London Borough of Croydon (202010302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010302

Croydon Council

22 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Outstanding repairs.
2. Time taken to be decanted.
3. Overcrowding in the property.
4. The impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
5. Damaged belongings.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints, which in his opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’, the resident’s complaint about overcrowding in the property, the impact on her health and wellbeing and damage to her possessions, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is as the landlord’s wider functions as a local authority encompass rehousing based on overcrowding and any issues relating to this as this falls properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
Additionally, the Ombudsman is unable to make a causal link between matters complained of and any alleged impact on one’s health as this calls for expert evidence to be considered and amounts to a personal injury claim better suited for the courts or as an insurance claim. This is also the case for claims relating to damaged personal possessions. Should the resident want to pursue the matter she should seek independent legal advice.
As a result, the Ombudsman will not be making any further comment on these matters. The complaint will be focussed on the condition of the property when it was let and the time taken to source the decant.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom terraced house.
The tenancy agreement at clause 22 External maintenance notes the tenant shall be responsible for repairing and replacing fences between private gardens. However, the landlord will repair or replace fences that adjoin roads, footpaths.

Summary of events

In April 2020, the landlord agreed to decant the resident based on disrepair which required the resident not being in situ, in order for repairs to be completed.
In October 2020, the property was identified, and void works commenced. It is clear from the evidence that there ere issues with the property being signed off for let and as such delays were caused.
In January 2021, a post inspection of the property was carried out with photographs taken and it was deemed as ready to let.
On 5 February 2021, the property was offered to the resident, and it was noted that the fence belonging to the neighbour was in disrepair and as such the landlord would not be attending to it. It was also noted that the back fence was also heavily damaged and required repairs.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord received the resident’s complaint which noted that she was dissatisfied with the time taken to source her a property and the condition of the property when let to her.
The resident moved into the property on 15 February 2021.
On 4 March 2021, an after-occupation inspection was completed by the void inspector who carried out the post inspection. The landlord made contact with the tenants next door to rectify the damage to the fence however no response was received.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord’s contractor noted that some of the works identified had been caused following the resident moving in, as post inspection photographs did not match the current state of the property, it noted some of the works would be chargeable and requested that the landlord confirm the scope of works.
Also on 11 March 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It noted that it had worked hard to source the resident a suitable property and this had taken just over 12 weeks to source the current accommodation. It acknowledged the stressful wait but explained that the high demand for social housing versus the limited supply of housing stock had caused the delay It explained that the current property was in a lettable standard but accepted that further remedial repairs were required, and it would address her concerns. It noted in relation to the fallen fence, this was the responsibility of tenants as per the tenancy agreement. It clarified that the reinstatement of the fence was the neighbour’s responsibility, and it would request that they repair it. It explained it would consider the other repairs but did not uphold the complaint.
On 12 March 2021, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. She stated that she had waited whilst the property was being worked on and now it was available there were basic repairs like locks on doors, windows not opening and an unstable doorstep, which she had struggled to have repaired. She noted she had been reporting repairs prior to her tenancy commencing on 15 February 2021. She noted she had identified damp and mould following removing a kitchen unit and the level of condensation in the property could lead to the property suffering damp and mould. She noted repairs had not been addressed as advised during the after-occupation inspection. She reiterated that the fence was a hazard for her small children, and she had been informed this would be repaired once she was in the property, yet it remained outstanding. She explained it had taken nearly a year to rehouse her.
All additional works were completed on 26 and 27 March and a subsequent visit by the landlord’s contractors occurred on 30 March to repair the front step.
Following no response from the tenants next door in relation to the fence and the easing of lockdown restrictions, the landlord visited the tenants on 13 April 2021, and it was agreed that the fence would be repaired within 6 weeks. The neighbours noted that it had been difficult to find someone to repair the fence during the lockdown.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord provided its final response. It noted that the resident believed the property she had been decanted to was unsafe due to the disrepair which should have been rectified prior to her moving in. It advised due to the pandemic progressing matters had been hampered. In relation to the damaged garden fence, it noted this made the garden potentially unsafe for her children, but that residents were responsible to repair and replace fences between private gardens. It noted the tenant next door was responsible for that particular fence and therefore the voids team would not have repaired it. It advised the tenant’s had agreed to replace the fence within 6 weeks.
It referred to its Lettable Standard Policy, noting all the requirements had been met, but that some repairs should have been highlighted during the post inspection so that relevant jobs could have been scheduled later. It apologised if the resident felt the void inspector disregarded her comments and noted that as he had completed the post inspection, he was confident that some issues highlighted were not apparent at the post inspection.
It noted the front door lock, the hall window restrictor, the air vent in the third bedroom, the bath panel, a cracked threshold, step to the front door and front garden walls were all intact at post inspection and had had additional adjustments made to resolve the current issues, such as easing and adjusting. It noted that new weather boards for the front door were ordered and replaced as it was not possible to get the missing rubber ends separately. It explained that the damp to the kitchen wall would not have been known as it was only exposed once the resident removed the base unit- this had now been resolved. Missing gully covers following day to day works had been replaced, the broken air vent outside of the bathroom extractor had not been picked up at post inspection and had now been replaced. The driveway was not a slip hazard and was sound but additional works would be undertaken.
It noted that the resident had been in urgent need of rehousing after waiting a year and it had balanced this against works needing to be done in the property once the resident was in situ and believed it had taken the right approach and the property was in a lettable standard. It noted that it had had to implement impromptu working practices across all its service given the pandemic, but that all works had been carried out in a reasonable time. It recognised the delay the resident had in settling into the property and noted once the pandemic situation resolved, it would be able to resume normal service.
The landlord explained that through the decant process it was acknowledged that in August 2020, due to a system error the resident was offered a property that was incorrectly registered as a 3-Bedroom property. It noted this was an unfortunate and genuine mistake, however it actively continued seeking appropriate accommodation. It apologised that overall, it took almost a year to source an alternative property, but that based on the high demand for social housing against lack of housing stock, it was unable to control wait times.

