London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214018

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s temporary move due to disrepair and asbestos in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs in the temporary property.
3. The disposal and replacement of the resident’s white goods.
4. The resident’s reports that a tree had been removed from the garden.
5. The resident’s reports that a security light had been removed from the property.
6. The resident’s request for a copy of the landlord’s asbestos report.
7. Communication with the resident.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house owned and managed by a housing association. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in 2010.
The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable due to learning difficulties.
During a conversation the resident held with the landlord on 26 November 2021 she said that she had scarred lungs due to damp. During a conversation the resident held with the landlord on 7 November 2022 she said that she was concerned that she had been exposed to asbestos. The landlord addressed the resident’s reports of asbestos exposure in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 December 2022 by encouraging the resident to speak to her doctor or a qualified specialist about her concerns. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the presence of damp and asbestos in the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her household’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
This Service held a conversation with the resident on 22 February 2024 during which she confirmed that there are still outstanding repairs to windows, ceilings, damp and mould, a roof leak, and brickwork in the kitchen. The resident said that she had incurred utility costs for the time that the landlord was working at the property and while she was decanted. She also said that the landlord had returned items that did not belong to her with her belongings which included post from other properties and were left in the garage.
During the same conversation the resident reported that some tools that she had left in her garden shed were not returned and no explanation or compensation had been provided by the landlord. The resident said that she had previously reported the matter to the police as theft but that she had been told to reconsider the matter after her stored belongings had been returned to the property. If the resident continues to consider that these missing items were stolen she is may wish to consider re-raising this matter with the police.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair as well as the installations for water, heating, drainage, gas, electricity, and sanitary appliances. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for window sills, window catches, window frames, internal walls, floors and ceilings, door and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards, major internal plasterwork, basins, sinks, electric wiring including sockets and switches, gas and water pipes, central heating installations, fittings, and fixtures. It also says if it needs to carry out repairs that it cannot reasonably do while the resident is living there it will provide alternative temporary accommodation and when the repairs are completed the resident will move back into the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It also says that all of its homes will meet its void standard at the point of letting. Once a property is let, it will undertake repairs when there is a health and safety issue that presents a risk of harm, non-repair would cause further damage to the home, or the element needing repair is no longer in a functioning condition.
The landlord’s asbestos procedures say that it will conduct surveys on areas with asbestos containing material (ACM) and/or where works could foreseeably disturb asbestos. It will carry out subsequent remedial actions to either treat or remove asbestos where necessary.
The landlord’s rehousing policy for emergency, temporary and permanent moves says it may be necessary to move into short-term accommodation before a more suitable property can be found. It may not always be possible to give a ‘like-for-like’ offer but it will take vulnerabilities, family composition, and location into account when making a suitable offer. The resident will be responsible for paying their rent at their original property and setting up utilities and council tax for their temporary accommodation. The landlord is responsible for paying for the gas and electric consumption at the property during the works. The landlord will provide £10 per day per authorised occupant as a meal allowance.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy which says stage 1 complaints are acknowledged by the end of the next working day and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged 2 working days from when the complaint was escalated and responded to within 20 working days.
Paragraph 1.7 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlord must accept a complaint unless there is not a valid reason not to do so. Paragraph 5.3 says landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Paragraph 5.6 says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and any reasons for the decisions made. Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord will pay compensation to any person who has been affected by service failure and any associated negligence. Examples include but are not limited to where it fails to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the resident. The policy also says where damage or alleged injury occurs because of our or our contractor’s negligence, it will refer the issue to the insurance team. This includes damage to a resident’s personal possessions.

Summary of events

The landlord’s gas contractor sent an email to the landlord on 15 September 2021 which said that it had been asked to inspect the property and had found that the property urgently required a full refurbishment. The contractor said that the resident might need to be decanted so that refurbishment works could be completed when the property was empty.
The landlord’s contractor made a note on the landlord’s housing database on 5 October 2021 that said that the windows were past their serviceable life and in urgent need of replacement.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 November 2022 about repairs required to the windows, doors, and the radiators. A contractor inspected the property later the same day and emailed the landlord later to report that the property was in very poor condition and recommended a full refurbishment.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 November 2021 to ask for the resident to be contacted. The landlord said that the resident was vulnerable..
