Manchester City Council (202011545)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011545

Manchester City Council

21 April 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about:

  1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s handing of, and communication about, the repairs at the property.

2.     The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:

  1. Complaint handling.
  2. Record keeping.

Background

3.     The resident has been a tenant of the landlord’s property since December 2020. The property is a three bedroom house. She lives in the property with her partner and three young children.

4.     The property is owned by Manchester City Council. The council used  Northwards Housing as an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to provide housing management services on its behalf. Northwards Housing ceased to provide the council’s housing management function in July 2021. At this time, the housing management function reverted to the council. For the purposes of this report, we have referred to Northwards Housing and Manchester City Council as “the landlord”.

Legislation, policies and procedures

5.     Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. The landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.

6.     The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. 

7.     The aims of the Pre-action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England) (‘the Protocol’) include avoidance of “unnecessary litigation” and promotion of “the speedy and appropriate completion of remedial works which are the landlord’s responsibility”.

8.     Part 4 of the Protocol states that:

  1. “The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure would be more suitable than litigation and if so, try to agree which form of ADR to use. Both the landlord and the tenant may be required by the court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered”.
  2. Options for resolving a dispute include “the council’s own complaints and/or arbitration procedures. The Housing Ombudsman Service deals with complaints from council tenants in England about housing conditions”.

9.     Parts 5 and 6 of the Protocol set out guidance on the tenant’s Letter of Claim, and the landlord’s response. This states that a landlord’s failure to respond to the Letter of Claim within 20 working days of receipt is a breach of the Protocol and the tenant is free to issue proceedings.

10. The Housing Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims and service complaints’ states:

  1. Even when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from either the complaints procedure or the repair issue itself.
  2. Commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings and ADR can be pursued at any stage of the protocol. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’. The issuing of proceedings involves filing details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, at court. 
  3. In the interests of effectively managing legal claims and promoting ADR, landlords should be clear with the resident on how it is handling correspondence; whether through the complaints procedure or the protocol, or both.

11. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight report on complaints about repairs’, published in March 2019, emphasises the need for landlords to communicate effectively; keep and review accessible repair records; provide clear, quality written complaint responses; comply with the timescales of complaints procedures; address all issues raised in the original complaint; detail further actions within timescales; provide appropriate redress (or provide assurances this will be considered when works are completed); and detail lessons learned.

Empty Homes Standard Leaflet

12. The leaflet states that:

  1. Impervious flooring will be provided in the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. Roofs and gutters will be assessed for visible damage and repairs/replacements carried out.
  3. Paths will be repaired for trip hazards.

Repairs Policy

13. The landlord’s website states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 3 to 24 hours. It also provides examples of response times, as follows:

  1. Five working days for a broken window.
  2. Ten working days for a broken toilet part.
  3. Four weeks for a blocked gutter or repair to roof slates.
  4. Six weeks for fitting a new window frame.
  5. Blocked drains prioritised as a one day repair.

Complaints Policy

13. The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time of the complaint states that it will investigate any complaint where it is alleged that the landlord is:

  1. Failing to fulfil its responsibilities, carry out a policy or provide a service in line with Regulatory Framework for Social Housing in England;
  2. Failing to achieve the stated local standards of service offered to customers;
  3. Failing to take into account matters that ought to have been considered when coming to, or implementing a decision;
  4. Acted unfairly or with bias;
  5. Not performing against regulatory standards.

Complaints Procedure

14. The landlord’s complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint comprised two stages. It states that:

15.  Stage one and stage two complaint responses will both be issued within 10 working days, unless an extension is agreed.

16. The landlord will not normally investigate complaints where the matter being complained about is or has been the subject of legal proceedings.

Compensation Policy

17. The compensation policy states that where compensation is offered, the matter which forms the substance of the complaint must be concluded and not ongoing. While repair works are ordered as a result of receiving a claim for compensation, such work should be monitored to ensure that it is carried out satisfactorily and within given timescales.

Summary of events

18. Before the resident moved to the property, a pre-void inspection was completed by the landlord in September 2020. A schedule of works was drawn up, and raised as a six week void, with a proposed completion date of 23 October 2020. These works included:

  1. Renewing non-slip flooring in the kitchen and bathroom and replacing the floorboards in the WC.
  2. Hack off plaster, apply browning and finish (two coats) to stairs, landing,  bedroom one, bedroom two, bedroom three, kitchen and bathroom.
  3. Carrying out “stage 1 (wash down mould), 2 (apply approved fungicide) and 3 (paint walls with fungicidal emulsion paint)” treatment of mould in the kitchen, bedroom one, bedroom three and bathroom.
  4. Excavating and laying a new external path, as it was noted to have “sunken” with “large gaps”.
  5. Clearing the front and rear gutters of debris.

19. The completion date was pushed back after a site visit in November 2020. The surveyor attended and identified “extensive works” required in the kitchen once the floor tiles were removed. He confirmed that the floor was rotten as well as possibly the floor joists and the works schedule did not take into account the possibility of needing a damp course after the kitchen floor tiles had been removed.

20. Internal correspondence exchanged by landlord staff between 27 November and 30 November 2020 confirmed that it was aware of “issues” inside the property including damp, but requested authorisation to put the property through as “ready to let”. Landlord staff expressed concern about the external path stating that “it isn’t the best and from the pictures looks like it would be a trip hazard”. A decision was made for the resident to be signed up and the works completed as outstanding void works.

