Milton Keynes Council (201802315)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201802315

Milton Keynes Council

21 July 2021

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. faults with the resident’s boiler and the length of time that passed without a new heating system;
2. major works required at the resident’s property; and
3. the resident’s personal belongings during the resident’s decant.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or aspects of a complaint, will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, and in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), this Service has determined that point (a) of the complaint definition is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This is as under paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The Ombudsman notes that on 22 May 2018, the resident contacted this service to report her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her boiler/heating system. This was subsequently raised with the landlord who was encouraged to offer a complaint response. Following this, on 18 June 2018, the resident confirmed that the landlord’s complaint department had been in touch and would be investigating her concerns. The resident advised this service that she would be in touch if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome, however records suggest that no further contact was made until March 2020.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, or indeed if the landlord failed to provide one, it would have been reasonable for her to have raised this matter with the Ombudsman Service within good time. As suggested in paragraph 39(d) of the scheme, this service would reasonably expect a resident to escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman Service within 12 months of exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure.
As the resident did not do this however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable time has elapsed in which this Service could fairly assess and comment on the matter. As a result, the Ombudsman will not be investigating the landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler and the time spent without a new heating system. This investigation will only consider:
1. The landlord’s handling of major works required at the resident’s property;
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings during the resident’s decant; and
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Legal and Policy framework

Tenancy Agreement

The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the tenancy agreement. This outlines both the landlord’s and resident’s obligations during the tenancy and explains:
1. Residents must not carry out any alterations or improvements to their homes, including its fixtures, fittings, and the exterior of the property, without obtaining written consent. If an improvement or alteration is made without the landlord’s written consent, the resident may be told to restore the property to its original state.
2. Residents must take good care of their homes, its fixture and fittings and keep it in a good state of repair. It must be kept clean, sanitary and in a habitable condition.

Decant Policy

The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its decant policy. This details how the landlord intends to work with residents where they are required to leave their homes to accommodate extensive repairs. The policy explains:
1. The Neighbourhood Officer/Team should understand the resident’s specific needs and concerns and ensure that these are addressed. The tenant should be kept fully informed throughout the decant process.
2. Once a suitable offer of alternative accommodation is made, and the move date is confirmed, the Asset Management team will arrange for works to be programmed. Works will start as soon as possible following the vacation of the property.
3. Decants, which are generally not of the residents choosing, will be very stressful. Every effort should be made to minimise the time taken to carry out the works, minimise the disruption to the tenant and their family, ensure the wellbeing of the household during the decant period, and ensure that the home and belongings are treated with respect.
4. A permanent decant will be considered if the works are expected to take more than 12 weeks to complete.

Complaints policy

Finally, this service has reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy. This details the landlord’s approach to handling complaints and advises of a two-stage complaints process. It explains:
1. The complaint will be acknowledged within five working days.
2. At both stages one and two, the complaint will be responded to within 20 working days of receipt.
3. The policy advises that if, after a stage one decision has been given and the resident has been advised of their right to escalate the matter to stage two, it is deemed that the response will stay the same, the matter may be concluded at stage one.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant, in respect of the property, since July 1996.
The resident’s property is a three-storey house comprising of four bedrooms.
The landlord is aware that the resident suffers with several conditions, including Arthritis, Polymyalgia, and chronic depression. The resident requires crutches for short distances and a mobility scooter for longer distances.
On 21 October 2017 the landlord noted that alterations had been carried out by the resident that did not meet the fire standards. It also recorded that during this visit, it had seen signs of a rat infestation. Following this, a series of inspections were undertaken of the resident’s property in which it was suggested that a decant may be necessary to allow for major works.
After a survey on 27 February 2018, the landlord’s surveyor reported:
1. The property was in poor condition due to the alterations and level of maintenance.
2. There were fire related concerns due to the level of clutter.
3. There was a clear rodent issue.
4. Alterations that had been carried out were incorrectly done and there were potential structural issues.
5. A true assessment of the property could not be undertaken in its current condition. The property needed to be emptied and the resident decanted on health and safety grounds.
6. The property was considered to be uninhabitable.
The works specification produced by the landlord explained that the whole property was to be deconstructed, including the garage and garden area, and restored to the original layout. The gas, plumbing, and electrics would also be reconfigured.
Subsequently, on 16 March 2018 the landlord advised the resident of the need to move her. It was agreed that the resident would be decanted to a suitable property until such time that the works were completed. An options assessment was carried out on 17 April 2018 and a suitable property identified on 27 April 2018. The resident was issued with a temporary agreement for the decant property, with a tenancy commencement date of 28 May 2018. The resident was required to sign that “there…[was]…no possibility of a permanent move to this property”.
The landlord’s internal emails on 25 October 2018 suggest that the resident was given until 14 November 2018 to pack her belongings / empty the property. As the resident was unable to meet this deadline, the landlord advised that it would pack and arrange storage for the resident’s items. The Ombudsman notes that the locks to the property were changed on this day.
The resident was required to sign a disclaimer which stated:

“I… [the resident] …understand that in the unlikely event of any items being damaged whilst moving them from… [the resident’s property] into storage… [the landlord] …will not be held liable”.

For the avoidance of confusion, the resident’s property has been referred to as property A and the decant property referred to as property B.

Summary of events

In early 2019 it does not appear that much progress was made in restoring property A. Much of the resident’s belongings were however moved into storage units on 19, 20, and 21 March 2019.
An internal email suggests that the landlord’s contractor visited property A on 22 March 2019. The contractor explained to the landlord that due to the state of the property, a refurbishment in the regions of £50,000 – £70,000 would be needed. As the first course of action, however, pest control was required to urgently bate the property as rats had been seen, the loft still needed to be cleaned of the resident’s effects, the resident’s alterations needed to be moved to establish the extent of the issue, and the garden needed to be cleared.
The Ombudsman notes that between March and April 2019 there was back and forth communication with the resident and landlord in which, the resident was informed that she would need to remove the pond in the garden of property A.
On 12 April 2019, in a complaint to the landlord, the resident questioned:
1. Why the pond and plants in the garden need to be removed in order for the landlord’s survey to be undertaken.
2. Why she had received an eviction notice for arears at property A and the suggestion that she had wilfully damaged the property.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had been given little time to remove her belongings from property A, yet the property had been untouched for a significant period. She stated that the rats had caused extensive damage since leaving the property vacant, as had the damp, caused by a lack of heating. She had not received an update on the works that were required, as she had been told she would, and was unable to use her wheelchair in property B. There was also no space for a carer to live with her at property B.
The resident added on the following day that it would not be possible to remove the established pond and plants, and to put them back in when she returned to the property.
On 30 April 2019 the landlord responded to the resident with a complaint response. It acknowledged that issues regarding the resident’s tenancy should have been addressed before the resident’s decant, rather than being left for 12 months or so. It stated, however, in respect of the condition of the garden, it had reviewed the original photos of the property and its decision not to cover the cost of the removal of the pond was appropriate. The landlord explained that the resident had caused significant damage to the property, and it intended to ask the County Court to award possession of property A on the grounds of wilful damage and rent arrears. The landlord explained that if it was successful, the resident would also be made to move out of the temporary property, making her homeless.
Later correspondence suggests that this complaint was closed by the landlord.
On 22 August 2019 the landlord visited property A along with its cleaning contractor. A further visit was made on 16 October 2019 and the loft items were moved into a storage garage. The Ombudsman has not seen that there was much communication with the resident during this time.
It appears that the works specification to enable tender was submitted in November 2019.
On 17 January 2020 the landlord and the resident’s social worker visited the resident at property B. It was pointed out that property B was also cluttered. The resident raised that she did not believe that either property was suitable for her needs, and it was subsequently suggested that an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment be carried out. The resident was informed by the landlord that if she did not believe that property A was still suitable, the landlord would accept a Notice to Quit (NTQ). The resident was displeased by this suggestion, however. The resident was also advised by the landlord that she would be given access to the storage facility and would have two months to remove her belongings.
On 29 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated:
1. During a visit from the OT and social worker, it had been made clear to her that the landlord did not want her to move back to property A. It was explained that the landlord would not install a stairlift which she now required. She noted still that an assessment would be undertaken of property A to establish whether it was still suitable for her.
2. As the decant property was temporary, and if she was unable to return to property A, the landlord would need to find her a property suitable for her needs. She advised that this needed to be a three–bedroom property giving her a room for a carer or a two-bed property nearer to her son and ex-husband.
3. Clearance of the storage facility was not going well as she was reliant on other people to assist her. Only her daughter was available to help and as she had children, assistance could only be offered when a babysitter could be arranged. Taking the taxi to and from the unit was also costly. If she had been provided with access earlier, she could have done this slowly and over the course of the year. The storage unit was also too far away.
In response, on 31 January 2020 the landlord explained:
1. In relation to property A, it had not suggested that the resident could not move back. It had only highlighted that if the resident was struggling in the bungalow (property B) due to an issue with her leg/hip, it would be difficult in a three-storey house.
2. The OT would assess property A in the next week and the report would be scrutinised by a panel.
3. The resident would need to provide a letter from her doctor confirming her requirement for a live-in carer to be considered for a three-bedroom home on this basis. It would not be able to consider transfer to specific locations due to availability of stock. Mutual exchange could be considered, however.
4. It was unsure why the resident was unable to access her belongings beforehand.
On 3 February 2020 the resident responded. She explained that several of her belongings were not in the units and others had been badly damaged. She did not believe that this would have happened if the landlord had allowed more time for her to finish packing. The resident also requested to know where she would be living before she took any action in respect of her belongings.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord visited the resident. In a follow-up email, it confirmed:
1. The resident would be contacted to arrange an OT assessment of property A.
2. The resident would need to arrange to clear her belongings that it was paying to store by 3 March 2020. It noted that this may be a difficult task for the resident and advised that it may be able to assist in taking items away for disposal.
3. Failure to clear items before the deadline would result in them being disposed of.
Following an email from the resident, the landlord adjusted the deadline to 13 March 2020. The resident was also advised that she could receive financial assistance, should she need it, from the Local Welfare Provisions Team.
Internal emails show that on 4 March 2020 the OT explained to the landlord that property A was unsuitable due to the fact that the landlord could not fit a stair lift. The resident was also unable to enter the property with her wheelchair due to the position of the door. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord requested the OT’s report and that an assessment be completed on the resident too.
On 17 March 2020 the resident was handed a Miscellaneous Provision Notice as the storage facility still had not been cleared. The resident was given until 16 April 2020 to remove her items.
On 25 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that she could not go to the storage unit as she would be isolating for a minimum of 12 weeks as a result of COVID-19. She added that the restrictions also prevented her from acquiring support. She requested assurance that the units would not be emptied until things returned to normal. She again enquired about what her living arrangements would be as she advised she could not stay at property B. She stated she needed an indoor wheelchair as walking to the bathroom had become extremely difficult.
On the same day, the landlord acknowledged that the resident intended to isolate. It added:
1. A decision had not yet been made as to whether it was able to keep the resident’s items in storage beyond the notice period. An update would be provided.
2. Until an OT report was received, a decision could not be made as to whether she needed to be assessed for a move. If a letter could be provided by the resident’s doctor for the requirement of a wheelchair inside and out, this would be added to the files.
3. The resident was asked to confirm that she was happy to end her tenancy at property A, with knowledge that she now required a wheelchair inside.
On 27 March 2020 the resident advised that she had given her doctor permission to share information with the OT, however the OT had not made contact. The resident also reiterated that while she would be unable to sort her belongings whilst isolating, she would need to know where she would be moving in order to determine what items needed to be kept. She added that she was not happy to end her tenancy at property A.
On 7 April 2020 the landlord confirmed for the resident that it would not be taking any action to remove her items from storage until the crisis was over. It stated it would be in touch when things returned to normal.
On 6 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained that it had left a number of messages for the resident as due to financial restraints, it now needed to arrange for the items to be removed from storage. The landlord was still unable to obtain a full report from the OT and therefore would reschedule an assessment of property B.
On the same day, the resident asserted:
1. Due to the way that her belongings had been packed and the size of the bags, she was unable to lift them. Her daughter had also sought some assistance however only two people were allowed at a time. She stated that she was initially told that her items would remain in storage until such time that the repairs were completed and returned.
2. It was not her fault that the landlord had not completed the necessary repairs in good time.
3. She was fed up with living in temporary accommodation, noting that two years had passed, and questioning why the repair was taking so long. She stated that after discussing matters with her sons, she wished to move back to property A and to have her belongings returned there as previously agreed. She stated that she was happy to live on the ground floor and would arrange to have a shower cubicle fitted. She had also found someone who would support her with her caring needs. She requested to know how long it would be before she could move back.
Correspondence between the landlord and the OT’s Deputy Manager (DM) was exchanged on 29 June 2020. The OT was unable to locate the previous report, however, was able to share notes following a visit to property A in February 2020. This stated:
1. The front door would not be wheelchair accessible, should the resident be issued with a wheelchair sometime in the future.
2. Casing at the top of the first flight of stairs would obstruct a stair lift being fitted. A curved stair lift could be fitted to the integral side of the stairs, however this would be both costly and take up space.
3. If the resident was to remain on the ground floor, as she had suggested, she would not be able to access the small downstairs toilet facility, as the door was narrow and space limited.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it intended to place her belongings in garages. It recommended that the resident or a representative be present at the time so that any unwanted items could be disposed of. The garage would provide easier access to her items and would enable her to do so at any time. Arrangements would be made with a removal company. The landlord also advised that the DM would be visiting the resident on 10 July 2020 to carry out a further assessment.
Notes suggest that the DM assessed property B on 13 July 2020. An attempt was made to assess property A on 14 July 2020 however the DM was unable to gain access due to ongoing works.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident noting that some of the items had been cleared in the smaller unit. The landlord requested that the rest of the items could be sorted through by 22 July 2020 and advised that the items the resident wished to keep could be transported to the garages. It would dispose of any unwanted belongings free of charge. It was explained that in early August, it would make plans to move items from the bigger units. The landlord asked the resident to confirm that she was happy with this.
The resident explained that despite meeting with the DM, she needed to shield until 1 August 2020. She also wished to know where the garages would be located before she would agree, as the distance of the storage units had previously been an issue.
