Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Leicester City Council (202215809)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215809

Leicester City Council

30 August 2024

 

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 the resident’s mutual exchange and the associated issues regarding the condition on the property following the exchange.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident by way of a mutual exchange on 12 August 2022.
  2. The property is a 3 bedroom house and the resident lived at the property with her elderly father from the date of assignment until she moved out on 21 May 2023. The resident and her father both have health conditions and required a level access shower which the landlord was aware of.
  3. A mutual exchange property inspection was carried out by the landlord on 15 June 2022 in readiness for the mutual exchange. The Inspection noted several repairs:
    1. Repairs for landlord:
      1. Kitchen – replace one piece of architrave.
      2. Hall, stairs, and landing – Hack off brown plaster, float and skim near grab rail and landing window. Replace floorboard to landing and one set of architraves to landing cupboard.
      3. Bedroom 1 – repair or replace upvc window handle.
      4. Bedroom 2 – replace missing internal door and handle to cupboard.
      5. External – Request structural check to large cracks in the outhouse brickwork. Repair rear gate and repair leak to outhouse WC cistern pipework.
      6. Miscellaneous – unable to gain access to cupboard in bedroom 1. Black mould patch to wall near kitchen back door.
    2. Repairs for current tenant to complete prior to mutual exchange:
      1. Lounge – Fill internal door.
      2. Bedroom 1 – Fill internal door.
      3. Bedroom 3 – Ease internal door to close.
      4. External – Strim front garden.
  4. On 23 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns about the condition of the property following her mutual exchange. The landlord has not provided evidence of this conversation, but the records show that it followed up by inspecting the property on 2 September 2022. During the inspection the following repairs were recorded:
    1. Structural damage internally and externally.
    2. Gas fire in lounge and dining room loose.
    3. Plaster blown on hall, stairs and landing.
    4. Tiling in bathroom needs attention.
    5. Front and rear door skin damaged.
    6. Electrical wiring needs checking.
    7. Garden fence needs attention.
    8. Overgrown tree in garden.
    9. Roof eave protruding.
  5. On 6 September 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord in relation to the condition of the property and the pre mutual exchange inspection carried out by the landlord. She said that both her father and herself have disabilities and that the property was not suitable. She felt like she was being passed back and forth between the landlord and the occupational therapy team.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2022. It said that all disrepair issues flagged during the initial inspection and the subsequent inspection in September had been logged and given the relevant priority. It confirmed that the property was habitable. Furthermore, it said that the resident had viewed the property prior to the mutual exchange and had not raised any concerns.
  7. Throughout October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions requesting to be re-housed. She said that staying in the property while the repairs were completed would be detrimental to their health. The landlord offered the resident a temporary decant but she refused on the grounds of unsuitability. The resident also stated that she wished to be moved to a 2 bed property.
  8. Following the resident’s complaint escalation the landlord responded on 9 December 2022. It said:
    1. A mutual exchange is a voluntary agreement and that by signing the deed of assignment the incoming tenant accepts the property in the condition it is in at the time.
    2. It is not possible for a landlord to refuse a mutual exchange based on repairs but either party could have withdrawn their application at any stage prior to signing the assignment paperwork.
    3. The property inspection is to assess if there are any alterations or damage to the property, it is not intended to look for ‘any unforeseen or hidden defects.’
    4. The property was ‘habitable’ and that any additional repairs could be reported through the usual channels.
    5. That once it had been put on notice of repairs it had acted appropriately.
    6. The resident was initially offered temporary accommodation while the plastering works were completed, as this was deemed unsuitable, and the resident was now waiting for a permanent move the repair works have been cancelled as agreed.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with this response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that the current property was affecting their health and that in resolution she would like to be moved to a smaller property through the landlord’s downsize incentive scheme.