The resident called the landlord on 11 November 2021 to say that she had only just received a text notice of an appointment that had been scheduled for the same day and that she was unhappy because it had not been convenient.
A gas contractor attended the property on 17 November 2022 and recommended new pipework and a full inspection of the property, which the landlord completed on 25 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 November 2021 to raise a complaint about the habitable state of the property. The landlord acknowledged her stage 1 complaint the same day and said it would reply to her by 9 December 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email later to confirm that it had received a complaint from the resident about the property. The landlord also said:
1. 27 repairs had been identified during property inspections that had been completed on 25 and 26 November 2022.
2. It might need to move the resident from the property to complete the repairs.
3. It had ‘blown the budget’ and did not have enough money to overhaul the full property but would try and do as many repairs as possible.
4. The resident had been told by previous operatives that permanent upgrades were needed, and that it sounded to her like the landlord would complete the minimum possible.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 30 November 2021 about decanting the resident and the extent of the repairs which it said would take 6 – 8 weeks to complete. It suggested that the resident could downsize to a 2-bed property which would be more manageable for her. It replied to confirm that the resident required a 3-bed property due to her son’s special needs.
The landlord sent an internal email on 1 December 2021 that said that a decant would not happen quickly unless the resident would accept a smaller property. The landlord held a conversation with the resident about the availability of temporary properties the next day and she agreed to move to a 2-bed property.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 December 2021. The landlord confirmed that it would move the resident for 6 – 8 weeks to complete extensive repairs. It would look for alternative properties within 5 miles and not within a tower block due to her mental health needs. The landlord did not say if it upheld the complaint but provided information about how to escalate the complaint.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord noted that it required an up-to-date asbestos report and that it would plan the repairs when it had been completed. The landlord conducted an asbestos survey on 4 January 2022 which said that no asbestos had been detected in the hallway ceilings and walls.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2022 to ask if she could move to a house at the end of the street. She also enquired about removal van arrangements. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day to say that her enquiries had been forwarded to the rehousing team.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 21 February 2022 to say that if it completed works step-by-step it would cause disruption as those rooms would need to be kept clear of all belongings. The landlord asked the resident to confirm how she wished to proceed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 31 March 2022 following a property inspection it had completed on the same day. The landlord said that it had filed a safeguarding form due to concerns it had about the resident. The landlord referred to health and safety concerns it had about the condition and the resident’s use of the cooker and also her washing machine which had broken feet and leaked.
An external consultant completed an asbestos survey at the property on 5 April 2022. The contractor issued a detailed report to the landlord on 7 April 2022.
The landlord made arrangements for the resident to move into a hotel on 14 April 2022 in response to the presence of asbestos in the property.
The resident called the landlord on 29 April 2022 to request a copy of the asbestos report because she had been told that she needed to move into a hotel due to the presence of asbestos in the property.
The resident called the landlord on 4 May 2022 to say that her locks had been changed and that she had previously been told that she would return to the property within 3 days which she had recorded. She also said that she had previously raised a complaint and requested a call back so that she could escalate the complaint and approach the citizen’s advice bureau. The landlord contacted the relevant staff member to discuss the 3-day timescale the resident had referred to. The staff member said that she had not provided timescales regarding the asbestos repairs because she had not been qualified to do so.
The landlord made a note on its database on 5 May 2022 that said that £10.00 was the maximum daily allowance per person and that a payment of £420.00 for meal allowances had been processed.
The hotel contacted the landlord on 6 May 2022 to ask for the resident to be moved because she had been disruptive and had caused damage to the property. The hotel contacted the landlord again on 9 May 2022 to ask if it had found another hotel due to an altercation which had taken place on that day.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 May 2022 which said:
1. It was required to wait up to 18 days before it could get into the property to commence work.
2. The resident said that she thought the works would take 3 days which was not true as they would take around 8 weeks and the resident should be advised about this.
3. It needed to keep on top of the safeguarding referral and ensure the resident did not access the property while works were being completed.
