Livin Housing Limited (202015584)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015584

Livin Housing Limited

21 November 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
1. The property condition when it was let.
2. Request for storage of their personal belongings.
3. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 2 September 2020. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The property is described as a two-bedroom end of terraced house with an attached garage.
The resident has a vulnerability as she has a mental health condition.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy has four repair categories: emergency, urgent, routine and scheduled. Emergency repairs are to be carried out within four hours, urgent within five working days, routine within 10 working days and scheduled within 25 working days. In addition, the repairs carried out to empty properties must meet its lettable standard.
The landlord’s void work identification and job issuing process advises that inspections are carried out to its properties at the end of a tenancy. The inspection should identify the presence of asbestos and emergency/urgent repairs should be reported to its customer services team.
The landlord’s void works procedure requires that all repairs are post inspected to ensure that they meet the requisite standard. If a prospective resident appeals about the condition of a property and repair works are identified which could delay the occupation of a property the Repairs and Maintenance Manager (RMM) will carry out a review and consider whether to agree a rent-free period as compensation for the delay.
The landlord’s void component replacement process advises that if a component is not due for replacement the landlord should repair the item if the:
1. date for replacement of the item is less than two years away and the repair cost is less than £200.
2. date for replacement of the item is more than two years away and the replacement cost is less than £500.
The landlord’s lettable standard provides the minimum standard of repair. It advises that the empty property should be left cleaned, swept and free from rubbish. Bathroom appliances and the kitchen should be thoroughly cleaned and left in working order. Concrete and timber floor coverings will be cleaned and be in a safe condition. A decoration allowance is payable if the decoration within the property is considered poor.
The landlord’s complaints, compliments and feedback policy starts with an informal stage for complaints that can be resolved within four working days. Complaints considered at stage one and stage two of the complaint’s procedure will be resolved within 10 working days. It advises that it won’t automatically escalate complaints to the next stage and it will assess whether new matters that are received should be treated as a new complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy aims to resolve issues before the need for a compensation award arises. It will assess the degree of the impact on the resident from a range starting from no impact to a major impact and provides the suggested amounts payable.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that the property offered to the resident was empty from 21 August 2020 and that it contacted the resident on 27 August 2020 to discuss offering her the tenancy. The resident informed the landlord that it had not given her insufficient time to consider a move as she had a private sector tenancy and she had to give her current landlord four weeks’ notice to bring the tenancy to an end.
The landlord agreed to give the resident three weeks rent credit to bridge the gap between her rental obligations for the two properties and decoration vouchers of £250 if she agreed to accept the tenancy.
The landlord’s records show that on 3 September 2020 it credited the resident’s rent account with £269.40.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 7 September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had collected the keys to the property on 1 September 2020 and that the property was too dirty for her to clean. The resident informed the landlord that repairs were required to the garage door, two kitchen drawers were sticking and that various repairs were required to the property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 September 2020 to apologise for missing the visit that day and rearranged to visit the following day.
The landlord’s records show on 10 September 2020 that following the visit carried out the previous day that a deep clean was required to the property and that three weeks rent credit was awarded.
The resident complained on 14 September 2020 about the condition of the property and the impact on her health. She reported various repairs such as the kitchen cupboards were dirty and rusty, staples in the previous resident’s carpets, mould on the windows, taps were old, bath panel cracked, shower was dirty and that there was dirt behind the radiators.
The resident advised that her preferred resolution to the complaint was for the repairs to be completed, property cleaned and for information to be provided on the asbestos floor tiles. Furthermore, she wanted to know how long the kitchen and bathroom had been installed and that she would send in pictures of the property.
The resident’s daughter made a complaint on her mother’s behalf using social media on 16 September 2020. She described the property as unsuitable as there were urine stains, mould, broken kitchen drawers and that the hinges were covered in rust. In conclusion, she advised that the property was not suitable for someone with a mental health condition.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 September 2020 regarding the complaint. The resident advised that the property was not clean, she had found a yoghurt pot and dog basket behind a radiator. She requested a visit by a female member of staff.
The landlord’s officers discussed the resident’s complaint on 17 September 2020. It agreed that a female member of staff would visit the resident’s property and that the property had been assessed as meeting its standard by three members of staff. It noted that the resident had said that she could not move into the property due to its current condition, that her belongings would need to go into storage and that she could end up homeless as her previous tenancy had ended.
