Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202316664)

Background

1. The resident had a long-standing damp problem in her home. In October 2022, the resident and her 2 adult daughters temporarily moved out of the property so the landlord could carry out the required remedial works, which were expected to take 6-8 weeks. The resident returned to the property in March 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move and the repairs carried out during major works to the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move and the repairs carried out during major works to the property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that:
   1. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide adequate support, communicate effectively and manage the temporary move and repair works appropriately. Although it took some steps to address the issues, its actions did not go far enough to fully put things right for the resident.
   2. The landlord failed to treat clear expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints, obstructed the resident’s escalation request, did not follow the required timescales, and missed opportunities to review and correct its own complaint‑handling failures.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues impacted on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident was unhappy that some of her personal belongings had been damaged by the removal company when they were returned to her home. We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over.
8. The resident told us that, following the damp works, she had concerns about the property being cold and about repairs needed to the kitchen tap and worktop. However, we have seen no evidence that she raised these issues as part of her complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had chance to put right first.

What we did investigate

Delays and communication

9. The landlord’s internal records from March 2022 indicated that the damp works in the resident’s property were expected to take around 6–8 weeks. However, the resident moved out on 17 October 2022 and did not return until 27 March 2023—a total of 23 weeks. We accept that delays can occur during major repair works. However, it is our role to assess whether the landlord managed the process appropriately, provided adequate support to the resident, and took reasonable steps to minimise disruption, in line with its policies and obligations.
10. The landlord’s decant policy states that “during the decant process, residents can expect support from start to finish and a person‑centred approach which supports [them] through the process with a designated officer dealing with enquiries”. Our investigation has found that during the resident’s temporary move, the landlord failed to provide adequate support, communicated poorly, and caused avoidable delays. Examples include:
    1. The housing officer did not visit the resident on the move-out day, and no alternative cover was arranged.
    2. There were significant delays between October 2022 and January 2023 due to unclear and inconsistent guidance on the kitchen flooring, which prevented the works from starting.
    3. While we acknowledge that the landlord was waiting for confirmation from the resident that it could remove the flooring, it should have confirmed the full scope of works – including how the flooring would be handled – before she moved out.
    4. The landlord did not respond to concerns raised on 14 December 2022 that she was “struggling” living at her daughter’s home.
    5. On 18 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to send her the insurance claim forms for her flooring. By 19 December 2022, she informed the landlord that she had still not received them. The landlord later confirmed on 9 January 2023 that it had sent the forms. This delay was unreasonable.
    6. After works began in January 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord provided any progress updates until the resident contacted it on 16 March 2023 to say, “no-one had contacted her with any updates”.
    7. The landlord offered no support on the day the resident moved back into her home.
11. Given the above, it was appropriate that within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to provide the resident with the expected level of support, including unreturned calls, unattended appointments, and overall poor communication.

Outstanding repairs

12. We have not had sight of any handover or snagging reports completed by the landlord or its contractors following the works to the resident’s property. However, within an internal email dated 17 March 2023, the landlord said that “apart from minor snagging which will be done today, the property is complete”. The absence of formal snagging documentation makes it difficult to evidence how the landlord assessed the quality of the works or ensured all issues were identified and addressed, which is indicative of poor record‑keeping and inadequate post‑work inspection processes.
13. On 28 March 2023, the resident reported “unfinished work”. The landlord reasonably asked her to email photographs. We have seen no evidence that she provided them.
14. On 3 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that several aspects of the work were incomplete. The landlord asked her to “put it in writing”, which was inappropriate as she had already raised her concerns verbally and the landlord should have recorded and acted on them, without requiring a written submission.
15. On 5 April 2023, the resident again reported that “various things in the house had not been done”, including cracks in the hallway. The landlord requested for the resident to provide photographs of the areas. Although photographs can assist in diagnosing repairs, the landlord’s repeat request showed a lack of proactive follow‑up and contributed to unnecessary delays.
16. The landlord’s records show that on 6 April 2023, the resident made a “distressed call” about multiple problems after returning to the property, which included “new cracks” and “missing flooring”. During the call to discuss her complaint on 13 April 2023, the resident confirmed again that repairs were outstanding including, missing architraves pieces, damaged plaster in the hallway, a ceiling stain from a historic leak, and missing flooring.
17. In an internal email dated 18 April 2023, the landlord said it had inspected the property and “found no snagging issues”. It is unclear when this inspection had taken place, or whether it was referencing the inspection undertaken on 17 March 2023. It further stated that there were some “minor” issues that it had been unable to gain access due to the resident’s availability, but no evidence was provided to support its claims. This again highlights poor repair record keeping.
18. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (on 28 April 2023) it said:
    1. Its contractors had previously attempted to access the property to resolve the issues with the architraves, but with no success. To resolve the issue, it had arranged an appointment for 28 April 2023.
    2. There was no evidence of any cracks in the hallway during its previous inspection, but it had raised a job for the plasterwork to be inspected.
    3. Damaged decoration was the resident’s responsibility, but it would arrange to repaint the kitchen ceiling as her attempt had not resolved the stain.
    4. It acknowledged there had been some issues with the carpet company fitting the kitchen flooring and apologised to the resident for failing to discuss the matter “in a timely manner and to ensure the follow-up action was completed when she returned home”. It asked the resident to supply receipts so that it could reimburse her.
19. Although it was not obliged to do so, it was positive that the landlord offered to cover the installation costs for the kitchen flooring, particularly as it had been fitted within the previous 12 months. The evidence suggests that the costs were reimbursed on 14 June 2023, although it is unclear why this took almost 7 additional weeks due to the lack of documentary evidence.
20. In its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023, the landlord said it had been informed that all decoration was complete and asked the resident to report any further issues. As no further concerns were raised, it is reasonable to conclude the repairs were completed. However, the continued absence of repair records means we cannot confirm whether the works met the landlord’s repair target timescales.