This service notes that on 22 July 2020, the DM contacted the landlord advising that property B was suitable for the resident’s long-term functional / physical needs. The DM could not provide specific comments on property A as it had not seen or assessed it, however it was advised that a house with three floors was not suited for a someone with mobility issues.
On 27 July 2020 the resident submitted a complaint. She stated:
1. 26 months prior, she had been told that once property A was emptied and the survey completed, a copy of the repairs needed would be shared. This had not been done.
2. Property A became infested with rats before she was decanted. She was told that this would be dealt with once her belongings were put into storage and she had been moved to temporary accommodation. She stated that this obviously did not take place as works were not started for nearly two years and subsequently, untold damage was done to the property by rats and damp.
3. Permission was given over 25 years ago to put in a bathroom suite, new kitchen, porch, and conservatory. Fitted wardrobes, units and bookshelves were also installed. She requested that the landlord stop damaging her possessions and move her back.
4. She was assured that the works would be done and then she would be able to move back, however she was now being asked to give up her tenancy at property A. She stated she would not do this until her complaints were resolved. She expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which her belongings were packed and with the new storage location.
In a further complaint on 6 August 2020 the resident added:
1. There were still several items at property A that belonged to her.
2. Because of the way that her possessions had been stacked up in bags, she was unable to access her belongings. She was also never told that she would need to sort through her stuff.
3. The garages that her belongings were being moved to were too far away and would cost a fortune to travel to.
4. She questioned what else was being done to property A. She expressed that her complaint was against all persons that had had dealings with her over the previous eight years.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord explained that an update would be provided on the refurbishment specifications for property A. It assured the resident that only works deemed necessary by the structural engineers and surveyors would have been undertaken. The landlord stated that if parts of the property were removed, this would have been down to health and safety concerns. The resident was asked to confirm what items she believed were missing.
The Ombudsman cannot see that a list of missing items was provided. In response, on the same day however, the resident explained that amongst other things, the items remaining at property A that belonged to her were:
1. The conservatory;
2. All kitchen units including a built-in oven;
3. A dishwasher;
4. An American style fridge freezer;
5. Dressing tables, fitted wardrobes, draws, and several built-in storage units.
In respect of her complaint, the resident expressed that she had not heard anything back from the landlord.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord advised the resident that four garages had been utilised for the storage of her belongings.
Dissatisfied with this, the resident wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2020:
1. She wished to know why the garages were in four different places.
2. She reiterated that several of her items had broken and others were missing.
3. Although the landlord had said it would take one day to move her belongings, this went on for two and her daughter had to pay almost £80 in taxi fares over the period.
4. Her home was always a mess as there was no cupboard storage at property B.
On 18 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained:
1. The garages offered for storage were located in an area which had availability and was closer to property B. It acknowledged that it would have been good to have them in a row, however this was not possible.
2. The removal firm had worked hard to relocate the resident’s items. It was thought that this could be done in one day however it was not possible. It apologised for any inconvenience.
3. It would look into the missing items once the resident had confirmed them.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord provided a stage two response. It stated:
1. It acknowledged that the repairs at property A had gone beyond its normal expectations. It apologised for this.
2. It had attached the repairs specifications for her attention. It explained that while the resident may not be happy with the decisions it had made, only essential works had been undertaken.
3. It was the opinion of the landlord and its contractors that the resident had filled property A with an abundance of items which had contributed significantly to its deterioration over the years. This impeded access for essential repairs while also masking others and once the items were removed, the extent of the damage became evident.
4. It was unable to comment on the rat infestation in property A and whom was at fault. It stated that where it was identified, however, it would always take steps to eradicate the problem.
5. In respect of storage of the resident’s possessions, it was unable to meet the high cost of the storage units. It stated that it was inappropriate to use local authority funds in this way. It was therefore agreed to move the resident’s possessions to four garages which were closer to her home, and which provided easier access. The resident would not be charged for this, and these would be provided with extra security.
6. It had no record of permission given or requested for the resident to install her kitchen, porch, conservatory, or bathroom in property A. It noted, however, that over time, the resident’s improvements would have naturally deteriorated also. It stated, therefore, that the resident could put in a claim for the items she believed it unnecessarily removed.
7. In most cases where major works were required, its residents were generally moved back to their original properties. This was not always the case, however.
8. In light of the resident’s reported concerns, it could make arrangements to ensure that the kitchen and bathroom at property B were suitable for both now and her future needs.
9. A more recent OT inspection identified that a bungalow would be much more suited to the resident’s needs. The landlord therefore stated that it believed that property B was the best home for her. It advised that it would be remiss for it not to consider the type of property which would be best for her now and in the future.

