Freebridge Community Housing Limited (202220143)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220143

Freebridge Community Housing Limited

28 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about works following a mutual exchange.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom bungalow with her granddaughter. The resident became a tenant by way of mutual exchange. The resident is disabled and has health conditions including limited mobility.
  2. As part of the mutual exchange, a video inspection was conducted and sent to the resident on 22 April 2021. The same day the resident stated she would like to accept the property and move in as soon as possible. On 26 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to explain that the kitchen and bathroom were due for renewal by March 2022. The same day, the resident stating that she would accept the kitchen and bathroom but mentioned that she had underlying health issues and asked if the bathroom could be done as soon as possible.
  3. On 6 May 2021 the local authority, having been contacted by the landlord, emailed the resident stating that the property was suitable; however, it noted that only part of the garden was accessible and would not be adapted in any way during the tenancy. It also noted that the bathroom and kitchen were due for upgrade at some point during the financial year but the landlord was unable to clarify when. The local authority stressed that she would be signing for the property at her own risk as regards the garden, kitchen and bathroom issues. The resident subsequently signed the deed of assignment on 27 May 2021 and moved into the property on 7 June 2021.
  4. On 25 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She queried when the kitchen upgrade works would begin and that the landlord had promised to contact her but failed to do so. She also raised concerns about a faulty boiler and not having a functional cooker. The boiler was replaced the same day and a voucher for a new cooker issued on 3 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 March 2022.
  5. On 4 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident confirming the kitchen and utility room upgrade had entered its capital works programme. It estimated that this would be installed within the next 3 months. It also confirmed it would also install a standard bathroom suite however the resident indicated she would refuse this as she required a walk-in bath. Subsequently, the local authority confirmed their recommendation for a standard bathroom suite with an over-bath electric shower, to the resident’s agreement, which was completed along with the bathroom by 28 June 2022. On 22 July 2022 the landlord noted that the kitchen upgrade had not been completed due to delays necessitated by the asbestos removal and the fact that the resident had contracted COVID-19 and anticipated the completion of kitchen works to be 17 August 2022. The landlord recorded that the kitchen works were fully completed on 24 October 2022.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 27 October 2022. It upheld the complaint insofar as there were delays to the kitchen and bathroom works and apologised for this. It stated the property was accepted as part of a mutual exchange and the resident was aware of the condition and facilities before moving in. Although it had initially said the kitchen and bathroom would be done by March 2022, there was not a significant delay. It offered £450 for inconvenience caused by the delays and poor communication. It also offered £50 for the time taken to resolve her complaint which it acknowledged took longer than expected. With regard to matters subsequently raised by the resident, it said it had not agreed to install a dog flap as this would damage the integrity and fire safety of the door, and that its contractor would contact the resident about fixing the kitchen edgings which had come away.
  7. In the resident’s escalation request of 31 October 2022, she stated that she was not aware of the extent of the repairs required at the time of the exchange and felt that the survey carried out by the landlord before she moved in was inadequate. The resident rejected the £500 compensation offered because she said she had been left without a suitable bathroom and felt that the difficulties she experienced due to her health issues had not been considered. On the same day, the contractors attended the property and resolved the remaining minor defects including the kitchen cabinet doors and edging on worktops.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 February 2023 in which it reiterated its stage 1 response, in particular that she had accepted the property in its current condition. It appreciated that a video viewing rather than a real life viewing, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was not ideal but said that no concerns were raised at the time. It acknowledged that there were delays with the upgrades and stated that the offer made in its stage 1 response reflected this. It noted that the resident had since confirmed she was happy with the upgrades and that the edgings in the kitchen had been rectified. It repeated its original offer of £500 compensation.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 November 2022. She remained unhappy about the upgrade delays, stating that she had been unable to shower properly until the bathroom upgrade was completed. She added that the landlord had provided verbal assurance that it would complete the kitchen and bathroom upgrades promptly and that it would make the property accessible. She said she had not been able to view the extent of the issues because the property was full of belongings. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to pave the garden and fence it off. Additionally, she wanted the landlord to put a dog flap into the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments that she reported mould at the property to the landlord in June 2021 and January 2022. She advised that the issue had been present since she took up the tenancy in June 2021. While this may be the case, this investigation will not seek to investigate damp and mould. Additionally, the resident raised concerns to the Service about the garden and fencing; these, too, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the Service has not seen evidence of the resident formally complaining to the landlord about damp and mould, the garden and the fencing. The landlord has since been in contact with the resident, in October 2023, to arrange appointments to inspect any damp and mould and address her concerns. The resident has also stated that the landlord contacted her on 28 October 2023 and agreed to do a one-off cut of the hedges.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s policy and procedure handbook dated May 2020 sets out that it will carry out an assessment of each mutual exchange application. It states that an inspection of the condition of the current property will also be required prior to an exchange being permitted. Further, it states that all tenants exchanging properties will accept the property ‘as seen’, with the exception of any necessary priority repairs.
