Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (202421861)

Background

1. The resident lived in a property that was part of a regeneration project. The landlord told residents their properties would be demolished, and they would move to new homes. The resident is disabled and has autism, ADHD and anxiety disorder. He moved to his new property in July 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A regeneration project and property move.
   2. Concerns about the property condition.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A regeneration project and property move.
   2. Concerns about the property condition.
   3. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a regeneration project and property move

4. The landlord apologised for information and communication failings. It did not acknowledge the extent of the failings or their impact on the resident. The landlord did not provide ongoing support during the regeneration project. It assessed the resident’s needs as part of his housing application. It did not update this assessment or use it to support the resident’s move to his new property.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the property condition

5. The landlord did not explain to the resident that it would do some repairs after he moved in. These included repairs required to meet the landlord’s ‘lettable standard’. The landlord has not sent complete repair records. Its records show the repairs were completed in October 2024. This is after the timeframe required by its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It did not log the resident’s initial complaint. It did not respond to all the issues the resident raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident said the landlord did not treat him fairly, and it had not considered his disabilities. We cannot assess if the landlord breached the Equality Act, but we can consider whether it has considered its duties under it, for example, in the application of its repairs policy.
8. This investigation looks at the 12-month period before the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord. It considers the period from April 2023 until the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2024. Events before this period are for background information.
9. In January 2022 the landlord did an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) on regeneration plans for the resident’s estate. The landlord proposed to demolish some or all the properties. The EIA assessed how relocation could affect different groups. It said residents with physical and mental health conditions may need adapted housing or emotional support. It said with ongoing support and monitoring, no group should be disproportionately affected.
10. In February 2023 the landlord told residents it was considering what to do with their properties. It subsequently consulted residents about regeneration options. In December 2023 the landlord told residents their properties would be demolished. It said residents might get a demolition notice, but they did not have to leave immediately.
11. The landlord did a housing needs vulnerability assessment for the resident. The assessment is undated. In February 2024 the resident told the landlord he was trying to get medical evidence to support his housing application. He said the process was very stressful. The resident asked when he would get the ‘home loss’ payment. The landlord said it would be around the time when he moved. It said it did not know when this would be.
12. In February 2024 the resident asked where he could move. He said because the application was done by phone, he did not know the options. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email.
13. In March 2024 the resident said he was stressed and frightened. He said he had disabilities but had not got extra help. He said he was worried because the landlord told him it did not have enough medical information. In an internal email the landlord said the application was affecting the resident’s mental health. It said the resident wanted to move to a bungalow but was upset about providing medical evidence. The landlord sent the resident contact details for the staff member handling his move. It said it was sure the information from his GP would be enough for him to get a flat. The resident’s mother confirmed she was the resident’s main caregiver. She explained why a bungalow would help the resident.
14. On 23 April 2024 the landlord did a ‘mobility assessment’. The resident told the landlord he had been ‘in limbo’ since the regeneration project started. He said he was disabled and always at home, but it was no longer a ‘safe space’. The resident said it took the landlord over a year to process his housing application. He said the landlord had not assessed his mobility and had not explained possible adaptions. He said he was being forced to move, and the compensation was not adequate.
15. The landlord responded on 30 April 2024. It said it was sorry for the impact on the resident. The landlord said it had been working with him to do a housing application. The landlord said it would visit to discuss his concerns and offer support and advice.
16. The landlord visited on 9 May 2024. It did not send the resident information in writing before or after the visit. The landlord has not sent us a visit record.
17. In June 2024 the landlord offered the resident a new property. The resident asked about removals and whether he would be charged for items left at his current property. He said he had autism and ADHD and the thought of the move had made him very unwell. The resident asked if he could be considered for a bungalow on the new development. The landlord said it would arrange removals and support the resident with the move. It said it would reimburse him for carpets. It said it would not charge the resident for items left at his old property. The landlord said the redevelopment plan was not finalised. It said if bungalows were built, the resident could apply. The resident asked how to apply for the home loss payment. The landlord sent information about the application process.
18. On 14 June 2024 the landlord asked the resident how long he needed to move. The resident said about 2 weeks. He said he wanted to deep clean the new property, decorate and fit carpets. The resident said he needed the compensation to do this. He said he asked previously, but it was hard to get answers. The resident said it would be hard to fit carpets while living at the property. He asked if vouchers or other funds were available.
19. The resident called the landlord after viewing the property. He asked for the shower height to be adjusted. The resident said he struggled to remember phone calls. The landlord said it would email after calls. On 18 June 2024 the landlord spoke with the resident and then sent an email. It said it would fit carpets and change the shower height before the resident moved in.
20. On 20 June 2024 the resident asked to view the property again and asked if it had asbestos. The landlord said it only offered one viewing and the resident had accepted the property. It said the property would meet its ‘lettable standard’, but it would ask for the asbestos report. The landlord said it would disconnect and reconnect the resident’s ‘white goods’.
21. The landlord arranged for the resident to choose carpets and for the carpets to be fitted.
22. On 27 June 2024 the landlord sent an update to residents. It said it would hold ‘drop-in’ sessions about to answer residents’ queries on 9 July 2024.
23. The landlord told the resident he would move on 10 July 2024. It said it would provide a ‘packing kit’ and asked what ‘white goods’ needed connecting at the new property. It said deductions for damage would be assessed on a ‘case by case’ basis.
24. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the regeneration project and property move. He said the landlord had not understood, respected or considered his disabilities. In its stage 1 response the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the lack of information. It said it had fixed this and offered a ‘drop-in’ session for residents. It said it could not accommodate the resident’s request to hand in keys and move on different days. It said it delivered tenancy papers to the resident and fixed the shower. The landlord said there was no benefit in the resident doing a second property viewing. It said it considered the resident’s disabilities throughout.
25. In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted its communication was not ‘proactive’. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said relocation due to home loss was not a usual activity. It apologised for not arranging a second property visit and not always providing written information.
26. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord apologised for communication and information failings. However, it did not recognise the extent or impact of these. The landlord identified ongoing support was needed during the regeneration project. However, it did not provide consistent support. The landlord assessed the resident’s needs as part of his housing application. It did not update this assessment or use it to inform the support it provided. The resident told the landlord the thought of moving caused him significant distress. The landlord held information ‘drop in’ sessions about moving and compensation, but these were after the resident’s moved. The resident had to chase the landlord for information.
28. For these reasons we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the regeneration project and the resident’s property move. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £300 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely affected the resident.

