerns and for any impact that her housing situation may have had on her wellbeing and that of her family. It appreciated what a stressful time it had been for her.
2. To investigate the complaint, it had spoken to the resident on 25 May 2022, discussed her concerns with relevant teams, and reviewed the notes on her customer contact record.
3. Regarding outstanding repairs:
  1. When it spoke to her, she referred to a number of issues that remained unresolved. It provided an update on these.
  2. The company responsible for installing and servicing her stairlift advised that it was installed on 15 March 2021 and serviced on 8 November 2021. The company also attended on 14 April 2021 to fit batteries and on 10 May 2021 to fit arm rest covers. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint, the company attended again on 9 June 2022. It understood that the stairlift was now working.
  3. The broken fencing had been removed from the resident’s garden and its contractor was in the process of scheduling further fencing works.
  4. An inspection of the piping and drain in the resident’s bathroom was carried out on 13 June 2022. This found that there were no problems with the waste pipes to the bath, basin or toilet. Its contractor was discussing replacement of the bathroom flooring with its property services team and had also discussed this with the resident.
  5. A mould wash appointment for the downstairs toilet was booked for 25 July 2022.
  6. A temporary fix to the leaky guttering was carried out on 14 June 2022 following the clearing of a downpipe that was blocked. A new job would be raised to either expose or install a soakaway.
  7. An appointment had been made on 19 July 2022 to trim the kitchen door, seal the bath, fit non-return traps to the sink and bath, lag the cold water pipes and fit a trickle vent to the lounge window.
  8. It was advised that 6 window vents were replaced on 17 January 2022, following several cancelled appointments in June and November 2021 due to parts not being available.
  9. An appointment was also booked for 20 July 2022 to make good a wall following installation of a new boiler.
  10. With regard to the resident’s report of wooden bits between bricks in the front garden being rotten with mushrooms growing out of them, this was not considered to be essential work or work that it would undertake.
  11. Its review had identified delays in repair works that were potentially avoidable. It apologised for “any level of service that had caused dissatisfaction or any level of distress”. It hoped the resident’s recent contact with its contractor had provided some reassurance that the works would now progress. If there were any further delays or lack of contact, it asked her to contact its stage 2 responder.
4. It considered that the resident’s appeal for bathroom adaptations was fully addressed in its stage 1 response. Its understanding was that initially the OT team advised that adaptations were not required, and its housing needs team therefore considered the property to be suitable. There were subsequently delays following the appeal, which was acknowledged in the stage 1 response. It apologised for any delays that occurred and for any additional stress this matter caused.
5. The resident’s complaint regarding the impact of the landlord’s error on her benefit claim would need to be escalated to its rents team. It had liaised with this team extensively in investigating her stage 1 complaint and had provided detailed information/advice on how to escalate this matter. It again apologised for any distress, concern and frustration caused.
6. Regarding alleged discrimination:
  1. It was sorry the resident felt there had been discrimination in relation to its management of her housing situation. However, it had not found any evidence to support this allegation.
  2. It acknowledged that delays had occurred in respect of some of the initial repair issues, and that the adaptation of the bathroom took longer than it would expect. It also acknowledged that the length of time the stage 1 complaint was open far exceeded the timescales it aimed to achieve.
  3. These delays reflected significant staff shortages, as well as shortages of contractors and materials, that it experienced during and after the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. It experienced a significant increase in work due to a backlog of jobs that could not be carried out during lockdown, and was also under-resourced during 2020 and 2021. This inevitably impacted the service received by the resident, and it apologised. It had now put measures in place to address this by undertaking recruitment and working with additional contractors.
7. Regarding the condition of the property when the resident moved in:
  1. It had reviewed the paperwork and photos provided by surveyors when the property was void. While it recognised that there were some repair issues that should ideally have been rectified prior to the resident moving in, these were classified as ‘minor repairs’ rather than ‘essential repairs’, and it considered that overall the property was of a lettable standard.
  2. It appreciated that the resident may find this response disappointing, and apologised that these issues were not rectified before she moved in.
  3. Moving forward, its senior surveyor would highlight to their team the importance of identifying all repairs that should be picked up when a property was void. It thanked her for bringing this to its attention.
8. It invited the resident to contact it regarding the outcome of the OT’s visit. If further adaptations were recommended, it would ensure these were passed to its property services team.
9. Regarding compensation:
  1. In line with the stage 1 response, it had partially upheld the complaint for the reasons stated (ie delays in progressing repairs, the time taken to respond to the stage 1 complaint, and another matter that is not part of this investigation).
  2. It made an increased offer of £300 in full and final settlement of the complaint. As before, this included an acknowledgement of any inconvenience or distress.
10. It hoped the resident felt it had taken appropriate steps to address her concerns and that its findings provided a satisfactory conclusion to her complaint. If she was not satisfied, she could refer her complaint to this Service (and/or the LGSCO, in relation to matters outside this investigation).
11. It signposted her to local services who may be able to advise and support her.