  2. Additionally, the mutual exchange checklist document states that the property to exchange with has been viewed by the resident and it is understood that the property is accepted in its present condition, including the standard of cleanliness, decoration and repair. Before the mutual exchange, the landlord should ensure an incoming tenant is content with the inspection and that any required repairs to ensure the property is fit for habitation are carried out within an appropriate time period either before the resident moves in or shortly afterwards, at a time agreed with the resident.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs into three types:
    1. Emergency repairs – where health and safety is at immediate risk or a repair that affects structure of building. These will be attended to within 4 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs – where there is no immediate risk to health or safety of the resident but still needs to be carried out quickly to ensure the risk does not increase. These will be attended to within 24 hours.
    3. Routine repairs – repairs to carry out a remedy to a defect which can be deferred without causing discomfort, nuisance or inconvenience to the tenant. These will be attended to within 28 calendar days.
  4. With respect to planned maintenance, it will contact residents in writing in the first 6 weeks, then subsequently 2 weeks, ahead of the survey, giving an appointment for the survey. It will also send a reminder by text the day prior to the appointment.
  5. The landlord will carry out planned maintenance to properties in a commercially efficient way by carrying out a replacement of components as they start to fail in a whole scheme or geographical location but where this is not viable the landlord will replace components by individual home.
  6. Each of the components of each home has been allocated a lifecycle based upon its type and expected life. The landlord aims to keep to these lifecycles overall; however, each individual component will be renewed when it is economically viable to do so and at a time where not doing so would unnecessarily cause inconvenience to residents. However, components may not be renewed at a specific date nor replaced exactly like for like.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that there may be times when it is appropriate to offer compensation to residents, such as when the landlord failed to provide the proper level of service, or it made a mistake that took a long time to put right or because it needed to do something that would cause inconvenience or discomfort.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about works following a mutual exchange

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The mutual exchange involved 4 sets of residents, including some tenants from other landlords. The incoming tenant (the resident) was a tenant from another landlord. The mutual exchange documentation notes that permission was given by the landlord for the exchange subject to conditions including a satisfactory inspection and agreement from the other landlords.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out a video inspection in April 2021, in line with COVID-19 guidelines at the time, which it duly sent the resident. On 22 April 2021 the resident stated she was happy with the property and that she would like to accept it. The Service has viewed the inspection video which shows a member of landlord staff agreeing to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen.
  5. The resident has mobility issues and asserts that the landlord did not make the property accessible before she moved in and that the garden was unsafe for her and her granddaughter. The local authority clearly explained to the resident prior to her signing the deed of assignment that only part of the garden would be accessible and that the landlord would not adapt the garden in any way during tenancy. It also explained that the bathroom and kitchen were due an upgrade at some point during the financial year but that the landlord was unable to clarify when this would take place. Further, the local authority stated that she must take all this into account before accepting the property. The landlord acted fairly by working in partnership with the local authority and ensuring that the resident was aware of what she was taking on before agreeing to the mutual exchange.
  6. On 27 May 2021 the resident signed the deed of assignment which set out that she was now responsible for the terms in the tenancy agreement. The accompanying mutual exchange checklist shows that she inspected the property and that she understood it would be accepted in its present state of decoration and repair. Therefore, if the resident was not satisfied with the condition of the property, as presented in the video inspection, she did not have to accept the tenancy.
