London Borough of Croydon (202325855)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325855

London Borough of Croydon

29 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:
    1. breach of a disrepair settlement agreement.
    2. handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a 5-year flexible tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives with her 2 children.
  2. On 1 August 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the condition of her property which she said was affected by damp, mould and leaks. She also said her boiler was functioning with a temporary fix, but a permanent fix was required. The resident was concerned about the lack of resolution to the repairs she had raised and how it was affecting her family’s health. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023 which stated the resident had been contacted about the outstanding repairs and that she would be contacted again on 25 August 2023 to arrange dates for the repair work to take place.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 October 2023. She said she had been living without basic facilities and parts of the property were “unliveable”. The resident said her daughter slept in the living room. She thought her household should have been provided with temporary accommodation until the repair work was completed. The resident stated it was unreasonable for anyone to be expected to live in a home that resembled a construction site and was concerned about health and safety hazards.
  4. The resident and her family were offered temporary accommodation from 5 October 2023, but the resident and her family did not stay at this accommodation. On 12 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable due to being unclean and too small for a family of 3. The resident and her family were rehoused in a hotel from 13 October 2023 to 16 October 2023. Another temporary property was found for the resident and her household, but the resident thought it was unsuitable and returned home to her property. From 1 November 2023 the resident was temporarily rehoused in another property until December 2023. During this time, the resident raised a disrepair claim with the landlord through her solicitor.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. It apologised for the stage 1 response which it said did not effectively address the issues raised by the resident. The landlord summarised the damp, mould and repair issues and directed the resident to her legal team until the disrepair claim was settled. It said a permanent decant was no longer required and did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the temporary accommodation she was offered. The landlord stated the resident was provided with a choice of 6 properties for a temporary decant before moving in on 1 November 2023. It said no issues had been raised regarding this accommodation. On 3 January 2024 the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response as it had not addressed her concerns with the previous temporary accommodation she had been provided. The landlord said it would investigate the temporary accommodation and provide a response by 31 January 2024. A settlement agreement for the resident’s disrepair claim was agreed on 10 January 2024.
  6. On 31 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 follow-up response regarding the temporary accommodation it provided the resident in October 2023. It apologised that the full details of the temporary accommodation were not covered in the stage 2 response and upheld this part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not uphold the complaint about the conditions the resident lived in when she returned to her home as it said this was the resident’s choice because she left the temporary accommodation. It did not uphold the complaint about the suitability of the temporary accommodation as it said the second temporary accommodation was a hotel and the third temporary accommodation was often used by the landlord for decants and there had been no other complaints about this accommodation. The landlord apologised for the inaccurate information issued about the permanent decant in the stage 2 response and stated the resident would be permanently decanted.
  7. The resident advised this Service on 13 August 2024 that she wanted to pursue her complaint about the temporary accommodation she was offered. She felt the first and third properties that she was offered were unsuitable for her household and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication. The resident stated she was satisfied with the fourth property which her household lived in during November 2023. She said she returned to her property in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42e of the Scheme, “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s breach of a disrepair settlement agreement sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. The complaint relates to a disrepair claim the resident made which was settled out of court by a settlement agreement on 10 January 2024. The settlement agreement was for £4,550.62 damages, legal costs and repairs to be completed within 90 days. When the landlord did not complete the repairs in line with the settlement agreement the resident instructed her solicitor to take legal proceedings against the landlord for breach of the settlement agreement. The resident’s solicitor has submitted the claim forms for this legal action to the court. Therefore, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s breach of a disrepair settlement agreement will not be investigated. This is because the resident will have the opportunity to raise these issues in her legal proceedings.
  5. With this in mind, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.

 

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referenced in her communication with the landlord and this Service that her experiences with her landlord had affected her and her children’s health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these concerns, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s and her children’s health and wellbeing.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or affect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
  3. The resident copied this Service into emails with her landlord about the suitability of a property offered for a permanent decant. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme sets out that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. As such, this Service is unable to consider the suitability of the property offered for a permanent decant as this occurred after the landlord’s final response and has not been addressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation for the resident for which the landlord issued its final response on 31 January 2024.

The landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.