The landlord advised that it would be in touch in the coming weeks to arrange a meeting with the resident.

The landlord advised the resident on 28 August 2020 that it was likely that once a list of the damaged/missing items was compiled, some kind of reimbursement would be considered. The landlord recognised that this may not make up for the sentimental value, however.
The Ombudsman can see that in November 2020 the resident advised the landlord that following the passing of her ex-husband, she wished to move her second son into her property. It appears that the resident was therefore advised that she would be considered for a three-bedroom property. Several subsequent attempts were made to convince the resident to surrender her tenancy at property A in the meantime.
On 29 March 2021 the resident contacted this service advising that the renovations at property A had been completed. The Ombudsman understands that this was in February 2021. She explained that she was invited for a viewing, however was displeased with the work that had been done. The resident informed this service that:
1. The conservatory and porch had been demolished. The kitchen and bathroom had been ripped out and the property restored to its original condition.
2. She had heard nothing about the items that were now missing from the property.
3. She was unable to use the bathroom as it was on the top floor. She had requested permission to put stair rails but had heard nothing back.
4. It was suggested that everything left in the house was in a bad state. She disagreed with this.
5. She was given until June to gather her possessions from the garages, at which point, she would have to start paying for them. Due to her vulnerability, the distance, and COVID-19, this would not be possible.
6. She believed that the landlord should have undertaken the necessary adaptations while doing the repair work. It was clear to her that it had no intention of moving her back to property A, despite her written agreement that she would return.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of major works required at the resident’s property.