4. The resident needed to be moved from the hotel, into a serviced apartment or a void property.
5. The resident’s white goods were in a poor state of repair and would not be reinstalled and the resident’s belongings needed to be put in storage before works could commence.
The landlord completed a handover certificate for a 2-bed temporary property on 18 May 2022 and the resident signed a license to occupy it on 19 May 2022.
The landlord visited the resident on 23 and 24 May 2022 to help her pack her belongings. It also said that she must pack everything that she wanted to keep.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 May 2022 to advise that she had been assigned a new case handler and that the removal of asbestos would take place the following week. The landlord also said that repairs that included a new kitchen and flooring works would commence on 7 June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2022 to report a boiler repair, a toilet repair, and a door entry fault in the temporary property. The landlord repaired the boiler on 8 June 2022 and booked an appointment to repair the toilet on 14 June 2002 but obtained no access on that date. The landlord asked the resident to rebook the appointment. The landlord completed a repair to the door entry system on 13 June 2022.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 8 June 2022 to ask her not to visit the property without prior notice due to health and safety concerns. The landlord also asked the resident to advise how she wished to proceed with the handling of her TV because she had not signed a disclaimer about it.
The resident called the landlord on 8 July 2022 to report that the contractors had been aggressive towards her and had stolen her tools from the garden and had removed a tree. The resident sent an email later the same day that said she had been told that only items inside the house would be thrown away but that the operatives had said everything in the garden was rubbish and was to be chucked out. The resident said that that the only items missing were the expensive ones and that she had reported the matter to the police. She also said that she was worried because she kept lots of important things in the shed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 14 July 2022 that said the tree in the garden was causing a health and safety issue with the back wall where other tenants in the road parked.
The resident called the landlord on 22 July 2022 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said that she had been accused of assault by the police and had a number of issues with the contractor working at the property.
The resident sent another stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 18 August 2022 via its online portal. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the decant that had taken place 4 months previously, its failure to provide her with an update about the completion of the repairs and when she could return, poor communication in response to contact she had made. The resident reported that the ordeal was stressful and had significantly affected her autistic son.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 August 2022 to confirm that the door was the only outstanding repair and that it should be completed during that week. The landlord said that when it was completed it would arrange to move the resident back. The landlord also completed a repair to the boiler in the decant property on the same day in response to a report that the resident had made to the landlord on an undisclosed date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2022 to request an update on her complaint. The landlord sent an internal email later the same day that said that the resident did not seem to return its calls or reply to its emails and that she needed to advise it if she wished to escalate her stage 1 complaint to stage 2 and confirm what she would like as a resolution.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 August 2022 to say that it was waiting for a date for the door replacement but that it would keep her updated. The resident replied later the same day to say that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 because of lots of issues. She listed these as ‘windows not done and fences, security light down and lots of things got rid of, no surveyors report for asbestos.’ She also said that the landlord had cut a tree down, the contractors had taken her utility meter keys, her food went off, she had been accused of attacking the subcontractors that had been living there, and pipes had been pulled up. She said that there was too much to go into and that it had made her mental health worse, caused her to feel like killing herself and that her son had had to take time off work to look after her other son.
The resident requested a call back from the landlord on 1 September 2022 and said that she was frustrated because she could never get an answer. The landlord contacted the resident the next day during which she said that her flower beds had been ruined, stuff in the garage had been taken including her kettle and microwave and that trees had been cut down which affected the security from the next-door property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2022 to say it was waiting for an update about the window repairs and would update her the next day. The contractor emailed the landlord later the same day to confirm that the door installation would commence on 26 September 2022.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 6 September 2022 and confirmed that she could keep the white goods she had been provided with and that it would escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord also said that it would update her about the security light and the trees when it had information.
