Homes Plus Limited (202222673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222673

Homes Plus Limited

30  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 time taken to prepare the property at the start of the tenancy.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured shorthold introductory tenancy on a 3-bedroom house owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 21 December 2022. The resident lives with her husband and 3 children. The resident and her husband will be called ‘the resident’ for this report. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s child has autism.
3. Soon after the former occupant vacated the property, the landlord started a significant program of repairs to bring the property back to its lettable standards. The landlord estimated the work would take 26 working days, and it said the resident could move in by the end of September 2022. However, on 27 September, the landlord informed the resident that the property would not be ready until 28 October 2022.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 September 2022. She said she had paid the two weeks of rent in advance, with the understanding that she would move in by the end of September. She said the landlord had assured her that the only possible delay would be if a structural fault was found, yet there were no operatives on-site every time she walked by the property.
5. The landlord responded to the resident on 18 October 2022 and said that as it started works on site, it discovered a significant number of unexpected repairs that were not identified during its previous inspections. It recognised that the delay caused distress to the resident and inconvenienced her children’s school arrangements. The landlord apologised, but it said it did not identify service failure on its part. It confirmed it expected the property to be ready by 28 October 2022.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 October 2022. She said the landlord told her, 4 days before the revised move-in date that the date had been pushed back to 25 November 2022, without further explanation. She requested the landlord to complete all repairs and commit to a firm move-in date.
7. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 November and said the move-in date was pushed back to 5 December 2022. It sent the resident its final response letter on the same date and said:
   1. The delay was due to doors and windows that had to be made to measure.
   2. During the clearance of the garden, it was discovered that the garden needed significant work to level up the grounds.
   3. It apologised for the continued delay and said that due to the strict health and safety regulations, it was not allowed to let the resident move into the property before the works were certified.
   4. It acknowledged issues with its communications internally with staff and externally with the resident. The landlord offered the resident £300 in compensation, which was £150 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for time and trouble, and £100 for missed communications.
8. The property failed the landlord’s final inspection on 5 December 2022, delaying the move-in date. The resident received the keys to the property on 21 December 2022. She wrote to the landlord on the same day and said the landlord’s offer of £100 in compensation for miscommunication was satisfactory. However, she felt that £100 for time and trouble was more appropriate, and between £300-£500 for the distress and inconvenience. Meaning, she requested a total of £700 in compensation.
9. The landlord wrote to a resident on 5 January 2023. It said that as the move-in date was so close to Christmas, it would offer the resident £800 in compensation, and it would also give her £200 in home decoration vouchers. The resident accepted this on 11 January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate a specific complaint that has progressed through a landlord’s internal complaint process, and the landlord had an opportunity to resolve the complaint. In this case, the landlord’s final response letter was about the time it has taken the landlord to bring the property up to its lettable standards so it could be let out to the resident.
11. The resident brought her complaint to this service on 20 December 2022, before she received the keys to the property. Following the move, the resident raised another complaint about the property’s condition; however, this complaint had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process and, therefore, did not form a part of this complaint.

The time taken to prepare the property at the start of the tenancy

12. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
13. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was obliged to repair and “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord was obliged to carry out the repairs to ensure the property let to the resident is safe and free from hazards to its occupants.
14. The landlord’s void policy says the landlord would inspect properties at the earliest opportunity to identify any disrepair aspects and establish the work required before the next tenancy begins. The landlord would check each property once works have been completed to ensure it meets its lettable standards as the minimum standard of a property. Properties that fail the inspection will be rectified before passing the keys to the allocations team and subsequent re-letting.
15. In this case, the former occupant vacated the property on 25 July 2022, and the landlord sent its void surveyor to assess the scope of the required works. On 3 August 2022, the landlord was told by its operatives that it would take 26 working days to complete the work. A senior manager of the landlord commented internally that this was the worst condition of a void property he had seen in his 20-year career. The scope of works included: Brick up 2 fireplaces and removing 2 hearths, fitting vents to chimney breast, rewiring, renewal of windows and doors, removal of 2 earths, removal of 2 fireplaces, plastering, plumbing, guttering, flooring repairs, grounds levelling and fencing.
16. In September 2022, the landlord notified the resident 4 days before the planned move that the move-in date was postponed by a month. In October 2022, 4 days before the move, the landlord told the resident that the move was pushed back to 25 November 2022. Yet again, 4 days before the move, the resident was notified that the date had been pushed back to 5 December 2022. This was not appropriate. Given that the scope of work was significant, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord had more than 4 days’ notice of the possible delay each time. It should have notified the resident at its earliest opportunity. This was a failure by the landlord. The landlord repeated the same mistake 3 times, which was not appropriate. The landlord missed 3 opportunities to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
17. Each missed opportunity caused disappointment for the resident and accumulated her distress. The resident and her family were inconvenienced as they lived out of boxes for 12 weeks. Landlords can mitigate the impact on residents by providing regular updates explaining the delay and the landlord’s plan to solve it. However, in this case, the landlord did not communicate with the resident effectively during this time; it did not proactively explain the delay, its timetable for the work was proven repeatedly unreliable, and it compounded the frustration of the resident, who kept chasing the landlord for updates on its progress. This was not appropriate.
18. It is recognised that it was in the landlord’s best interest to progress the works as efficiently as possible. The scope of work was significant and was further complicated by unexpected defects that arose as the work progressed. It is also recognised that most of the delays were for reasons outside the landlord’s control, such as waiting for made-to-measure doors and windows to be manufactured.
19. Within its complaint responses, the landlord correctly identified its failure, affecting its internal and external communications with the resident. Having identified failings, the landlord was obliged to put things right and learn from the outcome, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. To put things right, the landlord:
    1. Apologised to the resident for its failings. This was appropriate because it demonstrated that the landlord accepted responsibility for its failure and acknowledged the impact on the resident.
    2. It revised its remedy and offered the resident £800 in compensation and £200 in home decoration vouchers. The amount awarded by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance for cases where a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, causing significant impact with no permanent damage.
20. As part of its complaint responses, the landlord also identified learning that it would take forward. It has discussed its plan to move to a better standard of presenting void properties with the resident. It also said it would “collaborate closely with the team to ensure that the information provided is current and that all parties’ communication lines are transparent”. It was appropriate that the landlord explained that the complaint had identified learning. It demonstrated effective and positive use of its complaint-handling process to improve landlord services.
21. Overall, there is no disputing how frustrating and inconvenient the ongoing 12-week delay was for the resident and her family. However, the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for its shortcomings and identified learning within its internal complaint process. The landlord’s measures of redress, which included its apology, compensation, and learning from the complaint are reasonable and resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the time taken to prepare the property at the start of the tenancy.