  1. Section 1.4.3 of the landlord’s tenancy policy under the heading “Major works transfers and decants” states, “Where we need to move a tenant to alternative accommodation to allow development/regeneration works to take place we will offer a tenancy with no less security than their previous tenancy on their return to the property they occupied before the works took place. If the move is permanent, then the alternative accommodation will be offered on a tenancy with no less security than their previous tenancy”. The landlord does not have a specific policy and procedure for decants.
  2. When the resident escalated her complaint on 5 October 2023 she stated, “I firmly believe that I should have been temporarily relocated to a hotel or suitable accommodation until the necessary repair work is completed. It is unreasonable for anyone to be expected to live in a home that resembles a construction site, and I am deeply concerned about the health and safety hazards this poses”. The only communication this Service has seen from the landlord regarding this is an internal email on 5 October 2023 where a disrepair manager said “FYI, the household may need decanting, the decision for which I will leave with you as Damp and Mould are managing the works”.
  3. This Service has not seen any records or communications between the landlord and the resident in response to the resident’s email. However, we can conclude that temporary accommodation was found for the resident on 5 October 2023 because it was referenced in the landlord’s stage 2 follow-up response issued on 31 January 2024. In this response, the landlord stated the resident was provided with temporary accommodation from 5 October 2023 to 12 October 2023 in a “1 bedroomed suite with an additional sofa-bed”. The resident advised this Service that her household used the shower facilities but would then come home as the accommodation was not suitable. The resident advised the landlord on 12 October 2023 that one room for herself, her 12-year-old daughter and her 18-year-old son was “inadequate” and they “cannot share such cramped living conditions”. The resident also told the landlord on 12 October 2023 that at this property “The heating is not functioning, and the room is unclean, with a duvet that has stains on it. This has left me with no choice but to stay in the poor conditions in my home”.
  4. Despite a request from this Service, no records of communication between the landlord and resident or internal records regarding the allocation of the temporary accommodation have been provided. Therefore, the Ombudsman was unable to establish how the landlord assessed that the property offered to the resident was appropriate considering its size and the resident’s household’s composition or if appropriate checks were made on the condition of the property before allocating it to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, this property was unsuitable. Where possible, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to offer a like-for-like arrangement when decanting residents. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to have considered the ages and genders of the resident’s children when deciding on the size of the temporary accommodation offered.
  5. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation. A landlord internal email dated 12 October 2023 referred to the resident’s concerns. However, this Service can conclude that either the resident was not contacted, or that if she was, her expectations were not managed, as a landlord internal email sent on the following day, 13 October 2023, said the resident had called again that morning. One of the resident’s emails to the landlord stated, “I sent multiple emails to [landlord], pleading for assistance, but regrettably, these pleas went unanswered until I was forced to visit [landlord] in person to secure a weekend hotel stay”. The landlord’s stage 2 follow-up response confirmed the resident was temporarily housed in a hotel from 13 October 2023 to 16 October 2023.
  6. The resident sent a text to the landlord on 16 October 2023 expressing dissatisfaction with the third temporary accommodation she was provided. The resident said, “So sorry but there is no way I am staying there”. The resident expressed concerns about a neighbouring property being a hostel for men and that the property was “disgusting” and was not clean. She said “I cannot believe that [landlord] would put me in something like that even if it’s for 2 weeks. Please can you call me. Thank you”. This Service was unable to establish how the landlord handled this situation as no evidence of a response to the resident has been provided. In its stage 2 follow-up response the landlord stated the third temporary accommodation was “often” used by the landlord for decants and that “there have been no other complaints relating to this property”. The landlord described the accommodation as “family friendly”, “modern and well maintained”.
  7. The resident advised this Service that her and her family did not move into the third temporary accommodation and instead decided to return home. As the resident had returned to her property which was without a bath, the landlord installed one when the resident stated she had to go to work and had been unable to bathe for 3 days. This was a reasonable and fair response from the landlord. The resident stated in an email to the landlord on 25 October 2023 that she was “presented with an ultimatum that I must either accept the subpar [temporary] accommodation or have a bath installed in my home”. In its stage 2 follow-up response issued on 31 January 2024 the landlord denied an “ultimatum” was given. It stated the resident was “provided with some options” but the landlord did not specify what these options were. In the absence of records, this Service was unable to establish what was discussed and what prompted the resident to return to her property.
  8. In her email of 25 October 2023, the resident expressed concern about the landlord offering her further temporary accommodation. The resident requested that “Before any consideration is given to relocating me to temporary accommodation, whilst the repairs are being done and awaiting my permanent decant, I insist on receiving a written email confirming that I can inspect the temporary accommodation beforehand”. There was no evidence to show the landlord responded to this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident whether this was a viable option. The resident also expressed frustration and dissatisfaction about the landlord’s communication in this email. She stated, “The lack of communication from [landlord] has been deeply disappointing”.

