From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Exeter City Council (202426280)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426280

Exeter City Council

1 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of
    1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the delay in moving to a new property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant with the landlord, a local council, and lives in a5-bedroom townhouse. At the time of the complaint, he lived with his wife and adult son. He also has pets (a dog and a snake).
  2. On 29 June 2021, following an occupational therapist assessment, the landlord found the resident was unable to use his wheelchair at his current property. It matched him to a new accessible property which it called ‘direct match’. However, the new property had tenants who were, in turn, waiting for a new property to be built.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2023. He said there were a number of outstanding maintenance issues at the property. He said it should not matter that he was still waiting to move, for these to be completed. He had thought his family would be moved to temporary accommodation whilst work was completed, but this did not happen.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 January 2024. It acknowledged there were significant repairs at his current property that would be disruptive to him and take time to complete. It agreed it had not provided regular on the repair’s updates. It said it was holding repairs due to him moving, but the new property being built in the chain had delayed this. It said it had limited properties for a temporary move but had one good option and the move would hopefully be no longer than 2 months. It offered £350 compensation and offered to pay for any moving and packing costs.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 8 May 2024. He said he had been offered two temporary properties that were not suitable. He said the landlord had not checked the repair issues at his current property recently.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2024. It agreed there had been significant delays in finding a suitable home, but this was due to a lack of suitable properties available. It apologised that some decant properties it offered were not suitable and it had not kept him updated. It agreed to update him every fortnight. It confirmed it was still working on the permanent move. It increased its compensation to £1000 and said it would pay removal fees for any decant move.
  7. The resident turned down the new property around 2 October 2024 for several reasons. The landlord found a further property on 1 November, which it agreed to adapt to meet the resident’s accessibility needs.
  8. The resident told the Ombudsman on 20 March 2025 that he wanted the landlord to bring his current home to a safe and reasonable standard. He said they had been “ignored” and “kept in the dark” and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at his property

  1. In his initial complaint of 13 December 2023, the resident listed several ongoing issues in the property and the landlord’s handling of these. This included: cracks in all walls and ceiling, rotten floorboards, crumbling walls and gaps around the windows in the living room. Also, insufficient heating and damp in his son’s bedroom, and an issue with the toilet door. Outside it included a crack in the outside garden wall, potential problems with foundations under the bay window, blown render on the property and a roof leak.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 June 2024 stated that it had responded to the resident’s reports of repair issues appropriately when he raised them.  This was an accurate reflection of its repair’s records, which show its contractor had responded to issues in line with its repairs policy within 20 working days. This included repairing a leak to the roof in October 2023, completing a roof drone survey, providing a dehumidifier and completing a repair following a further leak in May 2024. It also completed a damp and mould survey in May 2024, finding no mould at the property.
  3. However, both complaint responses acknowledged there were several outstanding maintenance issues at the property. This is evident from several surveys it completed at the property in 2022 and 2023. These showed these were large impactful works which would require a temporary move.  It’s stage 1 response managed the resident’s expectations by stating these repairs would take a significant time to complete. It also explained, he and his family would need to move out for it to complete the repairs.
  4. The landlord explained that it had been waiting for the resident to move out to the new property, rather than decanting him. This was a reasonable stance to cause the least impact and disruption to the resident, his family, and his pets as possible. There is evidence of the landlord consistently monitoring and working towards the resident’s permanent move to the new property prior to his complaint. This evidence also supports its complaint response explanations.
  5. The landlord went on to explain that it was trying to obtain a decant property for the resident. It helped him understand there were limited properties that were accessible for him, but it believed it had found an appropriate one. Following the complaint response, there is evidence of it arranging temporary property viewings for the resident.
  6. In his complaint escalation, the resident raised his concerns with the decant properties he was offered. He said they were not suitable for his wheelchair. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the properties it offered were “not appropriate” and it apologised for this. However, the evidence shows that with one of the decant properties the landlord offered, it was also considering adapting it for the resident’s needs. The landlord did not explain this to the resident, and it is not apparent if that would have proven to be a realistic or practical solution, but it demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of the issue’s importance.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord agreed to support the resident with moving and packing costs for any temporary move. This was in line with its compensation policy for when a resident is required to move temporarily.
  8. The resident questioned in his initial complaint if he would be offered a hotel as temporary accommodation during the repairs. The landlord discussed this internally and stated this would be “difficult” to place 3 adults, a dog and a snake in a hotel. It would have been helpful to explain this in its complaint response to ensure the resident was fully clear on its approach.
  9. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint responses its communication regarding the outstanding maintenance repairs had been insufficient over a prolonged period. It apologised for this and offered total compensation of £1000. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for substantial failings with a significant impact on the resident.
  10. Moreover, the landlord took appropriate steps to address its lack of communication. It agreed to contact the resident on a fortnightly basis to keep him updated. The evidence shows the landlord continued to communicate as agreed after its complaint response.
  11. In summary, the landlord reacted appropriately to responsive repair issues at the property. It was aware that there were several outstanding maintenance issues at the property. Its approach in waiting to temporarily move the resident, as it believed he was moving, was reasonable and the least disruptive option for the resident. As this delayed further, it should have kept him updated on the repair issues, and it did not. The landlord acknowledged its failings and provided remedies which appropriately resolved the complaint.

The resident’s concerns about the delay in moving to a new property

  1. In his complaint, the resident said the landlord was not updating him on his pending permanent move to a new property. He said he understood there were tenants in that property who were waiting for a new build property to be built before they could move out.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response confirmed it had prioritised finding a new accessible property under ‘direct match’. This is supported by the evidence. It also shows the landlord’s occupational therapist, who originally made the direct match, keeping continuous communication with the resident, updating the landlord and periodically reviewing the situation.
  3. The landlord managed the residents’ expectations by explaining that the developers of the new property in the chain had delayed completion of that property, and this was outside its control. It also confirmed it was “seeing movement” from the developer, to enable the resident to move. This is reflected in the evidence, which shows the landlord was monitoring the situation and continuously asking for updates. It was told weather and legal issues were causing the delay to the new build.
  4. The landlord stated it had not always updated the resident on the matter as there was not always information to share, which was understandable. It, however, committed to provide the resident with a fortnightly update alongside the maintenance issues, which it went on to do. Overall, the landlord’s response to the complaint was reasonable. Progress on the issue was delayed and outside its control. It however agreed to and did provide periodic updates.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the delay in moving to a new property.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £1000 it offered to him in its stage 2 complaint response of 5 June 2024, if it has not already done so.