Waste in garden and garden maintenance

21. On 13 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord that there was “waste in the garden and boxes need removing”. The evidence does not make clear who left the waste or why it was there. Nevertheless, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged for its removal on 25 April 2023, 9 working days after being notified.
22. The resident also alleged (on 13 April 2023) that the landlord had committed to maintain the garden while she was away from the property, but it “never materialised”. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no documentary evidence to corroborate her claims. We therefore find the landlord’s position in its stage 1 response, that it had no record of agreeing to undertake the work, reasonable and based on the evidence available to it at the time.
23. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident contacted it on 9 April 2023 and 19 April 2023 about the maintenance of her garden. She asked for assistance in tidying the area, as it had not been maintained for more than 6 months. Despite the tenancy agreement stating that it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden, it was reasonable that within the landlord’s stage 1 response it offered to inspect the garden to assess her concerns. However, it is not clear when this appointment took place or if any works were undertaken to tidy the garden, which is further indicative of poor record keeping. However, as we have seen no evidence that the resident raised the issue again with the landlord or our Service, it is reasonable to conclude that the issues were resolved satisfactorily.

Gas and electric usage

24. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had used her gas and electricity during the remedial works and had not reimbursed her.
25. The landlord’s records show that the gas supply was capped on 19 October 2022 and not uncapped until 5 April 2023. Therefore, its position within its stage 1 response that no gas was used, was reasonable.
26. We have not had sight of any documentary evidence in relation to electric usage, which is indicative of poor record‑keeping. Despite this, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had used the resident’s electric during the works but had failed to take a final electricity meter reading. As such, it asked the resident to provide a reading so that it could reimburse her—an avoidable inconvenience and expenditure of her time that should not have been necessary. The evidence confirms that the landlord reimbursed the resident for the electricity usage on or before 14 June 2023.

Gas and electric keys

27. The resident said that after returning home she informed the landlord that she did not have a gas or electricity key, and that she was advised “to go and get some from the shop”. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we cannot comment on the content of that call, as the recording was not provided.
28. However, the landlord’s records from 3 April 2023 note that the resident had said her gas key was packed away and she planned to wait for the removal company to return her belongings. Given that the resident had already been home for 8 calendar days and still had no access to heating, the landlord should have taken a more proactive and supportive approach. It was, nonetheless, positive that, in its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had not provided an adequate level of service and accepted that it should have contacted the resident on the day she returned home to help her “settle back in”.
29. The landlord also stated in its stage 1 response that temporary heating had been provided during this period. However, its repair records showed that although an emergency order for a temporary heater was raised on 5 April 2023, it was cancelled the same day. When asked to provide evidence to support its claim, the landlord was unable to do so. This further highlights poor record keeping.