21. The resident received the keys for the property on 14 December 2020 and was told that all works had been completed. She called the landlord on 15 December 2020 to advise that the kitchen roof was leaking and water was coming up through the floor. She said there was “so much mould on the walls” which prevented her from decorating. In addition, the drains and gutters were blocked.

22. On 17 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to ask how the property could have passed an inspection given the leaks, damp and mould, lack of flooring in the kitchen or bathroom and the gutters and drains being blocked. She advised that an operative had attended to clear the drains, however he was unable to fix the problem and would report back to the landlord.

23. On 21 December 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had not moved into the property as the roof was leaking and all decoration in the property had been damaged as a result. The resident emailed the landlord with photos of the property which she said showed damage caused by the leak, mould in the property, pooling water on the kitchen floor, blocked gutters and cracks to the path.

24. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 23 December 2020. The surveyor informed the landlord that the resident had provided a list of repairs in the property. He confirmed placing seven works orders that day but suggested more may be required. He also expressed his view that the property required a senior surveyor to carry out a property condition survey.

25. The resident called the landlord on 23 December 2020 to request an update. She chased a response on 4 January 2021, stating that all three bedrooms had leaks. The records show that the landlord requested a roof inspection and noted that the resident “had been chasing (a response) since before Christmas”.

26. The landlord completed a ‘New Tenancy Visit’ on 4 January 2021 with the resident. The landlord confirmed that the resident had not moved in and that the resident would “require a rent adjustment”. The landlord followed this up by requesting confirmation from the rent recovery team as to whether the resident’s circumstances warranted a rent adjustment.

27. The landlord emailed the surveyor on 4 January 2021 to establish if in his view the property was uninhabitable. The surveyor advised that “the mould was particularly bad and could be an issue…it was on the schedule to be treated but wasn’t. The roof was also leaking preventing them from moving in”.

28. The resident made contact with this Service on 8 January 2021, and was provided with advice about raising a formal complaint with the landlord.

29. On 12 January 2021 the resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s webform stating:

  1. She had made the landlord aware of damp and mould in the property two months ago but it had done nothing.
  2. Holes in the roof (through which daylight could be seen) had caused leaks in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and toilet.
  3. Water was coming up through the kitchen floor.
  4. She had called and emailed for two months and the works remained outstanding.

30. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised that it had been sent to the Repairs Manager and New Tenancy Team to action. The following day the resident made a further call to follow up the repairs. During the conversation the landlord advised that the delays in repairs were due to Covid-19 restrictions.

31. The resident did not move in to the property, and handed the keys back in early January 2021 to enable the landlord to complete the outstanding works. The resident said that she and her family lodged with relatives, which she stated was in an overcrowded property.  

32. On 14 January 2021 the resident sent a second complaint via the landlord’s webform, reiterating the points made on 12 January 2021. She added that repairs had been booked but each time an operative attended, they advised that the job was too big. She repeated her request for a call back.  

33. A further inspection of the property was carried out on 19 January 2021. A void report was completed which highlighted several repairs that had not been completed on the first schedule which included: 

Kitchen –

  1. Supply dehumidifier.
  2. Renew flooring.

Bathroom –

  1. Renew floorboards and lift covering. Urine stained floorboards visible and wet.
  2. Re-grout the tiles which had been poorly done (noted that it had grouted over mould).
  3. Renew skim coat of plaster.
  4. No shower head or hose.
  5. Mould on wall and ceiling – carry out “stage 1, 2, 3” mould treatment. Ceiling still had a crack in it and had not been painted.
  6. Renew flooring.

Other works not completed –

  1. Water ingress through the front door related to the cracked path.
  2. Mould in kitchen due to the bay window roof leaking, running outlet blocked, damp walls from hopper overflowing and water running down the kitchen wall from the bay roof – work on the wall near the hopper had been cleared by the resident and was starting to dry on the second visit.

34. On 21 January 2021 this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to issue the resident with a stage one response within 10 working days. The email was acknowledged by the landlord.

35. On 29 January 2021, Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) wrote a letter to the landlord. It said that it was using the Housing Disrepair Protocol after being advised by the resident that she had been unable to occupy the property due to its condition and outstanding repairs. It stated that the resident had reported making continuous complaints to no avail and it considered the case an emergency health and safety concern. It requested a full schedule of works within 20 working days of the letter.

36. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2021. It acknowledged receipt of her complaint but advised her to refer all matters through her legal representative. The landlord’s records show that staff exchanged emails querying why there were still outstanding works to the value of £2900. Questions were also asked about where the responses to the resident’s complaints were.

37. In a follow-up internal email to the inspection of 19 January 2021, the surveyor confirmed the outcome of his visit, advising:

  1. The resident had “skimmed virtually all of the property”.
  2. It had requested a report on the loft space after the resident had reported multiple leaks.
  3. It had requested a roof condition survey.
  4. It had emailed contractors on 18 January 2021 requesting a progress update but stated that “nothing had been forthcoming” and it “didn’t expect it to be as all e-mails are basically ignored”.

38. On 5 March 2021, the landlord carried out a third inspection in response to the letter from CAB. The surveyor noted there were outstanding repairs and some completed repairs were of a poor standard, which he had highlighted in his 19 January 2021 schedule.

39. The resident called the landlord for an update on 9 March 2021. On the same date, the landlord advised in an internal email that the resident had raised a concern regarding her rent arrears, after not being able to move into the property.

40. On 10, 11 and 19 March 2021 the resident made further attempts to contact the landlord. She was once again advised that she needed to direct matters through her legal representative.