Post complaint

On 24 June 2022 the landlord liaised with its contractor, which advised that “all works are in hand including bathroom flooring”. On 1 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord regarding a cancelled appointment, which its contractor said was due to a misunderstanding as the appointment was planned for later in the day. On 5 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor completed fencing works at the property, but these were later inspected and found to be substandard.
On 18 July 2022 the local OT service recommended the installation of a grab rail at the front of the property, but it was not possible for the landlord’s contractor to complete the installation according to the specified measurements due to the front door opening outward. The contractor advised on 2 September 2022 that it had cancelled the job and would raise a new one if the OT produced an alternative specification.
On 27 July 2022 the landlord contacted its contractor after the resident called it about recent and outstanding repairs. These related to a piping issue, a mould wash (which was carried out on a date different to the one agreed), and follow-on fencing works. The resident referred to jobs not being completed as promised, a lack of contact and unexpected visits, and said nothing had improved since her complaint. The landlord’s operative attended the property on 27 and 28 July 2022 regarding a toilet issue.
A memo by the landlord dated 19 August 2022 stated that, according to a letter from its contractor, all works to the property had been completed. However, on 26 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again about a missed appointment for a mould wash on 7 July 2022, fence works that needed redoing, and outstanding repairs relating to a trickle vent, anti-slip floor, unpainted area by the boiler, and non-return traps to the sink and bath. She said she wanted to move as she had “had enough”.
On 9 September 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited the resident to discuss the repairs that needed completing. On 14 September 2022 the resident’s PA informed the landlord that repairs relating to an outside security light, insulation leakage, broken vents and a doorstop remained outstanding.
An internal email by the landlord on 2 March 2023 referred to a number of repairs that were still outstanding, relating to fencing, blocked guttering, a recurrently blocked toilet, and broken doors to the shed and bathroom. On 3 March 2023 the landlord raised a job in relation to the toilet. On 11 March 2023 it noted that it could not progress the fencing job as this related to a shared boundary.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident regarding “ongoing repairs to the property”. It apologised for any miscommunication relating to the repairs and for its contact with her. It attached details of open jobs and appointment dates.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is important to note that, as discussed in the ‘jurisdiction’ section above, the Ombudsman can only assess the landlord’s actions in its capacity as a landlord. Its other functions as a local authority – such as housing allocations and administration of housing benefit – are outside the remit of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman can examine how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about these matters, including its contact with other teams/organisations and any support offered.