Assessment and findings

While the landlord has advised that the property was let to the resident in a lettable standard and the after-occupation inspection noted that several repairs raised by the resident were not in existence, while the landlord references the post void inspection alongside photographs, it has failed to provide the Ombudsman with this evidence to confirm this.
Furthermore, internal communication between the landlord prior to the resident’s tenancy commencing, noted that there were repairs needed to both the back fence, which was heavily in disrepair and side fence. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that the side fence was not the responsibility of the landlord, but rather the neighbours, it was reasonable that the landlord did not compete this work. However, given that the back fence was noted as being in disrepair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have this work scheduled, as opposed to the resident having to continuously chase the repair, as accepted by the landlord in its stage two response.
Additionally, the evidence makes clear that the resident’s tenancy commenced on 15 February 2021, however the landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint prior to this date and as such this calls into question the landlord’s statement that the damage was caused following the resident moving in. Given the uncertainty around the matter again whilst the Ombudsman does not believe the property was not let in a lettable standard, the Ombudsman cannot also conclude that certain repairs were unknown at the time of let.
This is supported by the landlord’s statement in its final response that it noted that the resident had been in urgent need of rehousing after waiting a year and it had balanced this against works needing to be done in the property once the resident was in situ. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure, insofar as the repairs should have been scheduled as opposed to the resident chasing this and then the further requirement for an additional inspection.
In relation to the time taken to be decanted, the Ombudsman believes the landlord’s explanation is reasonable in relation to the demand for social housing against the supply. The Ombudsman has had sight of evidence relating to the total number of social housing lets and management transfer figures against the availability of housing stock for the last three years. This clearly evidences that the demand for housing outstrips the supply and therefore the landlord is unable to predict or set a time for when a suitable property would become available. Whilst the 10 month wait the resident experienced was unfortunate, this was outside of the landlord’s control and therefore there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration (service failure) with the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the time taken for a suitable decant to be found.
In accordance with 39i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about overcrowding in the property, the impact on her health and well being and her damaged possessions are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

While the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the property was not let in a lettable condition, the landlord has contradicted itself that it was not aware of the repairs, and given its asserted knowledge of the repairs the resident should not have had to chase for these works to be completed.
The landlord cannot control when suitable properties become available in its housing stock and as such no failing can be attributed to it.
The complaints relating to the overcrowding, health implications and damaged possessions are better considered by the LGSCO and through the courts or as an insurance claim, respectively.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord pays the resident £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused in trying to progress repairs.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord keeps accurate records of repairs needed in situ once a resident takes up tenancy. These repairs should be provisionally booked, and the resident made aware at the time of signing the tenancy, so expectations can be better managed.