Under the conditions of the tenancy agreement, the resident is prohibited from making alterations to her property without the landlord’s consent. Where the resident does so, the landlord may request that the resident restore the property back to its original state, or may take it upon itself to do so.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s assertion that in her case, permission had been granted over 25 years prior, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this. What’s more, the landlord has explained that it holds no records of requests being made, or of permission being granted. With no proof, the landlord was within its right to take steps, where it considered it reasonable, to restore the property back to its original state.
In some cases, a landlord may offer retrospective permission for alterations made. This may be reasonable where the landlord finds no issue with the changes made to the property and this can also prevent the resident from being out of pocket. The Ombudsman notes, however, that in this case, the landlord identified structural issues, inadequate installations, and a level of deterioration which it determined posed a health and safety risk. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not propose this.
Rather, upon finding that property A was uninhabitable after a survey in February 2018, and on concluding that the true extent of the damage could not be identified without emptying the property, the landlord took the decision to decant the resident, and this was appropriate.
The tenancy agreement also requires that the resident take good care of the home, keeping it in a good state of repair, clean and habitable. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude however, that the resident had not met this condition based on its inspection (and pictures taken). The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes this position.
In considering the way in which the landlord handled the major works, and the resident’s subsequent decant to property B however, the Ombudsman has concluded that the resident was adversely impacted by the time taken to complete the repairs to property A. While the decant policy suggests that works will be started as soon as possible following the resident’s vacation of the property, and recognises that decants can be very stressful for resident’s, it does not appear that the landlord made “every effort…to minimise the time it [took] to carry out the works” and therefore the level of disruption.
The Ombudsman notes that despite the requirement for property A to be cleared before a full assessment / works could take place, the property was not emptied until October 2019. This should have been arranged by the landlord soon after it had advised the resident that the remaining belongings would be placed into storage and after it had changed the locks in November 2018. Instead, it appears that the landlord took insufficient action. While this service notes that some of the resident’s items were moved into storage on 19, 20, and 21 March 2019, it can be seen that on 22 March 2019 the landlord’s contractor advised the landlord that the resident’s effects still needed to be cleared from the loft and this was not actioned until seven months later.
In moving the resident into temporary accommodation, and with the landlord’s emphasis at the start of this tenancy that there was no possibility of a permanent move to property B, the resident would have been unable to settle and to establish a sense of home. It was therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to commence works at the earliest opportunity, in order to limit the disruption to the resident’s everyday life.
The landlord’s delay in doing so however, meant that the resident had already been living in temporary accommodation for almost a year and a half by this time, and with no progress made with regards to the works at property A.
The Ombudsman notes that it was not until November 2019 that works had gone out to tender and subsequently, property A remained incomplete until February 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it is appreciated that there was a significant amount of work to complete, the length of time that passed from the resident’s decant to the completion of the works was unacceptable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s service would have been impacted by the delays caused by COVID-19 but does not consider this to be sufficient in explaining the unreasonably excessive delay, particularly as the property was vacant.
What’s more, the Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was provided with any updates on the progress of property A or the reasons for the delay during this time. The Ombudsman notes that although the resident requested a copy of the repairs specification, this was not shared until August 2020, along with the landlord’s final response. In the absence of frequent updates, an estimated completion date, and a lack of awareness of the works being undertaken, the resident therefore would not have had any indication of when she could likely move back to property A. The Ombudsman has observed that the resident did ask the landlord when this would be but cannot see that this was answered, adding to the resident’s frustration and uncertainty.
It is recognised that during this time, the landlord did advise the resident that property B could be more appropriate for her worsening mobility issues. With consideration of the fact that property A was a three-storey property, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to arrange an assessment of both properties, particularly as the resident suggested both were unsuitable for her support needs, and to consider whether property B was a better option. This did not absolve the landlord of its responsibility to update the resident on property A, however.
In respect of property B still, it was also reasonable (following the OT/DM’s recommendation that property B would be more suited to the resident’s immediate and long-term needs) that the landlord sought to establish whether the resident would surrender her tenancy at property A. As a permanent tenant at property A however, the resident was within her right to decline this and to insist on moving back to her original property as had been agreed. While the OT was able to make comments based on the structure of property A (i.e. it being a three-storey property), no assessment of property A had been undertaken and therefore it could not be deemed unsuitable. What’s more, on 6 July 2020 the resident advised that she would make her own arrangements to support her needs.
This aside, it is the Ombudsman’s belief that given the extent of the works required, it would have been reasonable to assume that restoring the property to its original state was likely to take several months to complete. As such, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident for a permanent move from the offset. As per the landlord’s decant policy, if works are expected to take more than 12 weeks to complete, residents may be considered for a permanent decant. Had the landlord done this, the resident would not have been subject to almost three years of displacement and may not have had to keep her belongings in storage for the duration of the time.
The Ombudsman can see that within the landlord’s final response, it acknowledged that the repairs to property A had gone beyond its normal expectations. It subsequently offered the resident an apology for this, which was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this was not sufficient in recognising the extent of the service failure and in resolving this element of the resident’s complaint. It does not appear that the landlord took into consideration the impact that the delay had on the resident or its failure to uphold several aspects of its decant policy. In the Ombudsman’s view, an offer of compensation should have been made to account for this. It also would have been appropriate to have updated the resident on where she would likely be living.
For completeness, this report has also considered the comments made by the resident in March 2021. In respect of this, as an OT assessment had not taken place at property A, the landlord would not have undertaken any adjustments to accommodate the residents support needs. This was reasonable. It would be appropriate moving forward, however, should the resident decide to continue her residency at property A, for such considerations to be made. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether a stairlift would be reasonable to supply as this would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings during the resident’s decant.