Incorrect information regarding number of bedrooms

The landlord held conflicting information about the number of bedrooms in the property on its systems. Information seen by this Service indicates that the property used to have 3 bedrooms, but the smallest bedroom was previously converted into a wet room. The landlord should have fully updated its records at the time of the conversion, but the Ombudsman accepts that its failure to do so was likely an isolated human error. The discrepancy became apparent when the landlord’s initial offer of the property (on 4 February 2021) described the property as having 2 bedrooms, whereas its formal offer (on 23 March 2021) described it as having 3. Had the documentation relating to the tenancy offer been reviewed in its entirety, the error may have been discovered before it impacted on the resident’s benefits. However, this did not occur as the documents were issued by different teams.
Upon moving into the property, the resident complied with her responsibility by informing Universal Credit of her change in circumstances. Her benefit claim was suspended when Universal Credit received different information about the number of bedrooms in the property from the landlord and resident. The landlord was aware that this would be the consequence of such a situation, as its tenant handbook states that any delay in providing accurate information in support of a benefit application “can result in rent arrears building up which you will be responsible for”. Having missed an opportunity to ensure it provided the correct details when it updated the Universal Credit portal on 1 April 2021, it became aware of the benefit suspension on 7 April 2021. However, despite discovering what had happened on 8 April 2021, it did not take any effective action to resolve the situation – either by contacting Universal Credit, or by putting alternative measures in place to support the resident financially – until 7 May 2021. This resulted in avoidable hardship to a vulnerable household for a 4-week period, and was unacceptable.
Following rectification of the original error, a further error occurred which resulted in an overpayment of Universal Credit over a 4-month period (31 May 2021 to 30 August 2021). The landlord first identified the overpayment on 10 June 2021, but did not take any action as it thought the increase may have been intended to cover arrears on the resident’s account. In view of the recent issues, its delay in investigating the issue was unsatisfactory. Had it liaised again with Universal Credit, or even explored possible explanations for the overpayment, it may have become apparent that the level of payment was based on its stated rent for a 3-bedroom property. Instead, it was not until 8 September 2021 that it identified the reason for the overpayment, and 13 September 2021 when it reassured the resident it was dealing with the issue. This caused her additional concern and uncertainty.
The landlord rightly apologised to the resident for the stress and frustration caused as a result of its errors in its stage 1 complaint response. It was also helpful of it to confirm that the rental figure was now correct. However, this apology and confirmation came 7 months after it told the resident it was looking into the matter. Its description of her benefit suspension spanning “a short period” was dismissive and had the effect of minimising her experience. It also advised the resident to complete a form to request a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover any outstanding balance on her rent account, noting that the request “may not be agreed … but I have been advised that it is an option worth pursuing”. While the Ombudsman appreciates that administration of housing related benefits falls outside the local authority’s landlord function, the landlord’s solution to this aspect of the resident’s complaint was insufficient. It could have provided more support in completing the form, and considered alternative support (such as waived rent, additional compensation, or support with applying for other relevant grants) if the DHP request was not approved. It would also have been appropriate, given the resident’s vulnerability, for it to follow up with her regarding whether the request was approved and further assistance was required.
An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the bedroom discrepancy and associated benefit suspension, including the resident’s concerns about these issues. This is due to its missed opportunities to identify the cause of the bedroom issue at an earlier stage, its delayed response to the benefit suspension and overpayment, its inadequate and delayed redress, and its failure to take the resident’s vulnerability sufficiently into account.

Condition of the property when let

Repairs

The Ombudsman has had the opportunity to inspect the void report completed by the landlord in relation to the property on 24 March 2021. This stated that all necessary works and checks had been completed. Photos showing the property’s condition when void (both before and after remedial works) have also been supplied by the landlord. While it is difficult to assess detail from photos, and impossible to establish functionality, the property appears to have been generally well presented and in a reasonable condition at the point of letting.
The resident raised 3 issues with the property the day after she moved in, 2 of which related to repairs (the other related to a lack of adaptation). The repairs concerned internal doors and window vents. While the landlord’s lettable standard document does not specify that internal doors should be checked for ease of opening, it does state that they should be inspected for damage and that windows should also be inspected. The landlord would have been aware of the resident’s physical disability (from the fact that the property was adapted, and confirmed by its redecoration of the property), and so checking functionality of features allowing movement around the property would have been a reasonable adjustment. However, there may be a degree of subjectivity, due to differing techniques and levels of tolerance, in assessing whether a door is ‘sticking’. In the absence of a specific requirement on the void checklist, failure to identify the faulty window vents was understandable. A more significant failure was the landlord’s delay in fixing both issues – over 9 months for the window vents, and at least 15 months for the internal doors – as discussed below.
The resident went on to report other repair issues in the property during the month after she moved in. The Ombudsman cannot say conclusively whether all of these issues reflected the condition of the property when it was let. However, it is reasonable to conclude that some issues, such as cracking and an unstable back door, would not have developed over a period of a few days, and others, such as exposed nails, should have been apparent during the void inspection. Certain items that required specialist staff or would not have formed part of standard checks, such as testing of the stairlift, may have been inadvertently overlooked. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident “inherited” a number of repair issues when she moved to the property. It also stated in its stage 2 response that some “minor” repair issues, which did not prevent the property being considered to be of a lettable standard, should have been rectified before the resident moved in but were not. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its failure to complete these repairs, and to confirm that it had put measures in place to avoid recurrence of the issue by speaking to relevant staff.