The resident reported a boiler leak in the temporary property to the landlord on 22 September 2022. The landlord attended the property on 26 September 2022 and completed the repair during a follow-on appointment it arranged on an undisclosed date.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 October 2022 to confirm that the property repairs were complete, and that the resident could move back into the property. The email asked for the process to be started, for the resident’s belongings to be retrieved from storage and for advice about timeframes.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2022 to confirm that it would speak to a colleague about the security light but to expect contact from the rehousing manager. The landlord also sent an internal email on the same day which confirmed that the resident should be invited to inspect the works with the landlord and the contractor in line with its new post-inspection policy.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord confirmed in an internal email that it had gifted the resident a fridge freezer, a cooker, a washing machine, a toaster, a microwave, a kettle, a Hoover, full bedside lights, free-standing table lamps and a free-standing lamp, 2 sofas, 2 wardrobes, mirrors, shoe stands, a chest of drawers, TV stands, carpets throughout the property, tea plates, dinner plates, cups, mugs, saucers, cutlery, bowls ,chopping boards, chopping knives, cooking utensils, a frying pan, saucepans, glasses, plastic beakers, plastic plates, some cleaning supplies, a toilet brush, a kitchen bin and a waste bin for the bathroom.
The resident reported a window repair in the temporary property on 20 October 2022 and said that a TV and a pot had been damaged by in-blowing wind.
The landlord sent an internal email on 21 October 2022 to say that a joint inspection would not add any value and would cause further delays. It also said that the works were completed, and the resident was very keen to move back into the property.
The resident called the landlord on 25 October 2022 to ask for an update because she had received calls from an undisclosed source asking her for access to the property which she couldn’t provide as she didn’t have the keys.
The landlord completed a repair to the boiler condenser pipe in the temporary property on 1 November 2022 in response to a report that the resident had made to the landlord on an undisclosed date.
This Service sent a complaint to the landlord on behalf of the resident on 2 November 2022 asking it to respond by 16 November 2022. The complaint was about:
1. How the landlord had handled the resident’s temporary move due to disrepair and asbestos in resident’s property.
2. How the landlord had communicated with the resident.
3. How the landlord had handled the reported repairs in the temporary property.
4. The letter also referred to the removal of the resident’s white goods, the suspension of her council tax benefit and the supply of an asbestos report.
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 November 2022 asking if there was an update to the email it had sent on 21 October 2022 about the requirement to post-inspect the property with the resident.
The landlord held an internal conversation on 3 November 2022 about the 10-day timescale this Service had given for it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord emailed this Service on the same day to say that it would respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 4 November 2022 that said it would respond to her by 1 December 2022.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident about her complaint on 7 November 2022. The landlord noted that the complaint was about:
1. The advice she had been provided that said that she could stay in the property while repairs were completed, then that she would need to move for 3 weeks which had changed to over 6 months.
2. The disposal of 2 fridge-freezers and a washing machine which were both working and the disposal of a cooker.
3. She had had to share a hotel room with her son who had been bitten by bedbugs.
4. The workers had stolen her property.
5. A tree had been cut down which caused her to have concerns about her neighbours accessing the garden.
6. Her security light had been removed.
7. She had been assured that she could move back into her property on 4 October 2022, but this did not happen.
8. A named officer had never returned her calls.
9. She was concerned that she had been exposed to asbestos and that the landlord would not provide her with a copy of the asbestos report.
10. She was unhappy with the white goods she had been supplied with and had been advised to throw away her clothes.
11. Her mental health had got worse.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 November 2022 to confirm if the resident could return to the property without completing the post-inspection because the contractor had refused to complete this with her.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 November 2022 that asked if the post-inspection had been completed without the resident because she had reported a list of issues since she had returned to the property that day. It was reported that this related to shoddy paintwork, the disposal of a dressing table which had contained the resident’s birth certificate and family photos, a window that would not close in the temporary property which had caused the wind to blow over her son’s TV, and missing keys to the garage and utility meters.
The landlord repaired a window in the decant property on 17 November 2022 following 2 no access visits it had completed on undisclosed dates.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 18 November 2022. The landlord said it wished to clarify its understanding of the voicemails she had left 2 days previously. It further said:
1. It had seen pictures of the property and the painting appeared to be completed to a high standard, but for the resident to provide photos where there were issues.
2. All of the windows had been inspected and were working prior to her moving back into the property and for her to advise which windows required repairs.