41. On 23 March 2021 this Service advised the landlord that there was no evidence that the resident had started legal proceedings, and requested evidence that the resident was pursuing a legal disrepair claim. On 26 March 2021 the resident contacted this Service to advise that she had yet to receive a response from the landlord, and that she was still unable to move into the property. She explained that she had contacted CAB after being frustrated that she had signed up for a property that she was unable to live in. However, she did not wish to commence a legal claim.

42. In an internal email sent on 26 March 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had raised queries in relation to rent arrears on her account as she had not moved in. The landlord requested that the resident was contacted and that the arrears on the account were explained to her. 

43. The landlord’s internal records confirm the resident made further contact attempts on 26 and 31 March 2021 and 1, 8, 19, 20 and 21 April 2021. This was in response to a letter stating she had rent arrears of £1258.05. The resident wished to dispute this as she had not occupied the property. She requested a rent adjustment for the period that the property was unoccupied.

44. The landlord’s internal records indicate a stage one complaint was logged on 26 March 2021 relating to the rent arrears. It was also noted that the resident was not commencing proceedings. The landlord further noted that it was “happy to make a rent adjustment” if it had details as to why the resident was unable to occupy the property from 14 December 2020.

45. After receiving a copy of the CAB letter, this Service emailed the landlord on 6 April 2021. We advised that the letter was not evidence of legal proceedings and that Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules stated that a claim is issued only when the court has stamped a claim form. As such, we asked the landlord to investigate the complaint, or issue a final response.

46. On 8 April 2021 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that the resident had requested contact concerning her arrears. A further internal email was exchanged on 20 April regarding the arrears and whether a rent adjustment could be made.

47. The resident moved into the property at the end of March 2021. The landlord informed her that it would meet with her at the property on 9 April 2021. On 20 April 2021 the resident requested that her complaint regarding the arrears on her account was escalated. The landlord’s call records note that the resident had stated that her “rent was supposed to start on 5 April 2021 due to repairs not being done in the property”.

48. On 22 April 2021, the resident contacted this Service. She said that she had tried to resolve the issues with the arrears on her account. However, the landlord would not engage, and told her to seek advice from her legal representative.

49. The resident called the landlord on 28 April 2021 and 5 May 2021 to report a blocked drain which was flooding the back doorway. A job was initially raised for 5 May 2021, but was then cancelled. The resident called the landlord again on 12 May 2021, as the drain was still blocked. Evidence suggests that the landlord flagged works with its repairs team regarding the blocked drain, the concrete path and the removal of rubble as it stated it “didn’t look as though any action had been taken” in respect of the repairs.

50. A surveyor was booked to attend the property on 13 May 2021 to check the roof after heavy rain. However the appointment was not attended. On 5 June 2021 the resident reported that the back door was letting water in. The landlord noted that as the surveyor had advised the rear door issue was part of a legal claim, no job order was raised. A further inspection was booked for 15 June 2021 but was later cancelled by the landlord.

51. On 16 June 2021 an operative attended to fix the drain. He reported back to the landlord that he was unable to resolve the issue. 

52. The resident notified the landlord on 21 June 2021 that her son had tripped and fallen in the garden, cutting his lip. She asked if the garden works (to remove rubble and make a concrete path) could be carried out sooner as she was concerned that it was dangerous. 

53. On 29 June 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord again requesting that it issue a formal complaint response to the resident by 6 July 2021. On 5 July the resident advised the landlord that the back door was cracked from the bottom, letting water in. Again, the landlord considered that the repair was part of a legal claim and declined to raise a job.

54. On 2 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident advising that it had a duty to protect its interests and whilst a disrepair claim was active, all related enquires should be directed through a solicitor. The resident called the landlord on 3 August 2021 to chase works to the garden and was again advised to speak to her solicitor. It is noted within the landlord’s internal correspondence on 5 August 2021 that an issue regarding the resident’s rear door was part of “legal works” so no job had been raised. 

55. On 27 July 2021 an operative attended the address and diagnosed a fault with the roof. An operative was re-booked for 13 October 2021 to locate the fault.

56. The landlord’s solicitor wrote to this Service on 10 August 2021 to advise that the ALMO had ceased to exercise its housing management functions. It requested more time to respond to the complaint and advised that the emails from this Service had gone into a junk folder. We acknowledged the solicitor’s comments and provided the landlord with a deadline of 18 August 2021 to respond.

57. The landlord ordered a further property survey on 10 August 2021. A further schedule of works was raised as a result of the surveyor’s inspection which noted:

  1. Gutters and drains were blocked – a repair was required to the gutter fitting.
  2. Holes to roof – limited repairs, if any, had been undertaken. Undertake an overhaul of the roof covering to all front and rear elevations, including renew/re-fix slates, replace damaged felt and batten and check lead work.
  3. No evidence at the time of inspecting that there were leaks in the bedrooms, however, it was noted that the bedrooms had been decorated.
  4. No evidence of damp in the WC and floor was in a sound condition.

58. Additional works were identified which were not completed/or additional works were required:

  1. Remove rubble from the front garden.
  2. Supply and fit vinyl to the kitchen area including all prep work. Paint the rear door and supply threshold/storm guard.
  3. Supply and fit vinyl to the bathroom and replace bath panel.
  4. Only one socket in the living room working so an inspection and repair to the electrical installation.

59. After the surveyor attended, a new schedule of works was issued.

60. A Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) was issued by this Service to the landlord on 27 August 2021. This was on the basis that the landlord had failed to issue a complaint response in line with our request and deadline.