The Ombudsman understands that as the resident was unable to pack her belongings and empty the property prior to the landlord’s deadline, the landlord advised that its contractors would do this for the resident and place her items into storage. This was reasonable as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident was given several months to organise her belongings. It was also reasonable that the landlord arranged, seemingly as a goodwill gesture, to cover the cost of the storage facility until such a time that the resident was able to collect her items.
The Ombudsman notes that on 17 January 2020, after holding the resident’s belongings in a storage facility for several months, the landlord advised the resident that she would be given two months to collect her items (until 13 March 2020). While the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord had provided access to the storge facility prior to this time, this deadline was reasonable. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was obligated to continue to manage this cost as the items should have initially been removed from the property by the resident. It was also reasonable that the landlord explained within its final response, that it was inappropriate to continue to spend local authority money in this way.
The Ombudsman appreciates that due to the resident’s mobility issues, it would have been difficult for her to access, sort through and dispose of any unwanted belongings. This service also appreciates that the resident considered the storage units to be too far for her to easily access her belongings and without cost.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord offered to support the resident by disposing of items free of charge, assisting with transportation and signposting ways in which the resident could seek financial support with this if it was required. This was appropriate.
Where the resident was unable to meet the landlord’s deadline for the removal of her items, and learning that the resident would be isolating for 12 weeks, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree not to take any action to clear the storage facility. It was equally fair that after this time, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that it could no longer afford to maintain the costs of the storage facility.
With little progress being made, it was fair that the landlord resorted to transferring the resident’s belongings into garages and at no cost to the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was displeased that these garages were not close enough to property B and that all four garages were not located next to each other. The Ombudsman notes however, that the landlord explained that this was not possible due to issues with availability.
Despite the resident’s suggestion, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that she was informed by the landlord that her effects would be stored for her and transferred back to property A upon completion of the works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was therefore reasonable that the landlord sought to encourage the resident to manage her items.
The Ombudsman recognises that as part of the resident’s complaint, it was also raised that several of her belongings were missing or badly damaged. She asserted that this would not have happened had she been given more time to pack. The Ombudsman cannot comment on whether there were indeed any missing or damaged items (as the Ombudsman is unable to compare the condition of resident’s belongings before and after the move, and has not seen a list of missing items). The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident did sign a disclaimer in October 2018 confirming that in the event that her items were damaged whilst moving them into storage, the landlord would not be held liable. Therefore, while this Service appreciates the resident’s dissatisfaction with the way in which her belongings were treated, the landlord would not be responsible for any damage. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord explained to the resident in August 2020 that reimbursement would be considered for her missing items once she had compiled a list.
In respect of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the deconstruction and demolition of items left at property A, the Ombudsman notes that the resident was also advised in the landlord’s final response that she could submit a claim if she believed that any of the items were unnecessarily removed. This was reasonable.
Finally, the resident suggested that as the property was left vacant, there was further pest activity. While there may have been further activity, in a similar respect to the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to establish the cause of this. The Ombudsman notes, however, that pest activity had been identified as early as October 2017 prior to the resident’s decant and at this time, this would have been the resident’s responsibility to manage. The pests remained an ongoing problem as identified in February 2018 by the landlord’s surveyor and was therefore considered necessary, as the first point of action, to bait the property in March 2019.
While it could be argued that following the residents decant in May 2018, and with knowledge of the pest issue, the landlord could have taken action straight away to resolve this, the Ombudsman notes that the resident was given this time to clear the property of her belongings. It is therefore not unreasonable that no action was taken during this time.