3. It would like her to advise how her son’s TV had been knocked over and a pot damaged.
4. It had told her that all items would need to be removed from the property before the repairs were started and that a dresser had not been left in the property and might be in storage.
5. The garage keys were left in the key safe and the utility meter keys were in the garage.
6. White goods would be moved from the temporary property and reinstalled by the rehousing team.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 November 2022 to ask whether it would be ok to send a copy of the asbestos report to the resident.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 December 2022. The landlord apologised for its delayed response and said this was due to a backlog of reviews and awarded the resident £50 as compensation. The landlord listed the complaint definitions and said:
1. It had initially said it would move the family for 6 – 8 weeks and it would locate a 2 or 3-bed property within 5 miles as agreed on 1 December 2021.
2. It had found asbestos in the property during an inspection it undertook in February 2022 and so had moved the family into 2 rooms in a hotel.
3. Due to asbestos and the extensive work required the resident was moved into a 2-bed property which had not been ideal but had been discussed with the resident prior to the move.
4. It apologised for any misinformation about the time she would be temporarily moved and said it no longer had phone records to verify this. It had seen references to 6 – 8 weeks and several months, but not 3 days.
5. It apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repairs and for the impact the decant had on the household.
6. It had raised 2 appointments for window and extractor fan repairs.
7. It apologised for the requirement to complete repairs in the temporary property after the resident had taken up occupation. It also summarised the actions it had taken to address the repairs in the temporary property between June 2022 and October 2022.
8. It was unclear when or where its staff had advised the resident that it could not complete repairs because the temporary property was void. It apologised for this.
9. It apologised that the asbestos report had not been provided to the resident before and attached a copy of the asbestos report.
10. The resident had been advised to let the council know about the temporary move but that her benefit issues had been resolved. It apologised for the difficulties.
11. It had not seen any instances where the resident had not been replied to within 10 working days and that staff had made unsuccessful contact attempts. It said that there had been a gap in contact between July and August 2022 and apologised for this and awarded £50 as compensation.
12. The tree had been removed from the resident’s garden as it had affected the integrity of the property wall and posed a health and safety issue.
13. It had not been aware of a communal light at the property prior to the removal of the tree but the resident could submit an insurance claim.
14. It had discarded the resident’s kettle, fridge, microwave, cooker and washing machine because they had posed a fire risk, and it was unable to store them. It had gifted these items from the temporary property as replacements.
15. It could not increase the height of the fence since the tree was removed as it was a standard height and in good condition.
16. It would provide £100 as compensation for food that went to waste.
17. It required the gas and electric keys as it was responsible for these costs during the works period but that these were left with the meters in the garage when works had been completed.
18. The resident should speak to her doctor or a qualified specialist to discuss her concerns about asbestos exposure.
19. The letter concluded the complaint process, and the complaint would be closed. The landlord referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
20. The landlord did not confirm if the complaint had been upheld.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move due to disrepair and asbestos in resident’s property.

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move due to disrepair and asbestos in resident’s property as the landlord:
1. Carried out 5 different inspections at the property between September 2021 and November 2021 to assess the extent of the repairs and whether to decant the resident. This caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident who was required to provide access to the home for repeat inspections that the landlord could have carried out in a more timely manner and in fewer visits.
2. Did not decide that it was appropriate to move the resident into temporary accommodation until 26 November 2021, despite this being first suggested on 15 September 2021. This was an unreasonably long time for the resident to have lived in a property in which extensive repairs had been identified.
3. Discussed the requirement to move the resident into temporary accommodation with her in December 2021, but did not move the household from the property until April 2022. The landlord did not explain the reasons for the delay to the resident.
4. Prematurely told the resident that she could move back into the property on 4 October 2022 thereby unreasonably raising the resident’s expectations.
5. Confirmed that the property repairs were fully complete on 11 October 2022, but did not reach an agreement on whether a post-inspection should be completed with the resident and contractor during internal email exchanges it held for a further month. This unreasonably delayed the resident’s return to the property.
6. Allowed the resident to move back into the property without completing a joint post-inspection with the resident in line with its new post-inspection policy. This resulted in a number of outstanding repairs subsequently being reported to the landlord after she had taken up occupation at the property.