Putting things right

30. As already explained above, within the landlord’s complaint responses, it identified several of the failings identified in this report and appropriately apologised and upheld the resident’s complaint. It was also positive that it clearly outlined the lessons it had learned from her complaint and the specific service improvements it intended to implement as a result. This demonstrated a constructive approach and showed a commitment to preventing similar issues in the future.
31. As an outcome to the resident’s complaint, she asked the landlord to refund the rent she had paid during the temporary move. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it could do not so. This was reasonable and in accordance with its decant policy which states that during a temporary move, residents could expect “no changes to rent payments”.
32. The resident and her 2 adult daughters stayed with her eldest daughter for the duration of the works. Under the landlord’s decant procedure, tenants who temporarily move out and stay with family or friends are entitled to a friends and family disturbance allowance. This is £25 per week (up to £100) for a single person or couple, and £45 per week (up to £180) for households that include at least one child. The procedure also states that the landlord may consider additional payments where the stay becomes prolonged.
33. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £100. Although the procedure does not define what age constitutes “a child”, it is reasonable to conclude that this was anyone under the age of 18. Therefore, it was fair for the landlord to apply the £25-per-week rate. However, we consider this a significantly low offer, as the resident’s household was required to be out of the property for an unreasonable period, 23 weeks in total. In addition, while the policy does not specify when the payment should be issued, the landlord should have made the payment when the resident returned home—at the very latest—rather than only offering it after she submitted a formal complaint.
34. At stage 2, the landlord increased its offer to £375, calculated at £25 per week for 15 weeks from 5 December 2022 to 17 March 2023. Given our earlier findings (that the landlord should have confirmed its approach to the kitchen flooring before the resident moved out), we consider it more appropriate to calculate the allowance from the date she moved out, on 17 October 2022. It is also unclear why the landlord stopped the calculation on 17 March 2023, as the evidence indicates the resident returned to the property on 27 March 2023. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional amount reflecting the full 23‑week period, at the £25‑per‑week rate.
35. We have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation policy that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint. We have therefore made an assessment of its compensation offer for the distress and inconvenience caused, against our own remedies guidance. It was positive that the landlord made some attempt to put things right by offering the resident £300 compensation (excluding the friend and family disturbance payment). However, we consider this offer to be low and not proportionate to all the failings identified in this report. It also did not adequately reflect the impact, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family, during the 23‑week period she was unable to return home, nor the additional issues identified after she moved back.
36. Overall, while we are satisfied that the landlord took some appropriate steps to put things right for the resident, we find that it did not go far enough. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s decant procedure, most recent compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

37. As we have not had sight of the landlord’s complaints policy that was applicable at the time the resident made her complaint, we have made the assessment against our 2022 Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). This set out that landlord’s should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and aim to respond within 10 days from the acknowledgement. Landlord’s should then respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. At both stages, it should not exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason. The Code was updated and became statutory in April 2024.
38. The Code states that a complaint must be defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action, by the organisation its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”. The landlord’s internal records show that on 16 March 2023, the resident informed it that she was unhappy that the “6 week decant had turned into 6 months and no one had contacted her with any updates” Also, on 5 April 203, the landlord noted that the resident “was complaining about various things in the house which she feels has not been done”. These were expressions of dissatisfaction. We therefore find that the landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to treat the matters as complaints.
39. The resident made a complaint on 6 April 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint within 4 working days, on 13 April 2023.
40. On 21 April 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it needed to extend the complaint response deadline to 28 April 2023, which was in line with the Code. However, its correspondence was confusing because it incorrectly stated that the resident had raised the complaint on 12 April 2023, a mistake it repeated in its stage 1 response. Although this error is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we expect landlords to ensure accurate records of complaints are maintained.
41. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023. From the date of acknowledgement, this was an interval of 12 working days. This was in accordance with the permitted extended timescales outlined in the Code.
42. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident requested to escalate her complaint on 3 May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and asked her to submit her request “in writing so [it] could look at the whole thing”. This was inappropriate and obstructive, as the resident had already clearly explained why she wished to escalate the complaint. It was also contrary to the Code, which states that landlords must make it easy for residents to complain and should accept complaints made through various channels, including by telephone.
43. On 14 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on her request for rent reimbursement, which she said she had already escalated to stage 2. On the same day, an internal email shows that the landlord stated it “did not think she formally requested the escalation until today”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to check its records to confirm whether an earlier escalation request had been made. However, the evidence suggests it did not do so, as it formally acknowledged the escalation only on 15 June 2023 and advised that it would respond within 20 working days.
44. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023. This was within 19 working days of its escalation acknowledgement. However, when measured from the date the resident first requested escalation, the response took 48 working days. This exceeded the maximum timescales set out in the Code.
45. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
46. For the reasons outlined above we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

47. The landlord’s identification of learning from the resident’s complaint was a positive step, and it should ensure that the improvements it outlined are fully implemented to strengthen its future service delivery.
48. The landlord should assess its own complaint handling as part of a complaint investigation, ensuring appropriate redress is offered where any failings are identified.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

49. On several occasions the landlord’s record keeping was poor, which meant it could not evidence key actions. This undermined transparency and prevented a full assessment of events. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records of all repair records and correspondence.

Communication

50. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of the case was poor and demonstrates the need for clearer and more proactive engagement. Effective communication plays a key role in effective housing management and temporary move processes, and the landlord should reflect on how it can strengthen its approach when interacting with residents.