Events post complaint

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she was moved to a 2 bed bungalow on 21 May 2023. She reports that as a result of the move she has lost valuable personal possessions, furthermore, she says that there are outstanding issues at the new address, and she remains unhappy.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained to this Service regarding the landlord’s handling of her mutual exchange, particularly the condition the property was left in on completing the process. The evidence shows that the application process commenced in June 2022 and that the mutual exchange was completed on 12 August 2022. The resident formally complained to the landlord about the condition of the property on 6 September 2022. This report therefore focusses on events that occurred from June 2022, when the mutual exchange process commenced.
  2. It is noted that the resident has since raised additional concerns about her new property, however, as this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure it will not form part of this report. If the resident remains unsatisfied with issues at her new address, she will need to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
  3. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her and her father’s health, particularly in relation to the odour at the property. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
  2. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure says that when a mutual exchange takes place by deed of assignment, each party takes on the tenancy of the other, along with all the responsibilities. Where tenants meet the criteria and there are no grounds to refuse the request as set out in the Housing Act 1985, they have the right to exchange.
  3. The procedure further says that a property is inspected before the mutual exchange takes place, and if any work has been done to the property that may cause a health and safety risk enforcement action may be taken and the exchange refused.
  4. When a tenant moves to a property via mutual exchange, it is a tenant’s responsibility to check that they are happy with the condition of the property. The mutual exchange agreement signed by the resident on 12 August 2022 confirms that the resident accepted the property in the condition it was in at the time of the mutual exchange. The evidence shows that this was clearly communicated to the resident throughout the application process.
  5. The landlord’s inspection of the property on 15 June 2022 did not highlight any concerns that would have caused it to refuse the mutual exchange application. It did however list several repairs that it considered to be its responsibility and several repairs that the outgoing tenant needed to complete. The landlord has not provided evidence of its repair records for this period, so it is not clear if these jobs were promptly raised.
  6. The Ombudsman notes that the mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate the voids inspection used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to relet following the end of a tenancy. However, the inspection should still be thorough enough to be able to highlight any areas of concern. In this case, the landlord’s surveyor did not identify any issues relating to the bathroom tiles, front or rear door or the roof eaves during the initial inspection. The Ombudsman is not in a position to determine whether the surveyor should have identified these defects.
  7. Once the resident had completed the mutual exchange and raised her concerns, the landlord appropriately carried out a further inspection. This was done within 10 working days, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The evidence shows that the repairs highlighted during this inspection were promptly logged and prioritised. A summary of these repairs was provided to the resident in the stage 1 response on 20 September 2022.
  8. Following the inspection the landlord attempted to schedule in the necessary repairs. In October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained her concerns about remaining in the property while the works were completed. She was particularly concerned about the plastering works and the impact the dust would have upon their respiratory conditions. As a result, the landlord appropriately offered the resident a temporary decant.
  9. The evidence suggests that the decant was refused as the resident did not want to leave her possessions that she was currently storing in the garden. The resident requested a permanent move to a smaller property and asked that the work be paused until this was considered. The landlord had concluded that although repairs were needed, the property was habitable. Therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and offer a temporary decent. It was under no obligation to offer the resident a permanent move.
  10. Throughout October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions explaining how the property was affecting the health of both herself and her father. The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive in assisting the resident with her application to move. It also made referrals to Occupational Therapy and its own in house support team.
  11. The evidence shows that the repair works were put on hold at the resident’s request in October 2022. However, a further email dated 29 November 2022 stated that the resident was happy for the works to go ahead if she could be decanted, and the landlord took responsibility for her possessions that would be left in boxes in the rear garden. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response on 9 December 2022, the landlord refused a further offer of a decant on the grounds that the work had been cancelled by the resident. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that no one acted upon the email dated 29 November and this led to the miscommunication between the resident and the landlord. This was rectified 2 weeks later and a permanent decant request was subsequently submitted and approved in January 2023.
  12. In summary, the landlord followed its policies and procedures in relation to approving the mutual exchange. Once it was made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction, the landlord did take reasonable steps to put things right. It acknowledged its repair obligations and considered the residents’ vulnerabilities and the distress the situation had caused by appropriately offering temporary accommodation. Given that the property was deemed habitable by qualified staff, the landlord was under no obligation to offer the resident a permanent move, however, this was a decision that it ultimately made in the best interests of the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange and the associated issues regarding the condition on the property following the exchange.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers amending its pre mutual exchange inspection form to include photographs of the property at the time of the inspection.

 

 

 

 

Chat to us