This Service recognises:
1. That it was proportionate for the landlord to decant the household so that it could complete extensive works in the property and more urgently within 7 days of identifying asbestos in the property.
2. That the landlord provided the resident with the maximum daily meal allowance contained in its policy for the time she stayed in hotel accommodation.
3. That the landlord took into account the needs and preferences of the resident‘s household by moving them to a temporary property within 5 miles of her son’s workplace and not into a tower block.
4. That the landlord considered the demands on larger housing stock when locating suitable alternative property. Furthermore that the landlord could not achieve a ‘like for like’ move due to the demand for 3-bed properties. The landlord’s offer of a smaller 2-bed temporary property complied with its emergency, temporary and permanent moves rehousing policy and that this was achieved with the consent of the resident.
5. That the landlord provided a removal service when the resident moved into (and moved from) the temporary accommodation and provided replacement white goods and household furniture to the resident. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s belongings during the time she was decanted is addressed later in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the temporary property.

The resident reported 3 different repairs in the temporary property to the landlord on 6 June 2022. These related to the boiler, the toilet, and door entry system. The landlord completed the boiler repair 2 working days later, made an appointment for the toilet repair to be completed 6 working days later and completed the door entry repair on 13 June 2022. These appointments were completed within reasonable timeframes and in line with the repairs policy.
The resident reported a further boiler leak in the temporary property on an undisclosed date which the landlord repaired on 19 August 2022. The resident reported a pipework fault with the boiler to the landlord on 22 September 2022. The landlord visited the property 2 working days later which was in line with the landlord’s policy timescale and repaired the boiler at a follow-on appointment on 26 September 2022.
The resident reported a window closure repair in the temporary property to the landlord on 20 October 2022. The landlord attempted to gain access to repair the window on 2 undisclosed dates prior to completing a repair on 17 November 2022. The landlord completed the window repair within 20 working days, and this was a reasonable timescale considering there had been 2 additional failed access attempts.
The resident explained in her stage 2 complaint that she had been told that the landlord would not complete repairs as the property was void. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have suggested the property was void given the resident had signed a license to occupy the property on 19 May 2022. The landlord referred to the matter in its stage 2 complaint response in which it summarised the actions it had taken to complete the repairs. The landlord also apologised for the misinformation it had provided to the resident about completing repairs in the void property. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken.
Consequently taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the temporary property.

The landlord’s handling of the disposal and replacement of the resident’s white goods.

It is not the role of this Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident was required to move into a temporary property that had recently undergone void works and at the time it was ready to let it was unfurnished. The landlord had established that many of the resident’s belongings were damaged, faulty, or posed some other health and safety and/or storage concern. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek to dispose of the damaged electrical white goods rather than store and reinstall them in compliance with its health and safety obligations.
It is evident that the resident and the landlord agreed that many of the resident’s items needed to be discarded or placed in storage which it arranged. The landlord also recognised the household’s need for furniture and household goods in the temporary property. It therefore agreed to replace the resident’s damaged white goods as well as provide some replacement furnishings and household items in the decant property. The extent of the replacements was summarised in an internal email the landlord sent on 20 October 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the household could take up family life in the temporary property by providing the resident with replacement white goods, furniture, and household items. The landlord’s decision to gift these items to the resident at its own expense was reasonable and demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
It is evident that the resident considered that many of her belongings had been either damaged or inappropriately discarded or removed during the temporary move. It is not clear to this Service whether the landlord considered submitting an insurance claim on behalf of the resident to assess this in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. Notwithstanding the landlord provided information to the resident about how to submit an insurance claim for personal belongings in its stage 2 complaint response.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the disposal and replacement of the resident’s white goods.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a tree had been removed from the garden.

The resident reported that she was unhappy that a tree had been removed from the garden to the landlord on 8 July 2022. The landlord sent an internal email on 14 July 2022 which explained that this action had been required in response to health and safety matters that affected the property and residents that parked nearby.
It was appropriate for the landlord to remove the tree so as to limit any health and safety risks to the public and protect the integrity of the property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained this to the resident. This resulted in the resident addressing the matter again on 26 August 2022 and receiving assurances from the landlord that it would respond to the matter on 2 September 2022, 6 September 2022, 12 October 2022, and 7 November 2022.
The landlord explained the reasons it was required to remove the tree to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 December 2022. However it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have shared this information with the resident sooner. The landlord’s failure to disclose this information caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. Consequently this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a tree had been removed from the garden.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a security light had been removed from the property.

The resident reported that she was unhappy that a security light had been removed from the property to the landlord within her complaint dated 26 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the matter during conversations it held with the resident on 2 and 6 September 2022 and on 7 November 2022. It also sent an email to her on 12 October 2022 which confirmed that it would provide a response to the matter at a later date.
The landlord addressed the matter in its stage 2 complaint response 3 months later by suggesting that the resident should report the matter to its insurance team as it had not been aware of a security light. It was in keeping with the landlord’s policy to refer damage to personal possessions to its insurance team, but it was unreasonable for it to have waited for 3 months before providing this advice to her, or for it not to have completed this on her behalf in the meantime. Consequently this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a security light had been removed from the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a copy of its asbestos report.

The resident submitted a request for a copy of the asbestos report on 29 April 2022 following advice she had received from the landlord that asbestos had been found in the property. There is no evidence to verify if the landlord acknowledged her request.
The resident requested a further copy of the asbestos report in her stage 2 escalation request of 26 August 2022 and via this Service on 2 November 2022. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have provided a copy of the report to the resident in response to these further requests, or for it to have explained the reasons it was unable to disclose the report.
It is evident that the landlord recognised the request for the report on 22 November 2022 as it sent an internal email on this date to ask if the report could be shared from a health and safety perspective. The landlord subsequently shared the report with the resident with its stage 2 complaint response. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have withheld providing the report for 7 months, or 151 working days given that it later decided itself that it could disclose the report.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for copy of its asbestos report.

The landlord’s handling of communication.

It is evident that throughout the handling of the repairs and temporary rehousing that a considerable amount of communication was held between the resident and the landlord. The landlord provided evidence of the email and telephone contacts between both parties. These show 74 contact attempts via email and telephone between 26 November 2021 and 25 October 2022.
It is of note that between 16 December 2021 and 9 March 2022 the landlord’s planning team left 13 voicemail messages for the resident to discuss housing related matters. It was appropriate for the landlord to leave messages when it was unable to speak to the resident to deliver relevant information and so that she was aware of its intention to discuss matters with her.
It is of significance that between 8 June 2022 and 19 August 2022 the resident was unable to get in contact with a named staff member in response to 10 callback requests she had requested. This caused time and trouble to the resident in seeking a response to housing matters she needed to discuss. It is however evident that the landlord later confirmed that it had difficulty contacting the resident. This was confirmed on 24 August 2022 when it sent an internal email confirming that the resident did not seem to return the calls and emails it had sent. It is also evident that the staff member had returned the resident’s calls twice on 9 and 15 June 2022 and that she sent a text to the resident on 15 June 2022 when she did not get any contact. The staff member also left a voicemail message for the resident on 21 July 2022.
Whilst the resident and the landlord have different perspectives about the communication between them it is evident that no communication took place between the parties between 6 June 2022 and 19 August 2022, despite the resident’s contact attempts. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have waited to discuss the matters she had wished to raise.
The landlord reviewed its handling of its communication with the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord concluded that there were no instances where the resident had not been contacted within 10 working days. However, it also recognised a gap in communication between July 2022 and August 2022 for which it apologised. The landlord’s assessment of its communication with the resident is contradictory. It is not clear on what basis the landlord said there were no instances where she had not been contacted within 10 days when it also recognised the gap in contact between July 2022 and August 2022..
The landlord recognised its service failure and referred to its compensation policy to put in place a suitable remedy. In addition to its apology the landlord offered the resident a compensation award of £50. It is the view of this Service that the award was not proportionate to the time that the resident was left without contact. The landlord’s lack of contact during this time was unreasonable especially as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in its handling of communication with the resident.

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

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not indicate whether it had upheld the resident’s first stage 1 complaint in its complaint response of 8 December 2021.