The landlord reviewed the photos provided by the resident, the following day showing the condition of the property when she viewed it. The landlord concluded that it was not cleaned to its lettable standard, that the fire and fire surround had been removed by the resident and that it would not remove the window vent as part of the void standard. It requested that its void contractor reattend the property to clean it that afternoon. It noted that the resident had refused to provide access for the cleaning to take place that afternoon as she did not want to move into the property.
The landlord responded to the informal complaint that same day (18 September 2020). The key findings were that:
1. The property did not meet the lettable standard and should have been cleaned under its void procedure.
2. Following her complaint, it had implemented a checklist to ensure that all elements of the void process were completed once it was assessed as fit to let.
3. It intended to use the photos provided by the resident in its training for staff.
4. It considered that the properties it assessed as fit to let should meet the lettable standard.
5. From the resident’s complaint, it had learnt that the voids standard and lettings process has a direct impact on the lives of its residents.
6. Its void standard must be followed by its staff and that existing processes and procedures should be used to prevent a reoccurrence of this issue.
The landlord’s internal records showed that it agreed for alternative accommodation to be found for the resident or hotel accommodation for the weekend to enable the cleaning of the property to take place. However, it could not agree to pay the storage costs for her furniture for a year or to make her an offer of a three-bedroom property.
The resident escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 20 September 2020 as she believed that the property was not to a liveable standard.
On the same day (20 September 2020) the landlord agreed to the complaint escalation. It considered that her current tenancy ended on 29 September 2020 and that if the resident did not accept this property, it could result in the resident without a property to move into.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 September 2020 and agreed to visit the property the following day. The landlord confirmed that as the resident had two live tenancies, it would not be offering alternative accommodation. It was not going to change the kitchen or bath in the property.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The inspection report identified that the following repairs that should have been completed as part of the void process, which were assessed as minor repairs:
1. Repair two areas where there was a loose missing floorboard and a short length of skirting which was assessed as a minor repair.
2. Repair blind bracket needed to be removed from the window reveal.
3. Replace the external door handle to the rear lobby.
4. Clean and refix door cill.
5. Sweep garage floor.
6. Remove old gripper strips that were left in the property.
7. Remove broken toilet light fitting from the bedroom window cill.
8. Remove redundant boiler parts from the boiler cupboard.
9. Carry out a deep clean of the property paying attention to the radiator, radiator values, shower, taps, waste, pipes, sanitary ware and kitchen unit.
The inspection report also identified 40 other repairs required to the bedrooms, bedroom cupboards, bathroom, toilet cupboard, living room and hall stairs and landing. These repairs were assessed as border line repairs as they ranged from adjusting the kitchen drawers, ease and adjust the bedroom doors handle and replace hall and kitchen internal doors.
The inspection also noted that repairs it had identified had resulted from the resident’s actions, such as the silicone needed to be removed from the bath panel as it became exposed once the resident had removed the existing flooring to the bathroom. In addition, once the resident had removed the fire surround, this had exposed a hole in the wall behind and it was agreed that a vent would be installed to seal the hole.
On the same day, the resident agreed to provide further evidence to the landlord regarding her complaint. In response, the landlord agreed to extend the complaint timescale.
The landlord’s records show that on 28 September 2020, it was meeting with the resident to agree the outstanding works. It considered that the majority of the repairs to be carried out were either external, new tenant repairs or those that could be done once the tenant was in occupation, such as the damage to the garage roof, chipped radiator, damaged bath panel, mould in bathroom and the removal of the astro turf in the garden.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord record show that the resident had viewed the property before it had carried out the cleaning to the property and that it considered that it met the voids standard. Furthermore, the post inspection had shown that the works to be carried out had been completed.