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

Where a complaint has been made, the landlord’s complaints policy suggests that the resident should be contacted within five working days to acknowledge the submission and a complaint response provided within 20 working days. While failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord did offer a complaint response within the suggested timeframe.
The Ombudsman is unclear, however, why the landlord offered the resident a stage two response, as opposed to addressing the matter at stage one, in reply to her complaint on 27 July 2020. Following the resident’s complaint in April 2019 and a subsequent (but separate) complaint about the heating system in the months that followed, the landlord confirmed that her cases had been closed. The landlord therefore should have treated the resident’s complaint in July 2020, more than a year later, as a new complaint and offered the resident a stage one response.
The landlord’s failure to offer this was both contrary to the suggested two stage process detailed within its complaints policy and not in keeping with the Ombudsman Service’s dispute resolution principles (Be Fair, Put Things Right, Learn From Outcomes). By only allowing one response to her complaint, the resident was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the landlord’s position or any of its points that she disagreed with / believed to be incorrect. A further stage would have allowed for a review of the circumstances of this case and a second opportunity to ensure that the complaint had been satisfactorily resolved. The absence of this has subsequently been considered a failure in service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of major works required at the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal belongings during the resident’s decant.
3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its decant policy and this had an adverse impact on the resident. The length of time taken to complete the repairs was unreasonable and this meant that the resident was left without a permanent home for an extensive period of time. During this period, the landlord failed to offer the resident updates on what was happening at property A, failed to offer a copy of the repairs specification and failed to advise the resident when she could expect to return to property A, despite her asking on several occasions. This failure in communication was also contrary to the landlord’s decant policy. In the Ombudsman’s view, while the landlord acknowledged that the length of time that had passed was longer than usual, it failed to utilise the opportunity, during its complaint response, to put things right.
2. The landlord acted fairly in storing and managing the resident’s belongings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord gave the resident a reasonable level of support and offered a fair explanation where it could not continue to sustain the costs it was incurring. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s reports that some of her items were damaged during the transportation and packing of her items, however as an agreement was signed, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord would be responsible for this. Moreover, in respect of the items/alterations at property A, it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that she could submit a claim form for any items she did not believe should have been removed. The Ombudsman notes that she was also advised that reimbursement would be considered for any items missing.
3. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy by failing to offer the resident a further opportunity to have her complaint reviewed. The landlord only offered a one-stage approach, and this was contrary to its two-stage process, to good practice, and to the guidance offered within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this resulted in a failure to offer the resident’s complaint fair consideration.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the significant delay in completing the renovation works, and the subsequent inconvenience and disturbance to the resident, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £700. This is in line with this service’s Remedies Guidance.
In recognition of the landlord’s service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £100.
The landlord should ensure that the above payments are made within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

Where a decant is required to make way for major works, the landlord should ensure that the resident is kept up to date throughout the duration of the works. There should be no ambiguity surrounding the works that are being undertaken and the residents should be advised of the likely timeframe for their return to the property. The landlord should always endeavour to act in accordance with its decant policy.