Adaptations

The resident’s initial concerns regarding adaptations in the property related to a lack of handrail beside the stairs. The landlord’s reasoning for not installing a handrail – that a rail could impede the function of the stairlift, and that it had not received a recommendation for a rail from OT following their visit – was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that it shared this explanation with the resident at the time. Being open and transparent regarding its decision making would have benefited the landlord-tenant relationship. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the case back to the OT in response to the resident’s concerns, having already swiftly progressed the OT recommendations made in February 2021.
The Ombudsman notes that the term “handrail” was used in correspondence following the OT’s assessment of the property to describe the rails required beside the front and back doors. In other correspondence and in this report, the term “grab rails” has been used to refer to this type of rail. However, it is possible that inconsistent and/or undefined terminology caused the resident to believe she had been promised a handrail beside her stairs, whereas in fact the landlord had undertaken to install grab rails in accordance with the OT’s recommendations. This highlights the importance of clear and consistent communication.
An overall finding of service failure has been made in relation to the condition of the property when it was let to the resident, due to the landlord’s omission to identify and rectify repair issues that compromised the functionality of the accommodation. This finding takes the level of detriment caused to the resident, beyond that addressed in the section below, into consideration.

Repairs needed in the property

The Ombudsman recognises that, in responding to reports of repairs needed in the property, the landlord dealt with some matters internally and also liaised with a range of agencies, including its contractor (which sometimes used subcontractors), the company that installed and serviced the resident’s stairlift, a drainage specialist, the OT, and the resident’s support workers. In addition, for approximately one month (10 December 2021 to 6 January 2022), its repair response was affected by the resident’s involvement of solicitors. These factors do not excuse it from its repair obligations, but provide useful context.
As discussed above, the resident’s initial report of repair issues on 30 March 2021 related to internal doors and window vents. The documentation provided indicates that the repair to the internal doors was delayed because the contractor required authorisation from the landlord before it could complete the works. This may have been because, according to the landlord’s repairs policy, internal doors are the tenant’s responsibility to repair. However, in view of the resident’s disability and the fact that the issue predated the start of her tenancy, promptly authorising the repair would have constituted a reasonable adjustment. Confusion appeared to arise from the fact that the internal door repair was conflated with a separate issue (relating to removal of a washing line) in correspondence between the landlord and contractor. The need for authorisation was flagged by the contractor on 12 April 2021 but not picked up by the landlord until 17 June 2022, with both parties apparently believing the other was dealing with the matter. Assigning distinct reference numbers to each job and using these in correspondence may have prevented this issue. However, it was the landlord’s responsibility to have appropriate oversight of its repairs and to put mechanisms in place to ensure works were completed.
In her complaint dated 13 April 2021, the resident referred to other repair issues in the property, including a damaged stairlift, nails sticking out of the floor, and blocked drains. The landlord’s records indicate that repairs to the stairlift were carried out the following day (14 April 2021) and on 10 May 2021, but that the stairlift was not fully functional until 9 June 2022. They also indicate that nails were removed from the hallway floor in or around September 2021, and that drainage works were instigated on 12 April 2021 but remained ongoing on 13 June 2022. These delays – of between 5 and 14 months – were unsatisfactory, particularly in the case of straightforward works such as removal of nails.
Over the following months, the resident reported a number of further issues relating to her boiler, flooring, doors, walls, windows and garden. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord regularly updated the resident regarding the progress of these works. While it did some things well, such as carrying out repairs to the ‘shed’ (which was brick built, and so more closely resembled an outbuilding), its approach to other matters such as the fencing was disorganised. On some occasions, repairs were completed to a poor standard or could not be completed due to operatives arriving unprepared.
Though some impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the landlord’s resources were understandable (for example, the missed bath survey appointment in November 2021 due to its operative needing to self-isolate, and general delays due to staff shortages and backlogs), it did not inform the resident of these until after the event. Other explanations it gave were misleading: for example, it told the resident that it cancelled appointments in June and November 2021 due to parts not being available, whereas an email from its contractor dated 17 June 2022 said this was “our error for losing the parts”. The repair logs provided to this Service show that, of 45 repair jobs completed between March 2021 and August 2023, only 17 (38%) were completed within the target timeframe, with the remaining 28 (62%) that exceeded target timeframes including some urgent and emergency works.
Throughout the 30-month timeframe of this investigation, the landlord’s response to repairs reported by the resident was characterised by delays, a lack of oversight, and poor communication. The resident expended significant effort in chasing repairs that she had reported, and often received updates only after her support workers intervened. The landlord often did not demonstrate an awareness or understanding of the resident’s vulnerability, nor did it ultimately offer adequate redress for the effect of its failings on her. As a result of this, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to its handling of repairs.