The landlord’s internal communication on 1 October 2020 shows that at the visit carried out on 9 September 2020 it assessed that the repairs to the garage roof and the rainwater goods would not have picked up on the void inspection unless there was heavy rainfall. Therefore, the repairs required to the garage and bedroom door were marginal and that it had carried out additional cleaning to appease the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the housing officer visited the resident’s property on 2 October 2020. The resident’s daughter was present at the visit where the resident advised that she was unhappy with the dirt, dust and condition of the kitchen cupboard and drawers. The landlord offered to carry out another clean of the property, see if it had another empty property available for the resident to move to as the resident could be possibly homeless the following day if she did not accept the property. The Housing Officer advised the resident that decoration vouchers had been offered as the decoration of the property was assessed as poor. With regard to the cleanliness of the property, the housing officer stated that at the visit to the property she had seen a higher standard of cleaning carried out to the kitchen units and behind the radiator.
Furthermore, it agreed to offer the resident a move to a two-bedroom bungalow on a permanent basis if she did not want to accept the property. It would agree to waive its allocations rules and allow her to re-join the housing register if she was not comfortable once she had accepted the bungalow.
On 5 October 2020, the landlord’s records show that the resident requested that the landlord remove the carpets within the property on 21 August 2020, that the viewing was arranged for 10 August 2020 and the property was handed back from the voids team on 12 August 2020.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 26 October 2020. The key findings are summarized below:
1. It had carried out a visit to the property on 23 September 2020 and 28 September 2020.
2. It advised that the property had failed to meet the lettable standard and offered its apologies for that.
3. It had carried out further works between 24 September to 28 September 2020 to:
  1. Replace the kitchen unit door by 30 October 2020. However, the kitchen had been discontinued and if it could not source a door by the target date, it would request replacement of all the door and drawer fronts.
  2. Replace the garage door by 11 November 2020. It noted that there has been a delay with orders at present.
  3. Rotovate and seed the rear garden. This had a target date of spring 2021, following discussion with the resident.
4. It accepted that it had delayed in removing the carpets from her home and that for some repairs it had missed its target response times.
5. It accepted that the cleaning should have been carried out sooner and that the resident had refused their offer to carry this out on 18 September 2020.
6. It offered a three-week rent-free period, a decoration allowance, a temporary decant or hotel accommodation between 19 September 2020 to 20 September 2020 to address her concerns with the cleaning of the property.
7. On lifting the vinyl flooring between 24 September 2020 to 29 September 2020, the resident had inadvertently broken a number of the floor tiles that are known to contain asbestos. It had contacted a specialist company to handle the removal. Secondly, whilst stripping the wallpaper, the resident had uncovered defects in the walls. It had arranged for a plasterer to address this.
8. It had agreed a rent credit for the period 21 September 2020 to 28 September 2020.
9. It apologised for not meeting her expectations.
On 11 November 2020, the landlord credited the resident’s account with a week’s rent in recognition of the repair issues.
The resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) contacted the landlord on 12 November 2020 to advise that it was assisting the resident to make a complaint. It requested that the landlord replace the resident’s kitchen and bathroom in light of her medical condition.
The landlord acknowledged the MP correspondence on 20 November 2020.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 2 December 2020 it considered that the kitchen required minor work and was due for replacement in 2026. The kitchen did not meet the criteria for replacement as the cost of replacing the kitchen doors was between £300 to £400.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord informed the resident’s MP that it had agreed to replace the kitchen door unit in its stage one complaint response. It had located a kitchen door but the resident had refused to have the door installed.
The landlord noted on 21 December 2020 that it had not received the resident’s escalated complaint and it was now out of time.
On 22 January 2021 the resident’s MP provided the resident’s escalated complaint. In summary, the resident complained that:
1. The landlord had accepted that the property was not in a habitable state when it was allocated. Therefore, she could not move into the property, it should pay the storage costs as she had given notice on her private sector tenancy.
2. The landlord had not met its own target to replace the kitchen unit door. It should honour its agreement to replace all the door/drawer fronts.
3. The kitchen cupboards were exposed at the back, this led to dirt entering into the kitchen cupboards. In addition, the hinges were rusty and she had been informed that the kitchen would not be replaced for five years.
4. The lack of a downpipe installed to the garage had led to water collecting on the garage roof.
5. The bath panel did not match the rest of the bathroom suite and the resident was unable to use the bath due to its condition. The bath was at least 30 years old and the bathroom units should be replaced.