2. Did not acknowledge the resident’s new stage 1 complaint dated 18 August 2022 in line with the landlord’s policy.
3. Did not recognise that the resident’s complaint of 18 August 2022 addressed different matters than the stage 1 complaint she had previously submitted in November 2021.Therefore it did not register the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 1.7 of the Code.
4. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint dated 18 August 2022 in line with the landlord’s 10-day policy timescale.
5. Asked the resident if she wished to escalate her new stage 1 complaint of 18 August 2022 to stage 2 when she contacted the landlord on 24 August 2022, despite it not having provided a stage 1 response.
6. Did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 which she had requested on 26 August 2022 upon the suggestion of the landlord.
7. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request until 6 September 2022, which was 2 working days later than the landlord’s policy timescale.
8. Did not agree an extension to the complaint response date with the resident in line with paragraph 5.14 of the Code when it realised it could not provide a response within its 20-day policy timescale.
9. Did not respond to the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales which prompted the resident to contact this Service about the matter. This resulted in this Service sending a letter to the landlord on 2 November 2022 with directions to provide a response to the complaint within 10 days by 16 November 2022.
10. Provided a stage 2 response to the resident 69 working days after the resident had escalated the complaint escalation and 49 days later than the landlord’s 20-day policy timescale and paragraph 5.3 of the Code.
11. Issued contradictory information about the communication it had held with the resident which was not in line with paragraph 5.6 of the Code.
12. Did not say if the complaint was upheld in its stage 2 complaint response..
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact of its complaint handling and recognise that it had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. An award of compensation is therefore ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary move due to disrepair and asbestos in resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the temporary property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the disposal and replacement of the resident’s white goods.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a tree had been removed from the garden.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a security light had been removed from the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a copy of its asbestos report.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of communication with the resident.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord took an unreasonable time to move the resident into temporary accommodation after it had agreed it with the resident. It also took an unreasonable about of time to move the resident from the temporary property while deciding whether it needed to complete a post-inspection with her. This delayed her return for over a month after it had completed the property repairs.
The landlord completed the repairs in the temporary property within reasonable timescales and which were in line with its policy. It apologised for any miscommunication about the raising of repairs in the property because the property was void.
The landlord replaced the resident’s damaged white goods and provided replacement furniture and household goods at its own cost. However the landlord did not seek to submit an insurance claim on behalf of the resident, nor encourage her to make a claim for items she considered were damaged, or not replaced.
The landlord failed to provide the reasons it had been required to remove a tree from the garden to the resident within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord suggested that the resident should submit an insurance claim to it about the missing security light at the property. This advice was only provided 3 months after the resident had reported the matter which was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to provide a reasonable response to the resident’s request for a copy of the asbestos report. The landlord subsequently decided it could provide a copy to her 7 months after she had initially made the request.
The landlord failed to provide a reasonable level of communication with the resident or seek to use alternative communication methods with her when it could not contact her. The landlord recognised its communication failings in its stage 2 complaint response but the compensation award it provided was not proportionate to the detriment it had caused.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code during its handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to investigate its own complaint handling and therefore consider whether a compensation award was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing a temporary move, the handling and return of her stored belongings and white goods, its response to her concerns about the removal of a tree and a security light, the delay in providing an asbestos report, and for its communication and complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In addition to any previous compensation issued and within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £250 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the landlord handling of a temporary move due to asbestos and repairs in the property.
2. £50 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the handling of the resident’s reports that a tree had been removed from the garden.
3. £50 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience associated with the handling of the resident’s reports that a security light had been removed from the property.
4. £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuit of a copy of the landlord’s asbestos report.
5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication with the resident.
6. £250 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to discuss any debt that the resident incurred for utility costs at the property while she was decanted into a temporary property between 14 April 2022 and 16 November 2022. The landlord is ordered to consider whether under the terms of its policy for emergency, temporary and permanent moves any monies are owed by it to the resident and if so to reimburse the resident accordingly.
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to discuss the removal of items that had been returned to the resident’s garage when she moved back into the property, and which do not belong to the resident.