Bathroom adaptations

One of the reasons the property was identified as being suitable for the resident was that it had a wet room and level access shower. A housing needs report for the resident dated 13 January 2021, inspected by this Service, stated that she was unable to safely transfer in and out of a bath and required bathing equipment. At a meeting on 2 February 2021, it was noted that the OT had viewed the property and was of the view that a wet room with shower was suitable. Despite a letter from the resident’s GP on 16 March 2021 stating that “it may well be beneficial for [the resident] to have a bath in her next property”, the landlord’s reluctance to agree to a bath request was understandable. In considering the request it took account of the available medical evidence as well as the value of its asset. However, its delay in responding to the request, and in carrying out the installation once it had agreed to do so, was unacceptable.
Correspondence reviewed by the Ombudsman indicates that the decision made on 20 September 2021 was based on information that was available to the landlord in March 2021, with emails on 15 and 17 September 2021 stating it had “enough of a medical steer” and “general agreement that we need to progress”. There was therefore a delay of 6 months in making a decision, and a further delay of 4 months in installing the bath, during which time the resident received a confused response to her enquiries regarding the likely timeframe. For long periods, she was unsure whether her request was being actively considered, whether agreements made would be honoured, and what the next step would be. There was also poor communication relating to a survey appointment in November 2021.
In summary, while the landlord exercised appropriate discretion in agreeing to the bath request, basing its decision on the resident’s wishes as well as the expert advice of professionals, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to its communication issues and overall delay of 10 months. This caused prolonged distress to the resident, who told the landlord that her lack of access to a bath was impacting on her personal care, her pain levels, her mental health, and her ability to manage her child’s behaviour.

Discrimination concerns

The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this would be a matter for the relevant tribunal or courts. Instead, this Service can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
When the landlord contacted the resident by phone on 25 May 2022 following her escalation request, she told it that she felt “discriminated against due to her needs”. She reiterated this belief on 15 June 2022, during a conversation in which she became extremely distressed about her overall situation and level of support. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s disclosures on this date by making a safeguarding referral, and specifically by requesting a wellbeing check and offer of support. It subsequently addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 complaint response later the same month. In this response, it set out its position in relation to the substantive issues that caused the resident to feel discriminated against, namely the repair and adaptation issues. It went on to conclude that it had found no evidence discrimination had occurred.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded sensitively and sympathetically to the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged and validated her feelings, and demonstrated that it had investigated the possibility of discrimination in an evidence-led way. No maladministration has therefore been found in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination, although it is appreciated why – given the failures in other areas of this complaint, and her circumstances – she wished this to be explored.