 

  1. Throughout her communication the resident expressed how the problems with the temporary accommodation had affected her and her children. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord recognised or addressed the effect the circumstances were having on the resident and her children.
  2. At the beginning of November 2023, the resident was placed in a fourth temporary accommodation property. The resident advised this Service that she had been satisfied with this accommodation. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the resident was provided with a choice of 6 properties and viewed this temporary accommodation prior to moving in. This was reasonable and fair. The resident advised she returned to her property in December 2023.
  3. The landlord does not have a decant policy. The landlord referred this Service to its tenancy policy which states, “Where we need to move a tenant to alternative accommodation to allow development/regeneration works to take place we will offer a tenancy with no less security than their previous tenancy on their return to the property they occupied before the works took place”. This does not provide clarity on the size or location of the temporary accommodation the resident could expect. It also does not provide details on the process to allocate temporary accommodation.
  4. The lack of communication records within this case was concerning. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a housing service. Not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations to a resident and understanding the background of a complaint. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep robust records of communication with residents. The landlord was unable to provide records to evidence its actions, communications and decision making regarding the offers of temporary accommodation for the resident. On 20 August 2024 the landlord acknowledged this stating, “There appears to be limited correspondence directly relating to the decant properties themselves”.
  5. The landlord did not provide the resident with any compensation for its handling of the temporary accommodation. In its stage 2 response it said a suitable remedy would be decided when the resident’s disrepair claim was settled. In its stage 2 follow-up response it reiterated this despite the disrepair claim having been settled 3 weeks prior. This approach was inappropriate and unreasonable as the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation was separate from the resident’s disrepair claim. It would have been appropriate and reasonable to offer the resident some compensation for the distress, time and trouble she had experienced. This would also have been in line with the landlord’s complaint compensation guidance which allows for compensation to be awarded for distress and time and trouble.
  6. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation for the resident. The Ombudsman finds there were several communication and record-keeping failures by the landlord as outlined above which contributed to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. There was a lack of responses from the landlord when the resident raised her concerns and no acknowledgment of the expressed effect on the resident and her family. When considered cumulatively, this amounts to maladministration. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £300 in compensation, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1.  The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy for its housing directorate was updated in November 2023 to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s policy states complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, in line with the Code.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 1 August 2023. The landlord replied on the same day to say her email had been forwarded to the repairs complaints team for progression and had not been logged as a formal complaint. It asked the resident if she would like to submit a formal complaint. The resident replied to say she did. Her complaint was not acknowledged so the resident contacted the landlord again with a follow-up email on 10 August 2023. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged on 14 August 2023 which was 9 working days after the resident said she wanted her complaint formally logged. This was not appropriate as it was more than the 5 working days stated in the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 22 August 2023 which was in line with the timescales in the landlord’s policy that was in place at the time. However, the stage 1 response that was issued only contained 3 sentences that related to the resident’s complaint and did not address the resident’s concerns. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the “poor response” to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, noting the stage 1 response was not effective and “provided no definite answers” for the resident. The landlord stated, “This is not the quality of response we aim to deliver” and said it would feed back to the relevant manager.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 October 2023. She did not receive a response to her escalation request so sent a follow-up email on 12 October 2023. When the resident did not receive a stage 2 response she contacted this Service. As the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response, the resident was delayed in being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, she was also delayed in being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  5. This Service contacted the landlord on 1 December 2023 and requested it investigate the resident’s complaint under the landlord’s complaints procedure. We asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident within 5 working days by 8 December 2023. On 5 December 2023, the landlord advised this Service that it would provide the resident with a response within 20 working days. The resident agreed to this extension.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2024. However, it did not address all the points the resident made in her complaint. The landlord had omitted the resident’s concerns about the initial temporary accommodation that she had been offered. This was not in line with the Code which states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. By not addressing all the points the resident made, the landlord also did not follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The landlord was not fair to the resident as it did not answer her concerns and by not addressing the issues it did not enable itself to put things right or for it to learn from outcomes. The resident raised the omission with the landlord on 3 January 2024. On 8 January 2024 the landlord advised it would investigate the resident’s concerns about the temporary accommodation and provide a response by 31 January 2024.
  7. On 31 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 follow-up response. It apologised that the information in its stage 2 response was incorrect. It said “Feedback will be given to the service to highlight the importance of providing full and accurate information during complaint investigations”. The landlord did not provide the resident with any compensation for its complaint handling and referred to its statement in its stage 2 response that a suitable remedy would be decided when the resident’s disrepair claim was settled. However, at this point the disrepair claim had been settled 3 weeks prior. This approach was inappropriate and unreasonable as the landlord’s complaint handling delays were separate to the resident’s disrepair claim. It would have been appropriate and reasonable to offer the resident some compensation for the complaint handling delays she had experienced. This would also have been in line with the landlord’s complaint compensation guidance which allows for compensation to be awarded for complaint handling delays.
  8. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the resident experienced delays at several stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure and both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not provide thorough responses to all the points the resident had raised. The failures resulted in a delay in the resident being able to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £150 in compensation for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42e of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s breach of a disrepair settlement agreement is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £450. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must produce a temporary decant policy and procedure to clearly define a framework, standards and internal processes. The policy and procedure must include how the selection and offers of temporary accommodation are to be recorded on the landlord’s systems. The landlord must provide a copy of the temporary decant policy and procedure to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should carry out complaint handling refresher training with its staff to include the importance of detailed, accurate responses, addressing all the complainant’s points and adhering to timescales in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.