6. She had lost faith in the landlord, therefore she had refused its offer to clean the property on 18 October 2020.
7. She had to clear the previous tenants debt of £15 on the pre-payment meter.
8. The offer of the bungalow was in equally as bad condition as the tenancy and she did not know if the landlord was offering the bungalow on a temporary or permanent basis. In addition, she did not know anyone in the area that the bungalow was located in.
9. The resident said that she requested on more than one occasion for the property to be cleaned and wanted to know why the landlord hadn’t removed the previous resident’s flooring as requested.
On 27 January 2021, the landlord circulated its change of process for digital sign up and document sign to its staff.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident’s MP for the Stage 2 complaint.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 17 February 2021 and 23 February 2021 to advise that the resident preferred outcome to her complaint was for the kitchen and bathroom to be replaced. The resident would be sending proof of the storage charges that she had incurred as she could not move her belongings into the property due to the scaffolding outside the property.
The landlord’s internal records on 25 February 2021 show that the invoice for the garage repair had been rejected. Furthermore, its contractors attended to install the downpipe but they had left without installing it as the resident became upset as the installation was not carried out the way she wanted. The landlord decided to issue clear instructions to its contractors regarding the installation of the downpipe for it to be carried out.
The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 4 March 2021. The key findings were:
1. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property, identity repairs and the reasons for the cold draughts the resident had reported.
2. It considered that the kitchen unit door was serviceable. It accepted that it did not keep her informed regarding the delay in installing the kitchen unit door and that it had attempted to install the door on 18 December 2020. It noted that the resident had refused the installation.
3. The kitchen was installed on 1 April 2005, it considered that it met the Decent Homes Standard and that the kitchen was not due for replacement until 2026.
4. It had learnt from the complaint and would carry out training of its staff on the lettable standard and publicise the standard to all new residents. In addition, it will make clear at viewings the repairs that it would undertake and the timescale in which the repairs would be completed.
5. The repairs required to the garage door did not prevent the resident moving into the property and they were completed within the published repair timescales.
6. It had assessed the condition of the bath on 23 September 2020 and 28 September 2020 and considered that it was in a serviceable condition and did not require replacement.
7. The asbestos floor tiles to the kitchen had been removed and the floor had been left screeded to enable a floor covering to be laid.
8. It had updated its lettings procedure to recognise that residents that may have a mental health condition can discuss any concerns they have before the tenancy sign up.
9. It had received her request for the property to be deep cleaned on 10 September 2020 and it had visited on 18 September 2020. It agreed that it had taken too long to undertake the visit. However, it had agreed to provide temporary accommodation over that weekend to enable the deep clean of the property to take place.
10. The guttering of the property covers both the resident and the neighbour’s property. The contractors originally attended on 8 October 2020 to carry out the repairs to reduce the flow of rainwater however, the resident refused the repairs to take place. It had a further discussion with the resident on 5 January 2021 and the works were booked to take place w/c 22 March 2021.
11. It concluded that it credited her rent account with £358.83 and paid her £15 for not keeping her updated with the progress of the kitchen unit door and the delays in completing the rainwater pipe repair. Furthermore, it had arranged for cleaning contractors to attend the property for four hours, fit the replacement kitchen door and it had been agreed with the resident that the garden works to rotovate and seed the rear garden would commence in the spring.
12. It noted that the MP had raised new repair issues such as the kitchen floor tiles and fascia above the garage that it would respond to separately by 12 March 2021.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence between the resident and the landlord. Whilst the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue or incident. Rather, the available evidence has been carefully considered and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she was distressed by the condition of the property when she viewed the property. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged and it is not disputed the resident found this stressful. The Ombudsman’s role in such situations is look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns and to consider whether or not it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.

the property condition when it was let

Looking at the facts of the case, the landlord contacted the resident towards the end of August 2020 to request that she view the property. The resident viewed the property on 1 September 2020 and informed the landlord that the property was too dirty for her to clean. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property by visiting on 9 September 2020 and 18 September 2020 and agreed with the resident’s assessment. The landlord has acted reasonably in accepting that the property condition did not meet its lettable standard as cleaning of the property was not carried out to the required standard and that it could have visited the property sooner.
The landlord agreed for a deep clean to be carried out to the property on 9 September 2020 and on 18 September 2020. This was appropriate action to take, to bring the property up to the required standard and to enable the resident to take up occupation of the tenancy.