61. The landlord subsequently issued its only and final complaint response on 6 September 2021. It apologised that the complaint had not been formally responded to in a timely manner, and said:

  1. The property was not let in a suitable condition and apologised for this. It identified learning on the expected standard of re-let properties and work was ongoing with a new repairs contractor on the standard of repairs.
  2. Flooring was ordered prior to the property being let. The flooring would be laid by 19 October 2021. There had been an unacceptable delay.
  3. It acknowledged that leaks had been reported by the resident on 21 December 2020. It was clear the property was not let in a suitable condition which meant the resident needed to stay elsewhere while works were completed.
  4. All works would be completed by 19 October 2021.
  5. It accepted that the inspection procedure was not to an acceptable standard and should have identified the repair issues before the property was relet. It offered an apology for the lack of adherence to its relet standards.
  6. It wished to credit the resident’s rent account by £1,210.12. This covered the period between 14 December 2020 to 31 March 2021 while the property was unoccupied. It also wished to offer a compensation payment of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused over that period.

62. The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2021 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and stated:

  1. The landlord failed to mention the kitchen ceiling even though this was included in her original complaint.
  2. She was unhappy that the landlord had failed to mention that she had replastered throughout the property, even though it was mentioned in her original complaint.
  3. Scaffolding was still up at the property and the roof works had not been completed even though she was told they would be done by 29 September 2021.
  4. She was unhappy that she was out of pocket for completing repairs that the landlord should have done for approximately £4000.

Events after complaints procedure

63. An internal email between landlord staff dated 10 November 2021 stated that all internal works were “pretty much done”. This was apart from the vinyl flooring, that was yet to be laid. A joint inspection would be arranged for the week commencing 22 November 2021 when all works would be complete.

64. In an internal note on the landlord’s system dated 22 November 2021, it confirmed that the resident’s rent account had not been adjusted to reflect its offer in its final stage response to credit to the account £1210.12.

65. On 25 November 2021 and 13 December 2021 the resident reported that seven bags of rubbish had been left by the operative who had cleaned the roof. The resident advised that the bags were full of maggots as they contained dead pigeons. She was concerned that this was a bio-hazard and asked the landlord to remove the bags urgently. The landlord called the resident on 14 December 2021 to advise that the rubbish had been removed.

66. On 21 January 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update on work to the roof and advised that solar panel engineers were waiting on the roof works to be completed so they could complete their work. The landlord advised that an appointment for the roof repair had been booked for 3 February 2022.

67. The landlord carried out a post-works inspection on 27 January 2022. It found that the workmanship in places was poor or incomplete. It said: 

  1. Rubble had been left in the front garden. The contractor confirmed it would be removed by 31 January 2022.
  2. A switch in the bathroom needed to be reinstated. This would be completed by 31 January 2022.The bathroom floor needed plying and for the vinyl to be correctly fitted. The contractor confirmed it would be reinstated on 2 February 2022.
  3. The flat roof repair above the kitchen was still outstanding and the scaffolding was still in place. This was due to be completed on 3 March 2022.

68. The resident has confirmed to this Service that works were completed by March 2022, however, the resident reports that mould in the kitchen remains outstanding and a further complaint about this matter has been submitted to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property when let

69. The property was initially inspected in October 2020 and was classified as a “six-week void”, with works identified which were required under the landlord’s empty homes standard. A further inspection in November 2020 identified additional “extensive works”, including rotten kitchen floor, which delayed the property completion, and which noted that it had not taken into account what the landlord might find “once the [kitchen] floor was lifted”. At the end of November 2020, the landlord confirmed in its internal correspondence that it was aware of damp in the property, as well as “outstanding issues inside” but continued to put the property through as ready to let. 

70. At this point, significant and outstanding repair issues remained at the property, including a lack of appropriate flooring in the kitchen and bathroom, a broken pathway and blocked gutters; all matters to be attended to in line with the landlord’s empty homes standard. There is no evidence that the roof was assessed during this void period, although also required under the standard. The landlord was also aware of other significant repair issues at the property, including damp in four rooms.

71. The resident reported being initially unable to decorate due to the “amount of mould on the walls”. The evidence is clear that the landlord let the property in the knowledge that these issues were outstanding, and there is no evidence to confirm that it gave due regard to its empty homes standard, or that it gave appropriate consideration to whether the property was in fact fit for habitation given the nature of the issues. This was a significant failing.

72. In allocating the property, the landlord demonstrated a disregard for the resident’s wellbeing and safety, including the implications of moving a family with children into the property where it had failed to investigate the underlying cause of the damp and mould. This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in 2021, confirms that landlords should take a proactive, zero-tolerance approach in identifying potential problems. The landlord did not actively investigate the matter and instead left it unresolved for a period of several months. This was a serious failing.

73. The resident gave back the keys to the property in January 2021. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord did not offer alternative accommodation during this period. In early January 2021, the landlord asked its surveyor whether the property was habitable. Despite the surveyor stating that the mould was “particularly bad and could be an issue”, and that the roof leak was preventing the family moving in, there is no evidence to confirm that consideration was given to providing the family with alternative accommodation. Given the circumstances, this was inappropriate. Significant adverse effect was caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions at this time, including moving into what she described as overcrowded conditions with family members.

74. Although the landlord offered an apology in its complaint response of September 2021, it did not appropriately or explicitly acknowledge the overall impact and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings.