  7. Additionally, as the mutual exchange checklist or inspection did not document any significant repair issues, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to allow the mutual exchange to proceed. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately during the mutual exchange process and followed its published policies.
  8. The resident has expressed concern that the landlord’s checks before the mutual exchange were inadequate. She believed that the bathroom and kitchen renewal works should have been carried out before or shortly after she moved in. Indeed, the resident has indicated that she was told verbally by landlord staff that the bathroom and kitchen upgrades would be carried out much sooner than March 2022. However, there is no evidence to support this. The Service has seen emails of April 2021 from the landlord setting out that the kitchen and bathroom were due for renewal but that it could be any time “between now and March 2022”. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident was aware during the mutual exchange process that the bathroom and kitchen may not be upgraded before March 2022.
  9. It is not disputed that before the mutual exchange, the landlord carried out an inspection where it satisfied itself as to the general property condition. Given that there were restrictions due to COVID-19, it was reasonable for the landlord to conduct a video inspection. Further, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of the first-hand assessments of its staff, and this demonstrated that it fulfilled its policy to inspect a property before a mutual exchange. This also shows the landlord had an opportunity to identify if there were any issues.
  10. This investigation further notes that no concerns were reported by the resident with regard to the kitchen upgrade until 25 November 2021, over 5 months after the resident moved into the property, which appears to confirm that neither the kitchen nor bathroom were in an unreasonable condition at the time of the mutual exchange. She also raised concerns about the cooker and boiler. The landlord promptly arranged the repair of the boiler the same day and noted that the cooker in situ was gifted by the former tenant. Nevertheless, it offered to provide a replacement cooker for which it provided a voucher on 3 December 2021 which it subsequently installed on 8 December 2021. This was a satisfactory approach.
  11. On moving into the property, the resident raised a number of repairs over several months. These included repairs to the sink, taps, waste fittings, drain and gully blockages, boiler faults, sockets, and replacement windows. From the landlord’s repair records, it attended to these within a reasonable timescale. The landlord acted fairly by resolving these repairs often within the same day or the next working day, and necessary repairs were carried out in line with its repairs policy.
  12. The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident on 3 December 2021 to discuss the timescale for the kitchen replacement. It raised work orders for the kitchen and bathroom upgrades on 6 April 2022 and 4 May 2022 respectively, and a member of staff agreed she would call the resident bi-weekly until the upgrade works had been completed. On 14 June 2022, the works on site commenced.
  13. On 29 June 2022, the landlord obtained a quotation for removal of asbestos which was present in some tiles/adhesive in the kitchen; this was removed on 6 July 2022 and a statement of cleanliness issued on 12 July 2022. Following this, the landlord carried out the kitchen upgrade and a post inspection of the works was carried out by both landlord and contractor on 24 August 2022. A number of snagging issues were identified for the contractor to resolve and they informed the landlord 2 days later that it had completed all the works.
  14. On 5 September 2022, the landlord contacted its surveyor, copying in the resident. It stated that all programmed bathroom works had been done to the resident’s satisfaction with the exception of the chain missing from the bath plug. On 14 October 2022, the resident mentioned that the wrong screws had been used in the kitchen which the contractor duly remedied. The landlord acted appropriately by post inspecting the works and making its contractor rectify any issues identified as incomplete or not up to standard.
  15. Overall, the bathroom was completed on 28 June 2022 around 3 months after its intended completion date, while the completed kitchen was signed off on 24 October 2022 around 7 months after its intended completion date. The landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised. These delays undeniably caused upset to the resident; however, the landlord made it clear to her at the outset that these upgrades might not be carried out until March 2022. There were then added complications:
    1. That asbestos was found to be present in the kitchen which needed to be removed before work could begin. However, the landlord acted appropriately and swiftly by requesting a quotation for the asbestos removal on 30 June 2022 and arranging for its removal to take place on 6 July 2022 before allowing the kitchen works to commence.
    2. That the resident contracted COVID-19 around 22 July 2022 and landlord’s contractors had to suspend works. The landlord’s surveyor informed the contractors when the resident was testing negative and the kitchen works then continued. This was unfortunate but was a delay that cannot be attributed to the landlord. It is noted that the resident proactively contacted the landlord to inform it that she had contracted COVID-19; this is clearly a resident who was concerned that she should not cause others to contract it.