The resident requested a visit by a female member of staff and the landlord was person centred when it responded positively to the resident’s request. This demonstrated that the landlord wanted to provide reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns about the condition of the property seriously.
The landlord was resolution focused when it agreed to provide hotel accommodation from 19 September 2020 to 20 September 2020 for the cleaning of the property to take place. It has demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s concerns regarding the suitability of the property when it arranged for her to view another empty property that it had available. It considered the resident’s personal circumstances, that she was previously a private sector tenant and the costs to her of moving, when it advised her that if she accepted the tenancy of the bungalow, it could be offered on a permanent basis. Furthermore, it used its discretion by waiving its allocations rules so that she could re-join the waiting list if she later became unhappy living at the property. The resident did not agree to either proposition advising that the condition of the second property was not better than the first one she had viewed. However, the landlord’s decision making was reasonable as it was aware that if she did not agree to move into one of its properties, she could be made homeless.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to the property. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property to assess the condition of the kitchen units. The landlord assessed that one kitchen unit door needed replacing and informed the resident that if it could not find a replacement unit, it would replace all the kitchen door fronts and drawers. This was a reasonable approach to take as this would ensure that all the kitchen fronts and drawers matched. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that it had delayed in replacing the kitchen unit door unit and made an award of compensation for this,
The resident requested that the landlord replace the kitchen units. She explained that she was unable to use the kitchen units to store her food as there was no backboard at the back of the kitchen units, therefore, dirt was able to find its way into the back of the units. The landlord did not agree to replace the kitchen in the property. In making its decision it assessed that the kitchen was functional, complied with the Decent Homes Standard and that it was not due for replacement until 2026. The landlord also considered its criteria under its voids standard that as the works to repair the kitchen was below £500, then a repair should be carried out. While the landlord’s position regarding the installation of new components to the kitchen was reasonable, the available evidence does not show that it gave consideration to the information provided by the resident advising that she was unable to use the kitchen cupboards which was inappropriate.
The resident requested that the landlord arrange for the bathroom to be replaced as she was unable to use the bath. In addition, the bath was damaged. The landlord’s records show that it carried out an inspection of the bathroom before it reached its decision that the bathroom did not meet its threshold to be replaced as the bath was serviceable and met the Decent Homes Standard. In accordance with its repairing obligations, it replaced the bath panel and noted that it had difficulty finding a matching bath panel, therefore the replacement of the bath panel had been delayed.
The landlord agreed to replace the garage door by 11 November 2020 and this was completed within its published repair standards. However, the works to install a downpipe to the garage roof to reduce the amount of rainfall was delayed. The evidence shows that the contractor attended on 8 October 2021 to replace the down pipe and left without installing the downpipe as the resident was unhappy with the method being used to carry out the work. There was a three-month delay before the landlord spoke to the resident about this in January 2021. The available information does not provide an explanation for the reason for the delay in the landlord speaking to the resident or its contractor about the works order to install the down pipe. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that the appointment had been arranged to install the downpipe in March 2021.
The resident requested that the landlord replace the astro turf in the garden. The landlord considered the resident’s request and following discussion with the resident appropriately agreed to delay the rotovate and seed rear garden until the following spring. The landlord’s position appears reasonable as it considered the time of year that the resident requested for the work to be carried out and that it was more suitable for this to occur the following spring.
The landlord acknowledged that the property did not meet its lettable standard. In accordance with its voids works procedure, it agreed a three-week rent-free period for the resident totally £269.40 and it awarded a decoration allowance of £200 for the resident to carry out the decoration herself.
The landlord has shown that it has learnt from the complaint. It has carried out training with its staff and toolbox talks with its contractors on the lettable standard, updated its lettings procedure to enable residents that may have a mental health condition to discuss any concerns they have before the tenancy sign up. In addition, it will make clear at viewings the repairs that it would undertake and the timescale in which the repairs would be completed. It will also publicise the standard to all new residents.
In considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account, the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is reasonable that where the landlord has recognised that there has been a failure in its services, and has taken appropriate action to put things right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anymore more. In addition, the redress offered by the landlord must be proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
Looking at the severity of the service failure, the landlord has acknowledged that the property did not meet its lettable standard when the resident viewed the property and that it could have acted sooner to inspect the property. Once it inspected the property, it arranged for the property to be cleaned and offered to provide temporary accommodation for the resident while the cleaning of the property took place. Furthermore, it considered the resident’s objections to accepting the property and found her another property to view on the basis that she could accept the property on a permanent basis. The landlord offered decoration vouchers and credited the rent account with four week’s rent of £358.83 and awarded compensation of £15. Without wishing to diminish the resident’s experiences, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s handling of this matter was reasonable.
However, the landlord has failed to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the kitchen cupboards and that the lack of a backboard to the kitchen cupboards means that she is unable to use the kitchen units. From what can be seen, it is not apparent whether this was pointed out to landlord’s surveyor when he visited 23 September 2020. The available evidence shows that the landlord did not take any action to address this when it was bought to its attention in January 2021.

request for storage of the resident’s personal belongings

The resident requested that the landlord store her personal belongings as the property was not clean so she could not move into the property. A review of the landlord’s submission shows that the landlord appropriately viewed the pictures that the resident had taken of the condition of the property and arranged for the property to be cleaned in accordance with its lettable standard.
The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property by a female member of staff as requested by the resident. This gave reassurance that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and was acting on the concerns that the resident was raising.
The resident’s tenancy started on 2 September 2020 and she informed the landlord that she had moved her furniture to a storage facility on 19 September 2020 and her property was there for a two-month period. In this case, the landlord had agreed to give the resident a three-week rent credit regarding the need for a deep clean of the property. The landlord assessed that it could not agree to paying the resident’s storage costs for her furniture. This was a reasonable approach to take as it had arranged for the property to be cleaned in line with its lettable standard on more than one occasion, agreed that the resident could be accommodated in a hotel for the weekend between 19 September 2020 to 20 September 2020 while the property was cleaned or the resident could accept the tenancy of the alternative property that it had arranged for her to view.
The landlord acted appropriately when it requested information from the resident regarding the costs incurred by the resident, details of the storage facility in order for it to make an assessment of whether it should offer a refund to the resident. The available evidence shows that the landlord did not receive this information without this, the landlord would not be able to undertake a proper assessment of whether it has a responsibility to refund the resident the costs she had incurred.

the related complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 14 September 2020. The landlord initially dealt with the resident’s concerns at its informal stage and it responded on 18 September 2020 in line with its complaint’s procedure.
The resident escalated the complaint on 20 September 2020 to the first stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord responded on 26 October 2020 – 28 days later. While this is outside the landlord’s published complaint handling timeframe, the resident had requested additional time to provide evidence to support her complaint.
The MP contacted the landlord advising that it was helping the resident to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaint’s procedure. The escalated complaint made on 22 January 2021 contained new repair items that had not been considered at the first stage of the complaint procedure, therefore, these issues would not be answered as part of its complaint response but it would provide its answer separately. These matters ranged from: the repair to the fascia above the garage door, asbestos management of its properties, maintenance of its properties, its definition of internal decoration, management of utilities and its lettable standard.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 4 March 2021, just outside its published complaint timescale of 20 working days which is a short coming. In its complaint responses it acknowledged and apologised that it had not met the resident’s expectations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern regarding the property condition when it was let,
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns regarding the request for storage of her personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns regarding the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that it did not keep to the lettable standard when the resident viewed the property. It offered to deep clean the property, arranged to organise alternative accommodation for the resident while the cleaning was taking place and drawn up a schedule of repairs required to the property which it has carried out. The landlord has implemented its learning from this complaint, with changes to its lettable standard, communication plan with its residents and training with staff and contractors. However, the landlord has not acknowledged that the resident is unable to use the kitchen cupboards and has not taken action to resolve this.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property by arranging for the property to be cleaned to meet its lettable standard. It further responded to the resident’s concern and found alternative accommodation for the resident to view. The landlord requested information regarding the storage costs from the resident, which she has not provided.
The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its complaint review and extended the timescales for the resident to provide additional information to support her complaint. The landlord has acted in a reasonable manner to address the resident’s concerns.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £100 for its failure to assess the condition of the kitchen cupboards that she complained about since January 2021.
The landlord to arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to assess and repair the condition of the kitchen cupboards.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.