75. By the point the resident handed the keys back to the landlord, she had raised many concerns about outstanding repairs including water coming up through the kitchen floor, damp and mould, and holes in the roof causing leaks to several rooms including the kitchen and bedrooms. It is apparent that the resident expended time and trouble pursuing the repairs while she was not living in the property. Even with the resident’s input, progress during January and March 2021 was limited, with little evidence of works being progressed and of appropriate oversight or management of the works.

76. In late March 2021, the resident returned to the property as she was keen to settle her children before they were due to start school. The landlord’s decision that it was appropriate for the resident to return in March 2021 does not appear to be based on any assessment of the condition of the property. The surveyor’s report in March 2021, confirms that many of the repair works remained outstanding, including flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. Of particular concern is the lack of consideration given to the resident’s reports that she had a young child who was crawling, and the impact being without suitable flooring in some of the rooms.

77. The roof leak remained outstanding at the point the resident moved into the property in March 2021, with no apparent investigation by the landlord into the cause. Mould was still evident in the kitchen, with a blocked “drip channel” creating a “cold spot”. The front path, which the landlord itself had considered a “trip hazard” in December 2020, had not been repaired. The landlord’s inspection of 19 January 2021 had also identified that the cracked path had caused water ingress through the front door. When the resident returned to the property, the landlord again failed to have appropriate regard for its empty homes standard, whether the property was suitable for occupation, and the wellbeing and safety of the resident and her family. This compounded the landlord’s initial failings in letting the property in December 2020, and was a significant failing.

78. During the course of the complaint, the resident queried how the property had passed an inspection to confirm that the property was ready to let. It was not until its complaint response of September 2021, ten months after the resident was given the keys to the property, that the landlord acknowledged “the lack of adherence to its relet standards”. The absence of a satisfactory acknowledgement from the landlord before this time is indicative of its communication throughout the case, which was lacking and demonstrates a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation.

79. In the landlord’s complaint response, it apologised for the “unacceptable delay” in resolving the issues. It identified a learning opportunity with its new repairs contractor, to ensure it would meet the required standards going forward, adding that it was “confident that it would deliver an improved repairs service”. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that things had gone wrong, it failed to address why the property was let in an unsatisfactory condition, what the learning had been, or why the resident was allowed to move back in when the repair works remained outstanding in March 2021. This was a failing, and does not indicate that the landlord fully grasped what had gone wrong in its letting of the property and management of the repairs.

80. In January 2021, the landlord apportioned some of the delays to the lockdown restrictions, and this Service does not doubt this had a bearing on some of the landlord’s repair times. However, the property was empty for three months which would have allowed the landlord reasonable access, not reasonably restricting or preventing works on the inside or outside of the property. Additionally, while lockdown restrictions were given as a reason for delay in January 2021, records do not further evidence this was relevant in this case. In January 2021, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that they had asked for a progress update from contractors but “nothing had been forthcoming” and it “didn’t expect it to be as all e-mails are basically ignored”. This email does not attribute delays to lockdown restrictions but indicates a failure by the landlord to appropriately manage or oversee repairs at the property.

81. The landlord offered the resident a rent adjustment in its complaint response of September 2021 for the time she was unable to occupy the property between December 2020 until March 2021. This was a reasonable approach, and appropriate given that it had identified the letting standard was not met, and there was evidence in the form of the surveyor’s opinion of January 2021 that the property was otherwise not suitable for occupation at the time. However, the landlord was aware from the ‘New Tenancy visit’ of 4 January 2021, that the resident was not occupying the property and she would “require a rent adjustment”.

82. The evidence shows that while internal emails on this issue were exchanged at points, the landlord did not make appropriate efforts to resolve the rent issue for a significant period of time. In March 2021, the landlord stated that it would make a rent adjustment if it had details why the resident could not occupy the property from December 2020. Despite the landlord holding information about the condition of the property, including completion of a “void” report in January 2021,  the rent issue was still outstanding at the point of the landlord’s complaint response six months later in September 2021. 

83. The landlord was heavy-handed in this matter, demonstrating a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation. The resident received a letter about arrears of more than £1000 in or before March 2021, before she moved back into the property. She was caused further distress by having to persistently pursue the landlord on at least nine occasions about the arrears, including through unaddressed formal complaints, as well as having to explain to the landlord why she felt the property was uninhabitable. The landlord’s failings in this matter were significant and were not acknowledged in its complaint response of September 2021.

84. Despite the landlord agreeing a rent adjustment for the period in which the property was not occupied, the account was not credited until November 2021. The rent adjustment which had been agreed in September was delayed due to the officer dealing with the account “being off work and the adjustment wasn’t made”. This is further evidence of the landlord committing to do something and then not seeing these assurances through, and of its lack of empathy to the resident’s situation. As a result of the landlord’s lack of oversight here, the resident was caused additional distress and uncertainty.

85. In a further attempt to resolve the matter, the landlord offered £500 as a goodwill payment for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, during the period from December 2020, until March 2021. While it was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged that a level of distress and inconvenience had been caused, the landlord did not identify all of its failings in its letting of the property, and did not recognise the detrimental impact caused to the family by the condition of the property and its management of the repairs at this time.

86. The landlord did not acknowledge in its complaint response that the resident had been living elsewhere, in what she considered overcrowded conditions, for this period. It also failed to acknowledge the significant time and trouble spent by the resident pursuing the landlord for updates, and the distress and inconvenience of not knowing which repairs were to be completed and when. By not identifying all that had gone wrong during this period, the landlord failed to offer redress for distress and inconvenience which was proportionate to its failings. 

