London Borough of Hillingdon (202329442)

Background

1. The landlord agreed to rehouse the resident due to damp and mould in her property. After she had moved out it charged her for its repairs to her property. The resident disputed its charge as she felt these were caused by the poor condition of the property when she moved in and damp and mould she reported. The landlord had vulnerabilities for the resident’s son recorded on its systems due to autism.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of charges to the resident for repairs to her property, after her tenancy ended.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of charges to the resident for repairs to her property, after her tenancy ended.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord took steps to put things right for the resident. However, it did not adequately consider if damp and mould had caused the damage it then charged her to repair. This was the main point of her complaint. By not addressing this it caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses lack empathy and did not apologise to the resident. Its third stage response did not tell her she could refer her complaint to this Service.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The landlord completed an empty property inspection once the resident moved out. While its surveyor’s inspection form is undated, they did record what repairs they felt needed to be charged to the resident.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms a 4 week notice period to end her tenancy, although the landlord may accept a shorter notice period in certain circumstances. It completed a property vacation form on 28 March 2023, which the resident signed. This confirmed she would move out of her property by 10 April 2023. The form said it may charge her if she did not leave the property clean and tidy.
10. There is no record to explain why the landlord accepted a shorter notice period. The resident said it was impossible due to the short notice period and caring for her children, for her to do all that was needed in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any support to leave her property in a condition it considered acceptable. This was a record keeping failure which was not reasonable given it knew of vulnerabilities in her household.
11. It is unclear when the landlord told the resident it would be charging her for its repairs. She told it on 15 December 2022 most of the repairs it was charging her for was due to damp and mould in her property. She sent it pictures of the damp and mould as it asked her to. The landlord’s complaint response did not consider if the damp and mould could have contributed to the damage, from its last repairs visit about this on 24 February 2022 to 10 April 2023, when she moved out. This was not reasonable.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2023. She disputed it charging her for repairs to her former property. There is no record that it responded at this point. This was a record keeping failure which caused the resident frustration as she chased it for answers on 15 November 2023.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 December 2023. It explained what the charges were for and under the terms of her tenancy agreement she was responsible for damage caused to the property. This was reasonable.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response considered this along with photographic evidence the resident sent it. It removed some of the charges as a gesture of good will or due to them being unreasonable. This was reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right and learning from outcomes.
15. The resident remained unhappy with the remaining charges. When she escalated her complaint, she said she removed internal doors due to mould but could not afford to replace 2 of them. There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that the resident told it of this before she escalated her complaint. This was a record keeping failure. Based on the evidence we have seen it was reasonable that it charged the resident for this under the terms of her tenancy agreement. This says it may charge tenants for unauthorised alterations to the property.
16. The landlord’s charge for removing the resident’s laminate flooring remained. It said it had not given her permission to install this, and it had to remove it as it was not non-slip. This was reasonable under the terms of her tenancy agreement. We have not seen evidence that indicates it removed the flooring for any other reason.
17. The evidence we have seen does not show if the damage to the resident’s wall was through wear and tear or damage. The landlord was entitled to rely upon its surveyor’s opinion on this matter, and we are unable to make a determination on this matter either way.
18. The resident felt the landlord’s charge for replacing kitchen worktops was unfair. She said she had put a vinyl wrap on the worktops due to graffiti on them when she moved in. The landlord’s complaint responses did not respond directly to this. It would have been reasonable to have considered the resident’s comments and confirmed its position.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses did not consider the main point of the resident’s complaint. This was that the damp and mould in her property caused the damage, that it charged to for repairing. This was not reasonable. It should have confirmed its position here and explained whether it felt the damp and mould was a factor in the repairs it charged her for.
20. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have also ordered it to review its evidence on the repairs it charged the resident for.

21. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints policy. This said it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days at all stages. It would send its response at stage 1 and 2 within 10 working days of its acknowledgement and 15 working days at stage 3.
22. The landlord’s evidence shows it sent 2 stage 1 responses before sending a stage 2 response. Although this has caused this investigation confusion, we are satisfied it complied with its complaints policy’s 3 stage process.
23. There is no record that the landlord sent acknowledgement at stage 1. This was a complaint handling failure. However, the detriment to the resident was minimal as it sent its stage 1 response within 8 working days of the resident raising her complaint on 7 December 2023. This was reasonable and in line with the timeframe of its complaints policy to respond.
24. There is no record the landlord sent acknowledgement after the resident escalated her complaint. It sent its second stage 1 response 16 working days after its first stage 1 response on 19 December 2023. We are unable to determine if it met its complaints policy’s timeframe for responding within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. This was a complaint handling failure.
25. The landlord sent the resident acknowledgement at the third stage on the same day she escalated her complaint on 26 January 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy’s published timeframe.
26. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 7 February 2024. This was in line with its complaints policy’s published timeframe.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not tell the resident that she could refer her complaint to us, if she remained unhappy with its decision. This was a complaint handling failure.
28. The landlord’s complaint responses did consider the reasonableness of each charge it had applied for repairs to her property. Although the resident wanted it to remove all the charges it still did offer her a remedy. This was reasonable. However, its complaint responses lacked empathy. It said it would not repeat what it had told her in previous conversations and did not offer her an apology. This was not reasonable.
29. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £25 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor failures that caused distress and inconvenience.

Learning

30. It was positive that the landlord’s complaint process offered the resident a remedy after receiving evidence from her.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. There were record keeping failures by the landlord. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

32. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its end of tenancy communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report if it has not done so already.