London Borough of Croydon (202215975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215975

London Borough of Croydon

4 May 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application which was terminated.

2.     The landlord’s handling of associated formal complaint has also been considered.

Background

3.     The resident has a secure tenancy of a one bedroom ground floor flat own by the landlord. She lives in the flat with her ten year old son.

4.     The resident found someone who wished to undertake a mutual exchange in December 2021 and made the formal application to the landlord on the 13 December 2021. Due to internal delays regarding an inspection and electrical works by the landlord, the other party’s landlord cancelled the exchange on 21 March 2022.

5.     The resident made a complaint on 21 March 2022 she made a formal complaint on 25 March 2022 stating that the delays by her landlord had led to her exchange being cancelled. She also stated that precious delays by her landlord had meant that two other exchanges in the past, which she had arranged, had failed.

6.     In its formal complaint response, of 18 May 2022, the landlord apologised that the mutual exchange had been cancelled. It accepted that this was due to a delay in the electrical certificate being completed and that this led the other party to withdraw. It suggested that the resident could resubmit her application with the other party, and it would endeavor to expedite the electric certificate. In its further response, of 10 October 2022, the landlord apologised for its delays in responding to the complaint and the lack of response to the resident’s’ emails. It stated that the delays were due to backlogs of inspections and repairs caused by Covid restrictions.

7.     In referring her complaint to this Service the resident is seeking compensation for the errors and delays of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

8.     The resident’s son sleeps in the bedroom of the property and she sleeps on the sofa. The landlord had advised that she was not eligible for a transfer to a larger property. The only option she had was to find somewhere larger and this was by way of a mutual exchange.

9.     It is noted that the landlord accepted that its delays resulted in the mutual exchange being cancelled by the other party. The landlord received the mutual exchange application on 13 December 2021. From the evidence this Service has seen, the resident had to repeatedly call the landlord to seek updates on the process. It was not until 24 January 2022 that she received confirmation that an inspection would be undertaken at her home on 26 January 2022. Following the inspection, she addressed some minor issues that the inspector had raised but was told that an electrical inspection also had to take place.

10. The electrical inspection did not take place until 28 February 2022, during which it was identified that a new smoke alarm was required before an electrical certificate could be issued. This was a requirement of the landlord before the mutual exchange could be approved. This Service has seen evidence that, despite many phone calls and emails from the resident, this work was not completed until 12 May 2022. This was a significant length of time after the exchange had been cancelled on 21 March 2022.

11. The mutual exchange was cancelled by the other party’s landlord on 18 March 2022 and it stated that this was because the three month timeframe for completing the exchange had passed. This Service has not seen the other party’s landlord mutual exchange policy, but the three month timeframe was understood by the resident’s landlord since reference is made in the landlords emails to a 42 day timeframe.

12. The landlord has accepted in its correspondence with the resident that the delays in processing the application and arranging the inspection and repairs cause the cancellation. It acknowledged this in its formal complaint responses and admitted that it failed to deliver the level of service that it should have. From the evidence that this Service has seen, some changes in internal arrangements regarding inspections did not help expedite the inspection process. This Service has not seen any evidence regarding when the electrical work was ordered and the urgency level that it was given.

13. In its stage one response the landlord stated that if the resident resubmitted her mutual exchange application, it would be expedited. However, this was not really an option for her as it was no longer available. For a new application, the resident would have had to search herself to find another resident willing to undertake an exchange with her. This will involve more time and effort by the resident.

14. It is the opinion of this Service that the landlord could have been more proactive in offering practical assistance to the resident. For instance, it could have begun to actively seek other mutual exchange opportunities with other residents who might also be wanting to move. On the contrary, the landlord stated in its response to the complaint that it had no scheme which matches its own tenants wishing to downsize or upsize and this was not something it was considering at the time. In recognition of the impact of its actions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make some effort to resolve the issue.

15. Although the landlord accepted that there were service failures it did not offer any compensation for the upset, disappointment and distress it had caused the resident. The resident had lost the opportunity of having a separate bedroom for herself after several years. The fact that a mutual exchange did not go ahead because of the landlord’s delays must have been devastating to the resident.     

16. A finding of maladministration is considered appropriate due to the landlord’s failure to offer compensation or further practical help with rehousing to the resident. The landlord did not undertake any action to remedy its service failure only stating that it would expedite any future exchange applications. It is also concerning that the landlord mentioned covid restrictions as a cause of the delays. The waiting period for the inspection was from January 2022, when the resident began to chase landlord on this, and the inspection was in late February 2022 and the works not undertaken till May 2022. This was a period when covid issues should not have prevented attendance and repairs at the property. The last significant restriction period ended in December to early January 2022, and even then, repairs were being undertaken by landlords. 

17. In addition to the issues discussed above, this evidence indicates that the landlord did not often respond to the resident’s phone calls and emails in a timely manner. For example, between the 20 May 2022 to 13 June 2022 the resident called five times and received a message stating that user was not available. Similarly, during the period 8 February 2022 to 18 February 2022, she contacted the landlord repeatedly. There was either no response, a response stating that the query could not be answered or, in one case, she was passed to another team who were unlikely to call back until after the weekend.

18. The landlord’s stage two response was comprehensive and stated that the delays were due to the impact of covid restrictions, also accepting that the level of service it gave was not adequate. However, the stage two response was not given within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, being sent after 60 days from the escalation to stage two significantly later than the 20 day target. It is noted that landlord did keep the resident updated on a regular basis that the response to her was delayed. Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the delays.

19. A finding of service failure is considered appropriate regarding the handling of the complaint since the landlord failed to utilise the opportunity of the stage two decision to offer compensation to the resident. 40 days outside the requisite timescales was significant and it was not sufficient that it kept her updated.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange application.

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

22. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the total amount of £700 in compensation as follows:

23. £600 for the distress and inconvenience resulting from its handling of the mutual exchange and its failings in handling the resident’s complaint.

24. £100 for its handling of the formal complaint.

25. The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the handling of the mutual exchange application, also clarifying how it intends to review its mutual exchange process to ensure that lesson learned are taken into cognisance.

26. The landlord should evidence compliance with the above orders to this Service      within 28 calendar days of this investigation report.