87. The resident was advised when she signed up for the property that the internal works would be completed and the property would be in a suitable condition for her to decorate. Plastering works were identified during the pre-void inspection but not completed. The resident advised the landlord that the walls were so badly affected with damp and mould that when she started decorating the plaster came off the walls. The surveyor noted in his report in January 2021 that the resident had “skimmed most of the property” by this time.

88. As a result of the landlord’s inaction to complete the works, either mould treatment or plastering, the resident went to significant time and trouble in completing plastering or “skimming” work herself. It is noted that the resident was not told when moving in exactly which works would be completed by the landlord, and therefore did not reasonably know that these works were the obligation of the landlord and it intended to complete these.

89. The resident has told this Service that she spent around £4000 completing works. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident had completed works which the it had failed to complete, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered compensation for the expense and time and trouble taken. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this at the time or in its complaint response. The landlord has not demonstrated that it went far enough in trying to put things right, or in its consideration of the overall inconvenience this caused to the resident.

90. The cumulative failings by the landlord in the letting of the property and associated matters are profound, and have caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. While acknowledgement of some of these failings was made in the landlord’s complaint response, it did not sufficiently recognise all that had gone wrong, failed to appropriately consider the impact of failings on the household, and did not suitably redress those failings. This constitutes severe maladministration, and relevant orders have been made to the landlord in this matter.

The landlord’s handing of, and communication about, the repairs at the property.

91. The resident identified a leak above the kitchen in December 2020. Despite numerous inspections, a fault was not diagnosed until July 2021 and was not resolved until March 2022, 67 weeks from the resident’s report and 51 weeks from when she moved into the property in March 2021. It took a total of 35 weeks from diagnosis to repair the leak. This was a significant departure from the landlord’s prescribed timeframe of four weeks, set out within its repairs policy.

92. The landlord did not demonstrate that it took appropriate action to rectify the issue, nor did the landlord appropriately update the resident as to why the repair was delayed for a significant period, or acknowledge this as a specific failing within its complaint response. This was inappropriate, not only because of the inconvenience caused to the resident but also because the landlord was aware that the resident had redecorated the property.

93. The landlord’s internal records, show that during November and December 2020, February, March, April, May, June, and August 2021, the landlord was aware that the front path was an outstanding repair, either from its own inspections or the resident’s reports. In June 2021, three months after moving into the property in March, the resident informed the landlord that her son had “tripped and fallen” resulting in a cut lip. She expressed her concerns that the garden was “dangerous” and requested that the landlord prioritised the external works. The landlord still did not appropriately prioritise the completion of the path, despite the report of an accident having taken place. This was a significant failing given that the family had young children, and the path was “sunken” with “large gaps” exposed.

94. The landlord took 10 months in total to relay a new concrete path, five months after the resident moved into the property in March 2021 and two months after her son was reported to have fallen. This was a significant failure to complete the repair within a reasonable time, and compounded the landlord’s earlier failings of letting the property without it meeting its empty homes standard. The landlord’s failings here again evidence a disregard for the resident’s wellbeing and safety. 

95. In its complaint response of September 2021, the landlord indicated that that there was still “quite a lot” of work which remained outstanding in the property which would be completed by October 2021, although it did not detail exactly what these works were. Repair records do not confirm that works identified in August 2021 had been completed by the time it issued its complaint response. These works included blocked gutters and drains and a repair to the gutter fitting, understood to be outstanding since the property was void, holes to the roof where limited repairs if any had been undertaken, rubble in the front garden, lack of appropriate flooring in the kitchen and bathroom, electrical sockets not working in the living room, and the need for a replacement bath panel.

96. The landlord offered an apology in its complaint response, recognising that the resident had experienced “significant delays”. It did not, however, demonstrate that it considered the impact of these delays on the resident or her family and it did not offer the resident any redress for its failure to complete repairs within a reasonable time. This was wholly inappropriate given the evidence the landlord held and the impact on the resident. It is evident that some of the works outstanding were items contained within the landlord’s empty homes standard, including roof and gutters, and flooring in the kitchen and bathroom.

97. The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation for the period after March 2021 was inconsistent with its offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience for the period up until March 2021. While the landlord’s compensation policy states that where compensation is offered, the matter which forms the substance of the complaint must be concluded and not ongoing, it further failed to offer any compensation for the adverse effect caused by its failings when repairs were complete in March 2022.

98. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was further delayed by its consideration that they formed a “legal claim”. The Housing Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims and service complaints’ states that even when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the Protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from either the complaints procedure, or the repair issue. The Protocol itself promotes “speedy and appropriate completion of remedial works”.  The landlord did not inform the resident how it was handling her dissatisfaction, which should have been through either the complaints procedure, the Protocol or both.

99. After receiving a letter from CAB in January 2021, aside from one inspection carried out five weeks later, there is little evidence that the landlord sought to resolve repairs through the Protocol, or otherwise.  The landlord noted in March 2021 that the resident was not progressing legal proceedings yet failed to raise orders for repair of the back door in June, July and August 2021, being of the view that this formed “legal works”. When the resident called about works to the garden in August 2021, she was advised to speak with her solicitor.

100.         The landlord’s apparent disengagement from any resolution process, and using “legal proceedings” as a reason to not progress certain repairs, was a serious failing and served to delay repairs and exacerbate the dispute, rather than resolve the matters raised. The landlord did not mention the “legal claim” in its complaint response. It failed to acknowledge any failings in this matter, or the impact that its handling of certain repairs in this way had on the resident. An order has been made to the landlord to reduce the likelihood of such failings happening again.