  16. Although the original target dates were missed, the landlord stated that the resident had access to a functional bathroom and toilet for the period prior to the upgrade, and it is noted that, prior to moving in, the resident was happy to accept the property in the condition that it was. The landlord has, in its responses to the complaint, made an offer of compensation of £450 for the delays and its failure to update the resident regularly about this, which the Service considers to be in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, the latter of which awards of between £100 to £600 compensation should be made where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It is noted that the upgrades were fully completed by October 2022 and there are no outstanding concerns about the kitchen or bathroom.
  17. The landlord identified areas of failing and necessary learning in its stage 1 response. It acknowledged it had failed to keep the resident updated with what had happened in terms of her complaint and in relation to the progress of the kitchen and bathroom renewal. The landlord apologised for this and stated it would establish better communication with its contractor and internally to ensure that residents are in future kept updated. This would be achieved through training and coaching.
  18. The Service notes that the landlord treated the resident fairly by providing her with a voucher for an electric cooker, which was installed on 8 December 2021. Further, in August 2022, the landlord’s contractors were undertaking works to the kitchen and, after moving the freezer back, failed to plug it in. The landlord acted fairly by paying the resident £150 compensation for the loss of frozen food. This was a satisfactory approach. With regard to the landlord’s refusal to install a dog flap in the back door, since this would compromise the integrity of a fire door, this was not an unreasonable response to this issue. While the landlord is not obligated to fit adaptations for pets including dog flaps into properties, it could explore alternative options and discuss them with the resident. In this regard, a recommendation has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that upon receiving a complaint it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It aims to provide a full written stage 1 response within 10 working days from receipt of complaint. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they may ask for an escalation within 60 days of the date of the stage 1 decision. Upon receiving an acceptable escalation request, it will acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 3 working days. The stage 2 investigation will be carried out by a director and a stage 2 (final) response provided within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint about the kitchen on 25 November 2021. The landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2022 and issued its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022. The landlord did not provide acknowledgment in 5 working days in line with its complaints policy. Moreover, it took over 11 months to issue its stage 1 response, which was significantly outside its aim of 10 working days. This would have caused distress to the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect that on receiving a formal complaint, the landlord will respond in the timescale set out in its policy and outline the dates the relevant works repairs would commence. The landlord failed to do this. Had the landlord investigated the complaint sooner, it could have explained that the works may take longer than March 2022 and this would have managed the resident’s expectations.
  4. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 31 October 2022. As she did not hear back from the landlord within a month, she referred her complaint to the Service. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 5 January 2023, well outside its complaints policy, and issued its final response on 10 February 2023. Again, this was outside its complaints policy. These delays in acknowledging the escalation request and in providing its stage 2 response would have caused distress to the resident. The resident may have felt ignored or that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
  5. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered £50 compensation. It was appropriate to apologize but it did not provide an explanation for the delays; additionally, its offer of £50 did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory. There were delays in responding to the complaint in both its formal responses and in light of this, it appears that the landlord does not have adequate systems in place to comply with its own complaints policy. This amounts to service failure and an order is made below in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests that compensation from £50-100 is appropriate for instances of service failure that have caused distress or inconvenience but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  7. While the landlord identified the delay in issuing its stage 1 decision and offered £50, this was disproportionate to its failings and does not reflect the distress caused to the resident. An order has been made to remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to its handling of the resident’s concerns about works following a mutual exchange, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a further £100 for the failings identified in its complaint handling and provide the Service with evidence that it has attempted to make the above payment.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £500 offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not done so already.
    2. Review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy. This is discussed in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    3. Provide the Service with details of the training it undertook to establish better communication with its contractor and internal staff to ensure updates reach residents within an appropriate timespan.
    4. Consider contacting the resident about her request for a dog flap in order to identify if there is an alternative that would allow her dogs to move in and out of the property without her getting up, which does not compromise the integrity of a fire door. The resident has indicated she is happy to pay for such a solution by way of addition to her rent.