Complaint handling

Despite acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 3 working days, the landlord did not respond to the complaint until over a year later. This far exceeded the response time of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy (and in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code), and was unacceptable. Although its complaint acknowledgement included a blanket statement about Covid-19 impacts, it did not inform the resident that any “special circumstances” applied to her case which might significantly delay its response. Apart from adding some information to the complaint on 19 May 2021, it did not otherwise update the resident regarding the progress of her complaint and its anticipated response timeframe over the next 12 months, even when she specifically requested updates on 3 occasions in August and September 2021.
This experience apparently discouraged the resident from making a further complaint on 24 June 2021, as when the landlord explained that it required a formal complaint to be put in writing, she said she had done so before and no action was taken. Not only was the requirement for complaints to be in writing unreasonable, given the resident’s circumstances and needs, the landlord also denied the resident access to its published complaints process. Rather than empowering the resident, this meant that the complaints process effectively acted as a barrier, and prevented her from being able to escalate her complaint to this Service in 2021 when many of the repair issues were ongoing.
By the time the landlord issued its stage 1 response, so many new repairs and other issues had been incorporated into the complaint that it bore little resemblance to the resident’s original submission. Had each issue been addressed as it arose, rather than (in some cases) being assumed to be part of a wider complaint, some aspects may have been resolved more swiftly. At stage 1, it was disingenuous for the landlord to blame a “legal disrepair claim” for its delayed response to some of the resident’s repairs, particularly as it confirmed to this Service (on 17 October 2023) that no formal disrepair claim was made or logged on its tracker. In addition, solicitors were involved for a period of just one month, 8 months after some of the repairs were reported, and so their involvement presumably had a comparatively minor impact on the overall delays of up to 15 months.
At stage 2, although the landlord’s complaint response was issued within 25 working days of the escalation request, the resident was not informed which officer would provide the response and so was unable to contact them when she had a need to do so. Both eventual complaint responses, though thorough and appropriately apologetic, merely commented on outcomes that had already been achieved and existing arrangements rather than implementing new solutions to put things right. While partially upholding the complaint at both stages, they missed an opportunity to offer proportionate redress to the resident, instead offering £100 at stage 1 and £300 at stage 2. In both cases, no breakdown of the amount was provided, although a standard form of words confirmed that “any inconvenience or distress” was included. As well as being overly generic, such wording is not in the spirit of this Service’s complaint handling code, and a review has been recommended.
A finding of severe maladministration has therefore been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, due to its poor communication and excessive delays in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. These delays caused considerable additional distress to a vulnerable and disabled resident who was already justifiably concerned about various aspects of her housing situation, and obstructed her access to this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about multiple property moves prior to her latest move;
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her previous housing officer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about incorrect information being supplied about the number of bedrooms in her current property;
2. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her current property when let;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs needed in the property;
4. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of bathroom adaptation needs;
5. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination;
6. severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The issues are outside jurisdiction.
The landlord made a human error in failing to update its systems with the correct number of bedrooms for the resident’s property. When this resulted in her benefit claim being suspended, it delayed in taking action to resolve the situation. It also delayed in addressing a subsequent overpayment of housing benefit. The support and redress it offered to the resident in respect of these issues was inadequate.
The property was in a reasonable condition when it was let and complied with the landlord’s lettable standard. However, it contained a number of minor repair issues which the landlord later admitted it should have rectified while the property was void. Some of these posed a risk of harm to the resident and her child, both of whom were vulnerable. The landlord’s rationale for not installing a handrail in the property was satisfactory.
The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the property, often for periods far exceeding its target timeframes. Its communication with its contractor and the resident was poor, and at times caused confusion regarding appointment times and authorisation of works. The landlord did not take sufficient account of the resident’s vulnerability in its repair response, and did not offer sufficient redress to her for its failings.
The landlord delayed for 6 months in responding to the resident’s request for a bath, and for 4 further months in installing the bath. Its decision to agree to the request was appropriate in light of the available evidence, but it did not keep the resident updated regarding the progress of her request and the installation.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about discrimination and responded promptly with clear and evidence-based findings. Its response was sensitive and sympathetic and acknowledged her feelings.
The landlord delayed for over a year in responding the resident’s complaint. It did not update her regarding the progress of her complaint or its anticipated response date. When the resident had cause to consider making a further complaint, she was discouraged by the landlord’s unreasonable requirement for her to put this in writing and by her previous poor experience. By the time the landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 responses, many of the substantive issues had already been resolved. It unfairly blamed a legal disrepair claim for some of its delays and did not offer proportionate redress. Its request for the resident to sign a settlement agreement in order to accept compensation, though compliant with its policy, was inappropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures and delays in completing repairs to the property, addressing an issue which resulted in her benefits being suspended, progressing her bath request and installation, and responding to her associated complaint.
2. Pay the resident £3,030, comprising:
  1. £400 for its response to her concerns about incorrect information being supplied about the number of bedrooms in her property;
  2. £100 for its response to her concerns about the condition of the property when let;
  3. £600 for its handling of repairs needed in the property;
  4. £400 for its handling of her request for a bath;
  5. £1,000 for its complaint handling failures, including its significantly delayed stage 1 response and lack of updates;
  6. £200 for the time and trouble she invested in pursuing her repairs, bath request and complaint;
  7. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her;
  8. £30 for 3 missed appointments.

Any payments already made to the resident in connection with her complaint should be deducted from the amount above, meaning that the difference is now due. The compensation should be paid into the resident’s bank account and should not be used to offset any rent arrears.

Obtain an update from its housing benefit team as to whether a DHP was made to the resident in order to clear any rent arrears attributable to its error. If a DHP was not made, it should consider making a retrospective adjustment to the resident’s rent, or awarding additional compensation, to cover any relevant arrears that remain. It should confirm its intentions in respect of this order to this Service within the 4-week period.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy and template complaint correspondence, and considers removing the requirement for a signed settlement agreement. It is further recommended that a breakdown of any compensation offered is provided, including acknowledgement of any distress and inconvenience caused in an individual case rather than referring to “inconvenience or distress you may have suffered”.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its template void report and considers adding a section in relation to adapted properties. This is to ensure that any adaptations, such as stairlifts, are confirmed to be in working order.