101.         There is no evidence in this case to confirm that the resident’s decision not to pursue legal proceedings was a direct result of the landlord’s disengagement with her on key matters following the letter from CAB. However, the landlord’s refusal to engage with the resident on certain repair issues, which it did not progress elsewhere, is of significant concern as this could if repeated dissuade residents from utilising appropriate routes for resolution. A relevant order has been made to the landlord on this matter.

102.         The landlord carried out seven property inspections between December 2020 and January 2022. The landlord noted in internal correspondence in March 2021 that  “an additional schedule has been raised…some of the works have been missed or not completed on two separate voids dating back to September 2020”. The resident also noted that contractors arrived to “complete jobs that had already been completed”.

103.         While it was appropriate that the landlord attended the property to clarify which repairs were needed, the repeat appointments, failure to identify repairs, and incomplete, missed and delayed repairs evidence failings in the oversight and management of repairs at the property, including competency of the inspections. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the inspection procedure was not to an acceptable standard and that work was ongoing with a new repairs contractor on the standard of repairs. However, it did not acknowledge why these failings had happened, or explain how its procedures would be improved. The landlord did not therefore demonstrate that it had sufficiently learnt from the outcome of this complaint, and sufficiently reassure the resident that similar failings would not happen again.

104.         Despite informing the resident that it wanted to “improve its service standards with its new contractor”, the landlord continued to miss repair deadlines. While it said in its complaint response of September 2021, that all works would be completed by 19 October 2021, in January 2022, vinyl flooring was yet to be correctly fitted, and repair of a flat roof, repair of a light switch and removal of rubble in the front garden remained outstanding. 

105.         The landlord’s post works inspection carried out in January 2022, four months after the complaint response and three months after works were due to be complete, also identified areas of “poor workmanship”, and further extended the completion of the repair works, noting that all works would be completed by March 2022. The landlord did not give any reason to the resident for the further delay in resolving her repairs. It is clear that, despite changing contractors, there continued to be issues with the oversight and quality of works. While the landlord’s complaint policy requires “appropriate action (to be) taken to reduce the chance of similar problems occurring in the future”, it did not do this and these further failings compounded its earlier failings. 

106.         Overall, there were many and serious failings in the landlord’s handling of and communication about the repairs to the property. The cumulative failings constitute severe maladministration, having caused significant distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, over a protracted period. As such, an order for an appropriate level of compensation to be paid to the resident for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble has been made. 

107.         In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, this Service has also considered the landlord’s failure to complete repairs at the property in line with relevant standards and obligations, while the resident remained responsible for paying rent. This has been reflected in an order for compensation which is based on 20% of the level of rent paid between March 2021 and March 2022 when works were complete. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets a rent level of £83.87 per week. A significant amount of repairs remained outstanding from March 2021 until March 2022, including:

  1. No adequate flooring in the bathroom – outstanding for 44 weeks
  2. Mould in the kitchen – outstanding for 17 weeks
  3. The leak above the kitchen – outstanding for 48 weeks
  4. Rubble in the garden – outstanding for 43 weeks.

108.         The resident has since reported the reoccurrence of mould in the kitchen in January 2023. It is not known whether the cause of the mould is an unresolved repair issue from the period this investigation has considered. However, a recommendation has been made to the landlord to investigate this further.

Complaint handling

109.  The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will “learn lessons from the complaint” and “endeavours to resolve (complaints) as quickly as possible”. It also states that it will “not normally investigate complaints or matters that are the subject of legal proceedings”. The landlord’s policy does not state when it considers legal proceedings to have begun.

110.         The evidence shows that the resident notified the landlord in March 2021 that she had not commenced legal proceedings, but had sought advice from CAB. This was confirmed by this Service in April 2021, when the landlord was advised that the letter from CAB was not evidence of legal proceedings. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction indicated a lack of understanding of the Protocol by complaint handling staff at this time, as the Protocol promotes alternative dispute resolution. 

111.   The landlord failed to progress the complaint appropriately or clearly set out how it would be addressing the resident’s dissatisfaction, instead disengaging with the internal complaints process and advising the resident to address matters through her legal representative. The landlord did not attempt to utilise its complaints procedure for a significant time, and did not demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord’s handling of the complaint meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute, but compounded the failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. 

112.   The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure. The landlord’s decision not to use its internal complaints process (while also not apparently engaging in an alternative process) meant that the resident was denied fair and timely resolution of her complaint. This caused considerable time, stress and inconvenience and further undermined the landlord-resident relationship.

113.  The landlord subsequently issued its final and only complaint response on 6 September 2021, eight months after the original complaint was submitted. This was a considerable departure from the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaint policy. Despite acknowledging that the delays were unacceptable, the landlord failed to recognise the extent of what had gone wrong, or consider the time and trouble taken by the resident in having to consistently raise her concerns over a prolonged period, causing distress and inconvenience.

114.  Within the landlord’s complaint response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address why it did not follow its complaint procedure, or why the complaint response was not issued until September 2021. As it did not address these issues, it missed the opportunity to put things right, and apply any lessons learned to avoid a reoccurrence of the same failings. While the landlord recognised some failings relating to the property condition when let and its complaint handling, it did not recognise the extent of what had gone wrong, and failed to offer appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident.

