Hightown Housing Association Limited (202215632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215632

Hightown Housing Association Limited

11 April 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 works required to the property allocated to the resident before his tenancy could commence.

Background

2. The applicant was nominated by his local council for the allocation of the property, which he was to move into from this temporary accommodation. The property is owned by the landlord which undertook checks and verification of his application. This included a vulnerability risk assessment in which it became aware of the applicant’s mental health condition.
3. The applicant viewed and accepted the property on 28 July 2022 and was informed by the landlord that it would be ready to move into in about two weeks. No tenancy agreement was signed at that stage. The property was not ready several weeks later and the local authority withdrew the nomination on 19 September 2022.
4. Following the applicant’s repeated requests to the landlord, enquiring about the situation with the property, he made a formal complaint on 20 September 2022. He stated that, despite the timescale he was given, the property was not ready, and it was now three months since he viewed it.
5. In its early stage response to the decision, of 6 October 2022, the landlord acknowledged the timescale given to the applicant and stated that the delays to the property being ready was due to “unsatisfactory works and ongoing issues with the power supply.” These had not been resolved but a new kitchen and bathroom were being fitted in the property as well. It apologised for the delays and stated that it had no alternative similar properties available to let to him. It reiterated this response in its formal stage one decision of 21 October 2022 and explained that it was entirely the council’s decision to withdraw his nomination.
6. In requesting for the escalation of his complaint the applicant stated that he purchased items for the property and had some furniture which his existing landlord stated that he could not store at his current accommodation. He would have to pay for storage, thus wanted the landlord to reimburse him for the storage costs. In its stage two response the landlord stated that the delays to outstanding works to the property were unforeseen. Due to the withdrawal of the nomination, the applicant was now able to bid for other properties with the local authority. It would not reimburse the storage costs as a date had not been confirmed for his move into the property. Furthermore, the council had advised that the resident’s belongings did not have to be moved.
7. In referring his complaint to this Service, the applicant stated that the issue had caused him stress due to the way the landlord had handled the situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The issue of the removal of the nomination for the property and the handling of the nomination by the council is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. This is because the Housing Ombudsman Service does not investigate complaints about the actions of councils in their capacity as local authorities. Our position is in accordance with 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
9. It is understood that this issue is being considered as part of a complaint made to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. In this report the nomination withdrawal has been discussed solely for the purpose of considering the adequacy of the landlord’s response. This is to assess the resident’s assertions about how its actions contributed to this event and how it affected him.

Issues considered.

10. It is noted that the landlord has not disputed informing the applicant that the property would be ready for him to move into two weeks form the date he viewed it. After the initial offer of the property, on the 28 July 2022, he asked on 8 August 2022 when the property would be ready as he had to give his existing landlord one week’s notice. The landlord confirmed in a telephone call with the applicant, on 9 August 2022, that its estates department believed it would be ready in another two or three weeks. This was already significantly longer than the two-week timescale already suggested by the landlord.
11. The applicant chased the landlord for updates on 17 August 2022, and the landlord advised on the same day that it could not offer a handover date. Nonetheless, the applicant asked on 18 August 2022 if he could visit the property to measure up for flooring and windows. This, he stated, was because his mental health support worker had obtained grants for appliances which were to be delivered to the property. In its response, of 22 August 2022, the landlord advised that this was not possible but stated that it would continue to keep the applicant updated. While apologising for the situation it further promised to arrange for the commencement of his tenancy as soon as it could.
12. From the records provided to this Service, the landlord did not keep the applicant updated and he had to chase it for information on the situation with the works. There is no evidence that it tried to expedite the works or to ensure that the tenancy could commence in good time, contrary to its communication to the applicant. Within the records supplied by the landlord to this Service, reference is made to phone calls and discussions between different departments but there is no specific detail about what these addressed.
13. The landlord is expected to keep robust records to provide an audit trail, so that the Ombudsman can determine whether it followed its policies and procedures.
14. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The member must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. This may include the following records and documents: a. the member’s policies and procedures; b. any internal files, documents, correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings, in hard copy or electronic form.
15. The Ombudsman’s assessment of events in this case was made more complex by the landlord not providing comprehensive direct records of events between departments and records of all phone calls made between the landlord and the complaint.
16. In its response to the formal complaint, the landlord indicated that the delays to the completion of the works were beyond its control and mainly due to actions of contractors and other service providers. However, it also clarified that extensive renewal works were being undertaken. Its responses showed that it had not thoroughly inspected the property so as to ascertain the nature and extent of works required before putting it forward for nomination by the council. Its staff member conducting the viewing had, therefore, proffered a move-in timescale which was not realistic in the circumstances.
17. It is noted that the landlord advised the applicant, within 20 days of the offer, that a handover date could no longer be predicted. His request to access the property to take measurements indicates that he had not grasped that this could mean a delay of several more weeks or months. The landlord should have considered that the applicant had attached considerable weight to the initial information he was given and redress for the eventual situation should have been offered him.
18. While it may be accurate that some of the delays to the works were unforeseen and difficult to mitigate, the landlord should have taken the applicant’s situation into full consideration. The landlord may have been unable to anticipate that the reconnection of the gas and electricity would be protracted. However, its decision on the formal complaint should have considered the impact of the events on the applicant who is vulnerable. This Service finds that the landlord’s apologies were not adequate to resolve the matter.
19. Following the information about the nomination withdrawal, the applicant wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2022. He stated that his existing supported accommodation landlord had advised in writing that he could not store the items of furniture he purchased in anticipation of his move in the flat after 31 October 2022. He would, therefore, have to pay for storage of these items.
20. Whilst apologising for the inconvenience to the applicant, the landlord clarified that it was aware of the actions being taken by the council to assist the applicant with his move. It explained that the withdrawal of his nomination by the council was to expedite his further application. It was reasonable that the landlord made the effort to reassure him about the situation and indicated by its response that it was in communication with the council.
21. The landlord, however, stated that it would not pay for storage of the applicant’s belongings. It was unhelpful that it maintained that the delays to the void works were outside of its control; but the landlord was accurate in explaining that a move-in date had not been confirmed. Thus, the applicant should have delayed purchasing furniture until this happened. The landlord’s response was reasonable when it is considered that it did advise him that it could not give a handover date and would not grant access to the property when he informed him about his intention to purchase the items.
22. Further to the above, the landlord informed the applicant that the council had confirmed that he did not have to move his belongings pending a further offer of accommodation from the council. He was, therefore not required to move them into storage. The evidence also shows that he did not incur any costs for storage of his furniture. However, it is clear that until the stage two decision, he felt that he would have to do so, and the evidence supports this.
23. The notification of the nomination withdrawal would have caused the applicant more distress as he informed the landlord, on 24 October 2022 that he would now be bottom of the allocations list. This was a further issue, the impact of which the landlord should have considered in its stage two decision.
24. The landlord knew about the applicant’s mental health situation and that he suffered from anxiety. In none of the responses is this taken into account in respect of how the delays and worry about the cost of storage had affected him. In view of this vulnerability, this Service concludes that he was adversely affected by the landlord’s actions. This was because of the delays and the worry that he believed he would have to pay for storage.
25. A finding of service failure is considered appropriate as the landlord did not demonstrate that it considered the applicant’s vulnerability and the impact on him of the delays. It also did not acknowledge that its poor assessment of works required before the property was put forward for nomination had resulted in it grossly underestimating the timescales. It, therefore, failed to consider that compensation was warranted in this case. As a remedy, the landlord has been ordered to pay the applicant some compensation. The finding and amount ordered has taken into consideration the communication to the applicant in August 2022 that a handover date could no longer be predicted.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of works required to the property allocated to the resident before his tenancy could commence.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered to pay the applicant compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience resulting from its handling of the works.
28. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 calendar days of this investigation report.