29. The landlord inspected the property when it was empty. The resident moved in on 10 July 2024. He reported issues with the worktops and water damage under the kitchen sink. He told the landlord the ceiling was damaged, and an old alarm was ‘hanging off’. The landlord said it would add the repairs to those it recorded when the resident moved in.
30. The resident asked if the ‘disturbance allowance’ could pay for a deep clean of the property and windows, a ‘snagging inspection’ and rubbish removal. He reported more repairs. The resident said the living room window did not close, the front door latch and ‘piper alarm’ were broken, and there was damp in the kitchen. He said the washing machine was not in the property. The landlord told the resident the property just needed a ‘freshen up’. It said the packaging and garden waste could go in the recycling bins. In an internal email the landlord said the piper alarm and window needed fixing as soon as possible. It said the resident’s cooker had not been delivered to his new house.
31. The landlord visited on 15 July 2024 and identified 14 repairs. After the visit it sent an internal email that listed 9 ‘snags requested while void’ and 6 ‘snags not originally requested during void’. The repairs included repairs to the windows and worktops. The landlord’s ‘lettable standard’ says windows will fit correctly and the worktops will be clean and in good condition.
32. On 29 July 2024 the resident said 20 repairs were missed when the property was empty and many were still not fixed. He asked the landlord if it had seen the pictures he sent of the windows. The landlord acknowledged the windows were dirty. It said it did not clean windows and a ‘specialist clean’ was not necessary. The landlord said it would replace the window vent as this was hard to clean. It said the disturbance allowance could not be used to pay for cleaning.
33. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the property met its ‘lettable standard’. The landlord said all repairs were done in a ‘timely manner’. The landlord said it told the resident the new carpets would mean the doors were not fitted. It said the resident was happy to move in without the internal doors. It said the resident had not contacted it about the washing machine until 8 August 2024.
34. In his escalation request, the resident said he had an anxiety disorder but had to constantly chase repairs.
35. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the resident would have liked repairs done faster. It said it was confident there were ‘legitimate reasons’ for the delays.
36. When he referred his complaint to us the resident said he wanted the landlord to do the repairs. The records the landlord sent us do not say when the different repairs were fixed. The records say all ‘snags were completed’ on 28 October 2024.
37. The landlord inspected the property when empty and identified repairs. It did not tell the resident some of these would be done after he moved in. The landlord subsequently listed 14 repairs that were not done. These included repairs needed to meet its ‘lettable standard’. The landlord agreed to move the resident’s ‘white goods’ but did not move the washing machine. The landlord’s records are incomplete but show the repairs were completed on 28 October 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 4 weeks. The landlord did not complete all repairs within this timeline. We found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the property condition. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £220 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely affected the resident.

38. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says if it needs additional time to provide a response it will agree this with the resident. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. It says a resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
39. On 23 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ‘voice some grievances’. The landlord did not log a complaint.
40. On 26 July 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and sent its stage 1 response within the timelines in its complaints policy.
41. The resident said in his complaint the landlord gave incorrect information about the garden boundaries. The landlord did not address this issue in its response.
42. On 12 August 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within its policy timelines.
43. As a result, we found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have not made an order about the garden boundaries. This is because the resident said the landlord subsequently gave him the information. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £100 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

44. The landlord should review its approach to vulnerable residents in light of this case. It should consider whether it needs a vulnerable resident’s policy and a reasonable adjustments policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

45. The landlord should ensure it provides accurate information when a resident moves into a property. It should ensure it documents outstanding repairs and provides clear repair timelines.

Communication

46. The landlord should document residents’ communication needs. Where a resident asks for written summaries of phone calls it should ensure these are provided.