Havering Council (202115901)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115901

Havering Council

15 June 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s decision to charge the resident rent for the property.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for support with his move.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing benefit.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing benefit.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says that “the ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
It is important to note that the landlord is a local authority and at times it made decisions in its capacity as a local authority. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in the local authority’s decision to cancel his housing benefit and to request repayment of overpayments.
Complaints about the actions of the local authority when dealing with housing benefit are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which are about a local authority’s actions relating to benefits. Complaints about the handling of housing benefit are therefore outside the jurisdiction of this Service.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat within a building managed by the landlord. The tenancy began on 3 May 2021. Prior to moving to this property the resident had temporary accommodation on the first floor of the same building.
The landlord has the following recorded vulnerabilities for the resident: diabetes, vision problem and problems with stairs due to sight.

Policies

The tenancy agreement signed by the resident on 27 April 2021 explains the rent charges applicable for the property.
The tenancy terms and conditions confirm that:
1. The resident must pay rent and all other charges in advance.
2. The resident must cover the floors with an appropriate floor covering.
The landlord’s lettable standard and the tenant handbook both detail the works a tenant should expect to have been done before they move into their new home. The lettable standards and the tenant handbook say that the landlord will:
1. Arrange to change the locks of an empty property within 24 hours.
2. Arrange to inspect the property to check for asbestos and carry out gas and electricity checks.
3. Check the property is free from rubbish and is safe and secure.
4. Ensure the property is clean and cleared both inside and outside before letting.
5. Inspect all work it carried out prior to re-letting to ensure the property meets its ‘lettable standard’.
6. Carry out viewings with prospective tenants.
7. Complete minor repair work within one month of the tenancy start date.
8. The tenants handbook adds that it would not usually redecorate or complete garden maintenance.
The tenants handbook explains what the resident can expect in terms of repairs. It says:
1. All priority one repairs will be completed within 24 hours, priority two within five working days and priority three repairs within 28 working days.
2. A blocked bath or shower will take three days to repair.
3. A broken door-entry phone will take seven days to repair.
4. All other repairs that the landlord is responsible for will take twenty days to repair.
The repairs policy explains that when a listed repair is not completed within the set time it will pay £10 compensation immediately plus a further £2 per day for every working day the repair remains outstanding up to a maximum of £50.
The landlord’s complaint policy and procedure sets out its complaints procedure. It says:
1. For a stage one complaint a full written response should be sent within 10 working days.
2. For the complaint to progress to stage two of its process it explains a request should be made through an online complaint form stating clearly why the resident remains dissatisfied and what is expected by way of redress. It says a stage two complaint should be acknowledged within three working days and a full written reply sent within 25 working days.
This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) explains that:
1. 3.5. If the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it shall be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure and the timescales set in the Code.
2. 3.11. Stage two response shall include a 20 working day maximum timescale from the request to escalate. If it is not possible the landlord should explain when the stage two response will be issued and this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.

Summary of events

The resident was initially living in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority. This was assessed under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
On 19 September 2020 the resident told the landlord that due to his health he was only applying for properties on the ground floor. Following this, on 21 September 2021 the resident was asked to complete a medical questionnaire due to his change in circumstances. The landlord asked him to send recent medical evidence to allow it to assess his case.
On 7 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that he was nearing the top of the property list and said he had previously submitted a medical form due to his back and diabetes. He told the landlord that whenever he moved, he would need help and support due to his back.
On 22 March 2021 a gas safety inspection was completed for the property. An electrical inspection was completed on 24 March 2021 and the landlord also completed a void inspection of the property and made a request for an asbestos survey to be completed.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord told the resident that he was being considered for a tenancy at the property following his successful bid. Within its letter it told the resident that once he had viewed the property, he would be expected to make a decision as to whether or not he wanted to accept it and that the tenancy would start on 3 May 2021. The landlord’s internal notes from the same date say that the property was going through voids work and it was awaiting a date to view the property.
On 13 April 2021 the resident asked the landlord a number of questions about the process for moving, the time he had to move and if the property had certain items. The landlord’s told him to contact his housing officer who would explain the process. It said he would receive keys at the time of viewing and would need to move by 3 May 2021 when the tenancy started. It told the resident what to do if he needed help purchasing furniture.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord completed some further void work to the property.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged an enquiry from the resident’s Councillor (the councillor). It provided an update on the property he had bid on and said void works were in progress. On 22 April 2022 the landlord took some post void work pictures of the property.
The evidence shows the resident completed a viewing of the property on 27 April 2021 and whilst he raised some concerns about outstanding work, he signed the tenancy agreement.
On the 28 April 2021 the resident emailed the councillor and told her of his unhappiness about being “forced” to sign documents and move in so quickly when he had problems with his back, had no money and couldn’t get any help. The resident said he had no choice but to sign the tenancy.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord’s internal email shows the resident told it of his request to review the tenancy start date due to his medical needs and the condition of the property. The landlord listed the following as issues raised by the resident at the viewing:
1. A request for the removal of the gas meter and for the property to run off electricity.
2. Bath water draining slowly.
3. Manhole in the garden, a potential trip hazard.
4. Back garden fence with missing parts.
5. Paint splashed in the bedroom and living room floors. Floor was not cleaned properly and the landlord made a request for this to be recleaned to remove paint off the floor.
6. Poor floor tiling at the kitchen door which the resident asked to be removed because it did not look nice.
7. Issues with the intercom that meant noise from outside was coming into the property even when intercom was switched off.
8. Fireplace floor was concreted and the resident requested for it to be tiled.
The evidence shows that at this time, the landlord did consider the resident’s concerns but it decided that the tenancy start date would remain as 3 May 2021.
The councillor contacted the landlord on 30 April 2021 and said the resident could not be expected to move in the timeframe given and raised queries about housing benefit.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord told the resident that the repair issues had been sent to its voids team and said it could not confirm when the works would begin. However, it told the resident he would still need to move into the property and work would be completed once he had moved.
The resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with its response and said that he was holding the landlord “legally responsible for any damage” caused to him or his property due to its actions. He said the landlord was sending him into a property without repairs done and he considered there was a risk of damage or personal injury.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord’s surveyor reported the following:
1. Living room doorway – remove tiles and latex dip in floor.
2. Bath/shower waste draining slowly.
3. Manhole in garden- flaunching to be applied to create a sloped edge.
4. Chain-link fencing and barb wire to be removed and new chain link installed.
5. Cut excess kitchen flooring that protrudes into hallway.
6. It said the resident was also complaining about the condition of the existing asbestos floor tiles saying they should have been completely cleaned off.
This Service has been provided with photos taken at the viewing by the landlord’s surveyor. These photos show a dip in the flooring and paint on the floors.
On 3 May 2021 the resident was asked to return keys for his temporary accommodation. Shortly after on 5 May 2021 the councillor repeated her previous concerns about the void works and said the resident could not move his furniture until the work had been completed.
The councillor contacted the landlord again on 6 May 2021 and asked for the matter to be passed to the complaints team. She repeated the same concerns as per her email from 5 May 2021 and said that the landlord needed to sort out a new tenancy date to ensure the resident was not asked for rent on a property he was unable to occupy due to voids problems.
On 6 May 2021 the landlord’s internal email, in response to the surveyors email from 30 April 2021, said:
1. The correct department would need to authorise the removal of the gas meter but said this would be at the resident’s own costs and he would need to seek alternative measures to access hot water.
2. There was a slight indentation in the living room doorway. But at the point of void a decision was made to not have this work completed as the floor should be covered or finished with suitable flooring by the resident.
3. It had instructed a contractor to complete a blockage clear for the water drainage issue and for the manhole issue.
4. It said the back fence was removed for the whole block due to maintenance hinderance caused by bushes.
5. In terms of the paint splashes it said the floor would typically be covered by the tenant. It said despite a further attempt of removing it would still leave the floor showing signs of historic wear and tear.
6. The floor tiling at the kitchen door had been raised with a contractor to address.
7. It said the intercom issue was not known at the time of works but it had referred this on.
8. In terms of the fireplace floor having concrete instead of tiling. It said it was up to the resident to cover this with appropriate flooring as detailed in its terms and conditions.
On 11 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that the property was not fit for habitation as it had no cooking facilities, the entry phone was permanently on, the floor was unfinished and there was no TV aerial. He told it of barbed wire in the garden and of missing fences. He told it that his request for support were being ignored. He said emergency repairs had taken two weeks to arrange.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about his rental arrears on his new property.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and was told that he felt the property was given to him whilst not fit for living due to ongoing void works. The resident told it that he needed help with moving due to his bad health and complained that nobody had called despite his contact attempts. The landlord passed this via email to the relevant team to arrange a call back.
At this time, the evidence shows that the landlord was attempting to fix the issue with the floor as it was told the resident would not be covering the floor due to financial implications.
On 16 June 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident about his arrears. The resident told it he had not moved to the property as there were still outstanding work. He said there was a “big hole” in the property which could cause him to trip and that he had complained several times with no response. The resident told it that the issues were affecting his mental health. Following this on 18 June 2021 the landlord attempted to get support for the resident to help with his move. However, its internal email from 21 June 2021 show it could not find anyone to help with moving items for free.
On 22 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it had not received the keys for the temporary accommodation. It told him of the arrears on the account and the charges that would apply each week.
On the 23 June 2021 the landlord’s internal email confirms that it saw the resident and he said he could not return the keys for his temporary accommodation as he was unable to lift heavy items due to his health. The resident also told the landlord that he was not able to clean his temporary accommodation. At the same time he repeated issues from his previous emails from 11 May 2021 and 16 June 2021.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that the blockage issue had been raised. It said the tiles referred to by the resident were of asbestos and it had booked a contractor to attend and remove them. It said it followed up on the removal with its contractor. Later the same day the surveyor confirmed the tiles had been removed on 16 June 2021.
On 25 June 2021 the councillor wrote to the landlord and asked for the matter to be passed to the rent arrears department, adult services and the director of housing. She said:
1. The resident had received no help from those who were supposed to be helping him.
2. The new property was not fit for habitation and some major works were still outstanding.
3. The resident had been unable to move from his temporary property on his own due to his health issues with his back and failing eyesight. She explained how the resident found it difficult to manage the stairs whilst carrying boxes and that the resident was told he would get help but this had not been provided.
4. She also said the landlord failed to call him back.
The resident raised his complaint on 25 June 2021. Here he raised the following issues:
1. He received no response to his online application for assistance to receive housing benefit.
2. He asked for assistance to move and received no contact from the landlord about this.
3. The property offered to him had many repair issues and was unfit for habitation. He said there was a hole in the lounge floor which caused him to fall and aggravated his back.
4. He said he had managed to move most of his things but could not do the final bits due to his back and eyesight problems. He said the situation had left him in tears and feeling vulnerable.
On 29 June 2021 the councillor contacted the landlord again and said that the resident had still not received help to move. She asked for the landlord to investigate this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2021 and said it would issue its stage one response within 10 working days.
On 1 July 2021 the landlord’s internal email from its surveyor said there were no major problems with the property. It confirmed the following:
1. Bath drainage issue was completed on 30 June 2021.
2. Rear garden fence work was completed on 18 May 2021.
3. Paint splashes were removed from the floor on 18 May 2021.
4. The intercom issue was to be followed up with its contractor.
5. A dip in the flooring was rectified once it was established that the resident was not going to cover the floor.
On 2 July 2021 the landlord sent a text message to the resident and said that it had not received rent for the new property and that his account was in arrears.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord completed work on the floor issue and on 16 July 2021 the landlord told the resident to contact it about his rent arrears for the new property.
On 12 August 2021 the landlord attempted to contact the resident and sent him a text message. An internal email shows this contact was in attempts to offer the resident some packing and moving assistance.
The landlord sent the resident a final warning notice on 16 August 2021 to say that his account was in arrears. It reminded the resident that he had an introductory tenancy and that in not paying rent he had not complied with the terms of the tenancy agreement. Following this the landlord and resident spoke and he was told to contact the relevant department about his housing benefit.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord’s internal email said it was in the process of arranging removal of the resident’s personal items and that it made him aware of this.
On 18 August 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident who told it:
1. That he was upset and felt that he was not being listened to and no one was speaking with him.
2. That he felt he could not escalate his complaint as it had not responded.
3. His housing benefit had been cancelled on both properties and that the landlord had not assisted him in sorting the issue.
4. He was suffering with diabetes and with his mental health.
5. Some of the resident’s belongings had been moved but no one was arranging what was left and that he could not physically do it himself.
The landlord’s email from 19 August 2021 said the resident told it about his ongoing complaints with housing services and the lack of medical assessment in response to his request for assistance with moving. It said the resident was asking for assistance with moving larger items due to back issues and that he was unable to empty the property in order to hand back the keys, which meant he incurred rent on both properties.
On 20 August 2021 the councillor contacted the landlord again and said the resident had received no contact from it in response to his complaints.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord and its surveyor attended both properties. Its notes show the resident confirmed there was no outstanding repairs for the new property.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response and said:
1. The resident raised a complaint on 26 March 2021, which it responded to on 13 April 2021 and a further email was sent on 19 April 2021 but this was not responded to. The landlord apologised for this lack of response and said it was due to high caseloads.
2. It said another complaint was raised on 25 June 2021, however due to high caseloads it was unable to complete its investigation. It apologised for its lack of holding response and said he would be updated in relation to this.
3. In response to concerns about the housing officer ignoring the resident’s emails the landlord asked for evidence of unanswered emails.
4. In conclusion, it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed there had been delays with its contact. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it could see some contact and as such could not agree a total lack of contact. It said it would be in contact about the resident’s other complaints.
On 25 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that there were a lot of complaints that had been missed.
It is noted that on 29 August 2021 the resident moved into the property. Following this the landlord was in contact with the resident about arrears on his accounts.
On 13 October 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord about the resident’s complaint and on 17 October 2021 the resident told the landlord to send his complaint to a senior member of staff. He explained how he was feeling anxious and vulnerable and detailed the impact the situation was having on his mental and physical wellbeing. He said the landlord had constantly chased him for money he did not have and threatened eviction.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would issue a stage one response within 10 working days.
The resident responded on 19 October 2021 and said that he raised numerous complaints which had not been responded to. He said the landlord had still not conducted a disability needs assessment and that the situation had a detrimental impact on his mental and physical health. He told the landlord that he was close to a nervous breakdown and contacted the Samaritans twice that weekend.
On 20 October 2021 the councillor said she believed the resident’s complaint from October 2021 should be treated as urgent as he had been threatened with eviction due to arrears accrued because he did not get help and assistance from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s further comments and said they had been passed to the complaints team.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord said it spoke to the resident to offer him support and was told he was not in need of support.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and asked for confirmation that the complaint he wanted it to look into was from 25 June 2021.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. It said:
1. It did tell the resident to contact a charity if he required assistance for his move. It further added that the resident was asked to contact social services for support.
2. It made a referral to the local area co-ordinator team but it could not source any services or charities that could help with his move. It said it told the resident of this and he said he would contact the Salvation Army for assistance.
3. A social worker was allocated his case on 13 November 2020 and since then had made several attempts to contact the resident.
4. The landlord arranged for removals to remove belongings at no cost to the resident.
5. It said that as keys were returned for the temporary accommodation on 28 August 2021 the resident was responsible for £972.90 rent and for a housing benefit overpayment for £969.30. It said this was a total of £1,942.20.
6. In relation to the complaint about works outstanding at the property. The landlord said repairs jobs were raised and confirmed when the work was completed. It said it was sorry to hear about the resident’s fall but said its surveyor confirmed there was no evidence to show there was a hole in the floor.
7. Whilst it partially upheld the resident’s complaint and offered an apology for the inconvenience caused, it did not explain which aspects of the complaint were upheld.
The resident responded on 28 October 2021 to express his unhappiness with the landlord’s stage one response. He said:
1. It took the landlord four months to respond to one complaint. He asked why the landlord chose the specific complaint to respond to over other complaints he had made.
2. He said he was told to apply for dual residency grant and a moving grant. He said he followed the landlord’s procedures and advice and it ignored this.
3. He said the landlord involved social services however failed to make a disability assessment to help him with the move.
4. The landlord was responsible for the rent and housing benefit amounts as it caused the issue with voids and cancelled his housing benefit.
5. He repeated the impact the situation was having on his mental and physical health.
The landlord’s internal email from 1 November 2021 show it was confused whether the resident had escalated his complaint. On 2 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had not received an escalation request from him. It asked him to escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy.
The resident responded on 3 November 2021 to say he had replied to its response and found this was sufficient to show he remained unhappy. However on 5 November 2021 the landlord’s asked the resident to complete a form to escalate his complaint.
On 6 November 2021 the resident sent an email to a number of Councillors to raise his concerns about the landlord. He said:
1. The issue had been ongoing for over seven months with little or no communication from the landlord.
2. He said he had been left feeling vulnerable, bullied and discriminated against by the landlord’s actions and explained the impact the situation was having on him.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord logged an enquiry from another Councillor following the resident’s email from 6 November 2021.
Again the landlord was unsure whether the resident’s contact here should be treated as a new stage one complaint or a stage two complaint.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord told the resident that he was liable for two properties at the same time and he did not qualify for housing benefit for 3 May 2021 to 30 August 2021 because he was not living at the property and it said he was not eligible for discretionary housing payment either. It concluded that it was unable to assist with the rent arrears. In relation to council tax liability it said it had referred the resident for council tax discretionary award.
On 14 December 2021 this Service requested an update on the resident’s complaint and asked the landlord to escalate it to stage two of its process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 December 2021 and told him that his complaint was in a queue awaiting allocation but said it could not respond within 25 working days.
On 20 December 2021 the resident told the landlord of issues with his health. He said his eyesight had been blurred due to injections he was having. He told the landlord of issues with his back and said it was made worse by moving and carrying boxes downstairs and tripping over a hole in the property. In resolution of his complaint, he said he wanted an independent investigation into the landlord’s housing department, he said he wanted a letter of apology and for staff to be held to account, he wanted his debts written off for double renting and council tax. He also told the landlord that he wanted support pre and post his back operation.
On 13 January 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update. On 18 January 2022 the landlord told him that his complaint was still awaiting allocation. On 2 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that his complaint had been allocated. It confirmed the complaints that it would look into and apologised for the delay.
The resident responded on 3 February 2022 and said he also wanted to know why complaints raised by the councillor had been ignored. He repeated the impact the situation was having on him and said the landlord had ignored his physical and mental health issues.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had requested copies of complaints raised by the councillor and asked for evidence to support issues that he raised. Following this on 10 February 2022 the landlord issued a final reminder for the arrears owed to it.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it was hoping to conclude its investigation into his complaint by 14 March 2022.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord’s emailed the resident a revised stage one response and said:
1. It said its records show it received enquiries from the councillor and it responded to these. It told the resident to contact the councillor if he was waiting for a response and if anything further was needed the councillor could request this on his behalf or alternatively, he could.
2. In relation to applying for dual housing benefit and a moving grant. It said its contact centre did not deal with the form relating to grants and asked the resident to confirm the date, time, contact number and the name of the person he spoke with to allow it to investigate this issue.
3. In relation to the resident’s medical needs. The landlord said that following receipt of his housing application the resident was asked to provide medical evidence to support his application however none were received. It said its system noted his visual impairments but said it had not received medical documentation to support this. It said it was the resident’s responsibility to provide medical evidence so its records were updated and so it could make any adjustments. It asked the resident to provide medical evidence to support his conditions and said it would update its records following this.
4. It asked the resident to provide medical evidence to support his injury from the fall within the property. It said the works required did not make the property unhabitable and could have been repaired when he had moved.
5. For the debt accrued it said there was a delay in social service requesting assistance from the local area co-ordinator from 16 June to 27 July 2021. It said that despite keys being returned on 28 August 2021 there was also a delay with the area coordinator contacting him between 2 July to 21 October. It offered the resident £200 to acknowledge the delays here.
6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and offered £340 for this.
7. It said the correct procedures had been followed in response to the housing benefit entitlement and rent arrears.
8. It also assured the resident that its investigation of his complaints was independent from the other services.
9. It said based on the re-investigation of his complaint it partly upheld his complaint and said in relation to the delay in repairing the door entry system by 13 weeks it would offer him an additional £125. The total amount offered by the landlord was £665.
On 27 February 2022 the resident responded and said:
1. He completed an online form about his health and gave permission for the landlord to contact his doctor. He said he would attach his MRI scan and a letter from his specialist about the appointments for his eye treatment.
2. He disputed the landlord’s view that the work required was for small issues.
3. He said the landlord’s approach to cancelling housing benefit and issuing “letters of eviction” at that time impacted his mental health. He said its approach meant he had to move items himself.
4. He said the landlord admitted its failings but at the same time said he had accrued debt for £1,805.88 on his account.
On 1 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further comments and said it had passed these to stage two of its complaints process. It also acknowledged the medical information provided by the resident. However, on 10 March 2022 the landlord asked the resident for further information on the link he was sent for dual housing benefit and its autogenerated response.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord updated the resident and apologised for its delay in investigating his complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 29 March 2022. It said:
1. In relation to the complaint about its handling of void work prior to the resident moving into the property. It said:
  1. The resident viewed the property on 27 April 2021, prior to the tenancy start date and made some comments about the required repairs. The landlord followed up the repairs with a surveyor to ensure jobs were raised.
  2. The extent of the repairs was not considered bad enough to warrant the tenancy start date to be extended. The landlord found the void work was completed to a lettable standard.
  3. It had viewed the photos taken at void and said it could not agree the property was not clean and safe for the resident to move into when the tenancy agreement was signed.
  4. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about its handling of void works prior to him moving into the property.
  5. The landlord added that following its review of void photographs it considered the property was in a “very good condition”. It said it did not agree it was unsafe for the resident to move in and said the “snagging” work could have been completed whilst the resident was residing there.
2. In relation to the resident’s complaint about checks to assess whether he required any assistance due to any disabilities.
  1. The landlord said it did attempt to see if it could find him support with his move but it was unable to find any assistance.
  2. It contacted the resident on 21 October 2021 to offer support but this was refused by the resident. A mobile number of the landlord’s staff was provided to the resident.
  3. Staff from the Adults Community Team tried to engage with the resident numerous times.
  4. It said it did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
3. Rent account.
  1. It found it did not agree there had been failings in how it dealt with the issues raised once the tenancy agreement had been signed.
  2. It told the resident that his refusal to move was the reason why he accumulated arrears. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint
4. Charges for previous and current property.
  1. The landlord confirmed that the resident was charged for two properties until he moved out of temporary accommodation.
  2. It acknowledged that the resident requested dual housing benefit as he said he was unable to move out of temporary accommodation.
  3. The landlord explained how dual housing benefit would apply if the resident was living at both properties. It said the resident was residing at the temporary accommodation at that time and as such did not meet the criteria for dual housing benefit.
  4. It accepted the resident completed an enquiry form on 28 April 2021 and that he should have received a response within 15 working days. However, it said the housing team did notify the benefits team of his move and a number of benefit notifications were sent to him at both addresses and said he did not make contact following this.
  5. The landlord did not uphold the above complaint.
5. Disability checks.
  1. The landlord said the resident’s move was not as a result of a suitability review and as such it did not uphold his complaint about disability checks not being carried out. It did acknowledge him “recently” providing the landlord with medical information which it was reviewing to see if referrals were required to assist with the resident’s everyday living needs. It said the resident’s move was following his successful bid on a property and that the property was offered to the resident after he viewed it.
6. The landlord acknowledged the outcomes the resident was seeking and in response to these it said:
  1. In relation to a request for an independent investigation into the housing department’s conduct towards him. The landlord said it found no evidence of bullying and said its stage two investigation was independent.
  2. It confirmed emails from the councillor were responded to.
  3. In relation to a letter of apology and the resident’s request for people to be held to account, it said it had apologised in its stage one response for any inconvenience caused and told the resident his complaint was partially upheld.
  4. It said a follow up response was sent on 25 February 2022 and it offered the resident £665 in total, made up of:

(1) £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in the case being referred to the local area coordinator.

(2) £340 for the delay in providing its stage one response.

(3) £125 for the delay in repairing the door entry system by 13 weeks.

In relation to the resident’s request for the landlord to write off his debts. The landlord said it was unable to agree to do this as he chose not to move out of the temporary property after signing the tenancy agreement for the new property. It said its budget was stretched and it could not approve the use of public money to write off debt incurred by a resident. It also added that the resident’s actions stopped it from being able to offer the temporary accommodation to another tenant.
In response to the resident’s request for support around the time of his back operation. It said it had made a request for housing services to assess the resident’s needs and if required refer him for an occupational health assessment.

Overall the landlord agreed there had been some failings and partially upheld the resident’s complaint as he did not receive a response to his dual housing benefit enquiry and it accepted there had been delays in the complaint reaching a conclusion. However, it felt the offer of £665 it previously made was satisfactory for the inconvenience, delays and time taken to repair the door entry system.

On 25 May 2022 the landlord told the resident to contact it immediately to talk about his arrears of £1,048.23 and on 30 May 2022 the resident raised a further complaint.

Assessment and findings

On 30 May 2022 the resident told this Service of further issues with the landlord charging him for repair work it said it completed to the temporary accommodation. It is acknowledged that this has been a difficult time for the resident. The Ombudsman’s role to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. As such this investigation report concerns the matters which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 29 March 2022.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy

The landlord’s lettable standard and the tenants handbook explain the steps the resident can expect it to have taken before moving into a property.
The evidence shows that in March 2021 the landlord completed a voids inspection, gas and electric inspections and an asbestos survey. The landlord completed some further void work on 14 April 2021 and took post void inspection pictures on 22 April 2021 to show the property was free from rubbish. The landlord considered the property to be of a lettable standard and it then conducted a viewing with the resident on 27 April 2021. The steps taken by the landlord were appropriate and in line with what its policies said the resident could expect.
Following the viewing the resident accepted the property and told the landlord about a number of issues with it. These included issues with the living room floor, bath water drainage, back garden fence missing and the resident’s concerns about a potential trip hazard around the manhole in the garden. The resident also raised concerns about paint splashes on floors, poor floor tiling and an issue with the intercom/door entry system. The landlord raised these issues with its surveyor and on 30 April 2021 it told the resident that he would still need to move into the property and the work would be completed once he had moved in.
The evidence shows the landlord completed the works raised by the resident in May and June 2021.
In relation to the indentation in the living room floor. It is noted that the resident has referred to this as a hole in the floor and the landlord and its surveyor dispute it being a hole and instead said it was an indentation that would have been covered by floor covering. The tenancy agreement says that the resident must cover the floors with an appropriate floor covering. It is noted that the resident said he was unable to cover the floors due to his financial situation. Here the landlord adjusted its approach and levelled the floor in attempts to resolve the matter whilst taking account of the resident’s circumstances. The landlord adopted a reasonable and resolution focused approach in response to the concerns about the living room floor.
In relation to the door entry system, the evidence shows the landlord was made reasonably aware of the repair on 30 April 2021. Its tenants handbook explains such a repair would take seven working days to repair. However, its revised stage one response acknowledges that the repair took 13 weeks.
This Service has not seen evidence of the exact date the door entry system was repaired, however it is noted that the 13 week timeframe has not been disputed. In its revised stage one response the landlord acknowledged the length of time taken to repair the door entry system. It apologised to the resident and in recognition of its failings it offered £125 compensation.
Whilst the resident was unhappy that he had to raise repairs, there is no evidence to show the delay in repairing the door entry system had a significant impact on him. As such the landlord offered redress to the resident which was in line with its repairs policy and which satisfactory resolves the delay in it repairing the door entry system.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord followed its policy and procedure for what the resident could expect it to do before letting the property. There is no evidence to suggest the property was not lettable at that time. However, once the resident raised concerns about the property it considered these and adopted a reasonable approach in its attempts to resolve these. The landlord appropriately recognised where its repair work took longer than it should have and offered the resident compensation in line with its repairs policy in recognition of this. The compensation offered was proportionate to the impact caused to the resident and satisfactory resolves the complaint.

The landlord’s decision to charge the resident rent for the property

The resident was unhappy about the landlord charging him rent for the property before he moved in.
Within the landlord’s offer letter from 12 April 2021 it told the resident of the estimated weekly rent for the property. The rent amount was also explained in the tenancy agreement that was signed by the resident following the viewing of the property. The terms and condition of the tenancy agreement make it clear that the resident must pay rent. The evidence shows that the resident was made aware that he would be liable for rent following the tenancy start date.
It is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy that he was charged rent on a property that he felt was not ready for him to move into. As previously discussed, the landlord did what was expected of it before determining the property was of a lettable standard. Whilst the resident may feel he should not have been charged rent until work was completed, the evidence shows the landlord acted in line with its policy and procedures at that time. In addition to this, it continued to remind the resident that he would be liable for rent after the tenancy start date.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately and there was no maladministration in relation to this complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for support with his move

The resident told the landlord of his vulnerabilities in September 2020, these included diabetes and vision problems and he said this meant he had problems with stairs. He was asked to complete a medical questionnaire and provide evidence to allow it to complete an assessment. There is no evidence to show the landlord was provided with medical evidence at that time.
On 7 March 2021 the resident told the landlord that whenever he moved properties he would need support due to back problems. There is no evidence to show medical evidence was provided here either.
Following this, on the 12 April 2021, the landlord sent an offer letter to the resident and told him that it had scheduled a viewing for the property on the ground floor of the same building. It also provided him with contact details for the department at the local authority if he needed assistance or support with his move. The landlord’s approach here was reasonable.
However on 11 and 25 May 2021 the resident repeated his need for support with the move despite moving down one floor in the same building and he told the landlord how he felt his requests were being ignored by it. The evidence shows that it was not until 18 June 2021 that the landlord attempted to get support to assist with the resident’s move. However as it was unable to arrange free support it took no further action at that time. This was not appropriate and meant the resident and his councillor had to contact it multiple times in June 2021, raising a complaint and repeating the same concerns about the lack of support with his move and of his health issues.
The evidence shows the landlord made another attempt to arrange support however it took until 17 August 2021 to do this. It is unclear which date the support was provided, however the resident moved into the property on 29 August 2021.
Overall whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord did eventually instruct a removal company at its own cost, the timeframe taken by the landlord to offer support in light of the resident’s known personal circumstances was unreasonable and it should not have taken it as long as it did to do this.
The landlord’s failure here meant the resident had to repeatedly tell it of the difficulties he faced with moving items due to his back and eyesight. This was understandably a difficult time for the resident and he has said he was left feeling his requests for assistance were being ignored. When considering this and his repeated requests for support the landlord should have adjusted its approach sooner and its delay in offering support with the resident’s move amounts to maladministration.
Within the landlord’s stage two response it appropriately acknowledged its delay in making a referral for support and offered the resident £200 in compensation to recognise this and for a delay in its relevant department contacting him. Whilst the landlord’s attempts to remedy its failings are acknowledged, its failings here would have had a greater impact on the resident in the circumstances. As such a greater compensation amount would be more appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the time and trouble spent in his attempts to request support. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The evidence shows that the resident and the councillor raised complaints about the tenancy start date and repairs on 30 April 2021 and 6 May 2021. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to these in accordance with the provisions of its complaints policy, this was not appropriate.
On 25 June 2021 the councillor raised a further complaint which the landlord acknowledged on 1 July 2021 and said it would respond within 10 working days. However it failed to do this.
The resident complained again on 20 August 2021 about the same issues and the landlord’s lack of response to his previous complaint. The landlord issued a partial stage one response on 24 August 2021 telling him that it would contact him about his other complaints. It took the landlord 42 days to respond to the resident’s complaint, this was 32 days more than the time set out in its complaints procedure and was not appropriate.
On 25 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that it had not considered his previous complaints and expressed dissatisfaction with its response.
Whilst the resident and landlord were in communication after this, this Service has not been provided with evidence to show it provided a response to the remaining issues as per its response from 24 August 2021 and it did not trigger its stage two process. Instead, this Service had to contact the landlord on 13 October 2021 and on 17 October 2021 the resident told the landlord to pass his complaint to a senior manager. The evidence shows the landlord did not do this and on 27 October 2021 it issued a further stage one response. It took the landlord 88 working days to conclude its stage one process, this was not appropriate.
On 28 October 2021 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and detailed the impact the situation was having on him. The landlord told him to complete an escalation form if he remained unhappy. Despite the resident telling it his email showed he remained unhappy the landlord continued to request he complete an escalation form. The landlord did not trigger stage two of its complaint process at that time which was not in line with paragraph 3.5 and 3.11 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
On 14 December 2021 this Service asked the landlord to progress the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 16 December 2021 and said the complaint was in a queue and that it would not meet its 25 working day timeframe. However, on 25 February 2022 the landlord issued a revised stage one response.
It is acknowledged that at times a revised response may be appropriate and here it showed the landlord applied its insight into the issues raised and felt it was appropriate to revise aspects of its previous decision. Whilst it did keep the resident updated on allocating his complaint for investigation and appropriately offered £340 in compensation for its complaint handling delay, it should not have taken almost four months to do this.
On 27 February 2022 the resident told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its response. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s further comments on 1 March 2022 and said it had passed these to stage two of its complaints process.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord updated the resident on his complaint and apologised for its delay. It issued its stage two response on 29 March 2022 and within this it reconfirmed what it had previously offered the resident. Here, it took the landlord 30 working days to issue its stage two response, this was not in line with this Services Complaint Handling code or the timeframe set in its complaints policy. This combined with the almost four month delay in starting the stage two process and the mentioned delays with its stage one response amount to maladministration.
Overall, the landlord initially failed to recognise contact from the resident and the councillor as complaints or clarify this if it was unsure. This meant the resident had to repeatedly contact it, the councillor and this Service about the same issues. Once it did trigger its complaints policy it failed to adhere to the timeframe set within it, which meant the resident did not know when it would respond and had to repeatedly contact it. It also failed to appropriately trigger stage two of its complaints process when the resident, the councillor and this Service told it to.
Whilst the landlord did apologise for its complaint handling failings and attempted to put things right in its offer of £340 compensation for its delay in issuing its stage one response. The Ombudsman considers a greater compensation amount would be more proportionate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in its delay in progressing the complaint to stage two of its complaints process and its delay in issuing a stage two response. As such the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for support with his move.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation the landlord’s decision to charge the resident rent for the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about housing benefit is outside of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord followed its policy and procedure in determining the property to be at a lettable standard. It adopted a resolution focused approach in repairing issues raised by the resident. It appropriately recognised its delay in repairing the door entry system and offered compensation in line with its repairs policy. The compensation offered was proportionate to the impact caused to the resident and satisfactory resolves the complaint.
It’s clear that the resident feels he should not have been charged rent for the property at a time it required work. However, the evidence shows that the landlord followed its policy and procedure before determining the property was of a lettable standard and it told the resident that the works could be completed once he had moved in. The approach adopted by the landlord was appropriate.
Whilst the landlord did eventually provide the resident with support to move at its own cost, it delayed in offering this support. This meant the resident and his councillor had to repeatedly tell the landlord of his need for support due to his health, the impact the situation was having on him and how he felt his requests for support were being ignored.
The Ombudsman cannot assess the decision made by the local authority relating to housing benefit as it is not within the jurisdiction of the Scheme.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaint’s policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It delayed in concluding its stage one process and whilst it acknowledged this delay it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from this and caused further delay in completing its complaints process. This was at the time that the resident, the councillor and this Service had to repeatedly contact it about its complaint handling.

Order

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £1,265 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £665 it previously offered, if it has not already done so.
2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delay in providing support with the resident’s move.
3. £100 to acknowledge its additional complaint handling failings.
The Ombudsman orders, within six weeks of this report, the landlord to consider learning from this report in relation to how it can support vulnerable resident’s with moving when in similar circumstances that may fall outside its policies. The landlord should send the resident and this Service a summary of its findings and details of the service improvements it will be making.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to consider this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and ensure its complaints policy complies with it. It should train its staff in how to handle complaints in line with this and consider when it is appropriate to progress complaints to the next stage of its complaints process.