115.   When the landlord responded to the complaint, it advised that all outstanding repair works would be completed by October 2021. Despite its assurances, the landlord missed further deadlines, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the formal complaints process had come to an end, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to further consider its handling of the repairs, the additional inconvenience caused to the resident and whether associated compensation was warranted. That the landlord did not do this was a failing.

116.         Overall, there were many failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute, and compounding the failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues. The landlord’s failings in its complaint handling constitute severe maladministration, and relevant orders have been made in this matter.

Record keeping

117.  Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, assisting the landlord to fulfil its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that outstanding repairs can be monitored and managed accordingly, and are crucial to effective complaint investigation.

118.         The landlord’s call logs indicate poor record keeping in this case. The logs detail:

  • unable to locate notes on ‘first touch’ or ‘QL’.
  • jobs raised without dates.
  • works orders not transferred to new contractors.
  • repair jobs raised and cancelled without reason resulting in jobs being re-appointed and/or repeatedly chased.
  • diaries showing as booked so appointments unable to be made.

119.         In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the repairs, impacting both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and an order relevant to this has been made.

Determination (decision)

120.         In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord, in respect of:

  1. The property condition when let.
  2. The landlord’s handling of, and communication about the repairs at the property.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

121.         In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of:

  1. The landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

122.         The landlord failed to establish why the property was let in an unsatisfactory condition. The landlord failed to meet its empty homes standard which detrimentally impacted the resident and her family for a protracted period. There is little evidence that the landlord gave this standard or other obligations appropriate regard when letting the property in December 2020 and in managing associated repairs between this time and March 2021.

123.         There were significant failings in the landlord’s response to repairs once the resident occupied the property from March 2021. This included a lack of coordination and oversight, extensive delays, competency in inspections, and quality of works carried out. This caused serious adverse effect on the household. The landlord’s response to the repairs was hindered by its response to the resident’s letter relevant to the Protocol.

124.         Overall, there were serious failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. The landlord took six months to provide a complaint response, denying the resident’s right to have her concerns heard, and failing to issue a response within the timeframe set out in its complaint procedure.

125.         While the landlord recognised failings on its part, the landlord did little to “put things right” for the resident, the least of which should have been to satisfy itself that as part of its complaint investigation, all repairs were satisfactorily resolved and or completed. The landlord failed to sufficiently consider the impact its actions had on the household. There is little evidence that the landlord took steps to “learn from outcomes”, and there were further failings post-complaint response in the landlord’s completion and monitoring of repairs, and in its communication with the resident.

126.         The landlord’s poor record keeping caused further delays in an already protracted repairs process for the resident. Record keeping is integral to effective complaint handling and service provision. This caused a cumulative impact on the resident who suffered additional time, delay, and distress and inconvenience as a result. 

Orders

127.         Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

  1. Arrange for the landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise to the resident on behalf of the landlord and in person (or in writing, if preferred by the resident), in line with this Service’s guidance which states that:
    1. An apology should be made by the landlord as a body, rather than an identified member of staff.
    2. An apology should acknowledge the maladministration; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.

128.         Pay the resident a total of £5,072.24 comprised of:

a.     £3000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report associated with letting the property. This figure is inclusive of the £500 offered by the landlord in it’s only and final complaint response. If the £500 has already been paid to the resident, the amount should be deducted from the total payable (£2500). 

b.     £872.24 for the delay in completing repairs between March 2021 and March 2022, which represents 20% of the rent due for this period. 

c.      £1200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident from March 2021 to March 2022 for the failings in the handling and communication of repairs during this period.  

d.     £500 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failings identified in its complaints handling.

 

129.         Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

  1. Calculate the cost of plastering or “skimming” works completed by the resident in December 2020 – January 2021. This should include materials and labour costs, and should be calculated using the landlord’s own contractor or operative rates. The sum should be paid to the resident in addition to the compensation ordered above.
  2. Upon provision of any receipts which can be supplied by the resident, reimburse the resident for any works completed at the property during the period December 2020 – March 2022 for which the landlord was responsible, which were highlighted in any of its inspection reports or works orders during this period, and which were not completed by the landlord. Any sums should be paid to the resident in addition to the compensation ordered above.

130.         Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

  1. Consider the failings set out in this report which relate to the handling of the complaint, and review how it can reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again. This review should include, as a minimum, consideration of:

i.        The Pre-action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (England).

ii.      The Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims and service complaints’.

iii.     How complaints may be addressed at the earliest opportunity, in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure and Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. 

iv.    The landlord’s approach to complaints when action is also taken in line with the Protocol.

v.      Whether improved processes, guidance or staff training in relation to the above will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.

vi.    Whether action has been taken since this complaint which reduces the likelihood of similar failings happening again.

vii.  The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks of this decision.

  1. Consider the fallings set out in this report which relate to the letting of the property, management of repairs and record keeping, and review how it can reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again. This review should include, as a minimum, consideration of:

i. Its void process and procedure and application of this procedure by staff.

ii. Appropriate maintenance and retrieval of repair records.

  1. Its oversight of works completed by contractors.
  2. Whether improved processes, guidance or staff training in relation to the above will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
  3. Whether action has been taken since this complaint which reduces the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
  4. The outcome of this review should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within eight weeks of this decision.

Recommendation

131.         Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should arrange for an inspection of the reported mould in the kitchen by a suitably qualified surveyor. The outcome of this inspection should be provided to the resident and this Service in writing, and should include timeframes for completion of any works identified.

132.         The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation.