Oxford City Council (202316703)

Background

1. The resident moved from another social landlord’s property to the house in question via mutual exchange in August 2021. She advised us that she is neurodivergent. Available records show the landlord was aware that the resident considers herself disabled, but it has no specific conditions or vulnerabilities recorded. She reported several issues within a few days of moving in, including damp and mould. The resident was unhappy with this because she believed the property was not inspected thoroughly beforehand, that she was not supported with managing the damp and mould repairs, and was later dissatisfied with its handling of the works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The mutual exchange (MEX) process.
   2. Damp and mould repairs.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The MEX process.
   2. Damp and mould repairs.
4. We have also found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

      We have made orders for the landlord to put things right where it has not already.

Summary of reasons

The MEX process

5. The landlord followed its MEX policy in completing a visual inspection. It though failed to complete some routine repairs it identified before the resident moved in or to notify her about them.

Damp and mould

6. The landlord undertook appropriate investigations and repairs to address the damp and mould problem. However, it did not adequately keep the resident updated, provide support, and there were some avoidable delays. These failings caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord took account of some but not all its failings and has not then done enough to put things right.

Complaint handling

7. Both complaint responses were sent within the landlord’s published timescales. However, the investigations were not thorough and this meant it missed opportunities to put right some of its mistakes.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

8. This aspect hinges on the difference between a landlord’s responsibilities for when a property is empty (void) and a MEX. When a property is void, landlords must carry out repairs, maintenance, and cleaning to make it suitable for a new tenant for the beginning of their tenancy. In contrast, a MEX involves the transference of an existing tenancy from the outgoing resident to the incoming one and typically happens when the property is still occupied. As such, there is no obligation on the landlord to ensure that the void standard is met where a MEX is concerned.
9. The landlord’s MEX policy at the time required it to complete a visual inspection of the property, primarily to identify any potential health and safety concerns. This is in line with best practice in social housing for such moves. It completed an inspection on 3 June 2021, as it was required to. This noted that all rooms were in good condition. It did not identify any health and safety concerns but found that the bath panel needed replacing and the toilet cistern reaffixing. We recognise the resident later found other issues, including damp and mould on a wall behind a wardrobe. However, it is not likely this would have been apparent at the visual inspection with the outgoing tenant’s furniture still in place. As such, the landlord’s decision that it followed its MEX policy in the complaints response was appropriate.
10. The MEX policy states that where general repairs are outstanding, they should be raised accordingly. This happened in this case because jobs were raised for the 2 repairs on the day of the inspection. According to the repairs process, the landlord aimed to complete routine repairs such as these within 28 working days. It did not meet this timescale for either repair, for reasons that are unclear. While not specified in the MEX policy, it would be reasonable for a landlord to advise an incoming resident about any repairs that were due to be completed. The policy also encouraged its staff to consider all parties and any potential problems. It was, therefore, a failing in our view that the repairs were either not completed or the resident informed about them being outstanding. This caused the resident time and trouble in having to raise these, which the landlord has not acknowledged or taken steps to put right itself.
11. The landlord recognised in its initial complaint response that its MEX process could be improved to involve better engagement with the incoming tenant, which was positive. However, considering the above, we think there is more it should have done to put this right so we have made a finding of service failure and ordered it to take some remedial actions.

What we did not look at

12. The resident advised us about events that occurred after the complaints process ended in late September 2023. She said these led to the need for further repairs and her not being able to return to the property for a long time. It is understandable that the resident is unhappy that there were more problems. There is no evidence, however, that she has complained to the landlord about them.
13. In the interest of fairness, our investigation focuses on the issues raised during the formal complaint procedure. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

Damp and mould repairs

14. As explained above, we may not investigate matters that a landlord has not first had the opportunity to. The landlord had the opportunity to investigate and address the resident’s complaint about the time the damp repairs had taken but did not. This is a failing and a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident. Given the landlord’s complaint handling failure, which we address in more detail later in the report, we have investigated this aspect.
15. When the resident was moved to temporary accommodation in late November 2022, over a year had passed since her initial report of the problem. During that time, we have seen the landlord appropriately inspected the property, investigated for possible leaking pipes or drains, and assessed the roof. It also completed mould treatments, works to the exterior brickwork to prevent water ingress, renewed the lead flashing around the chimney, and installed a system to improve ventilation. According to a damp and mould specialists report from early October 2022, the problem had greatly improved by that time but they recommended works to divert rainwater from the resident’s garden. The landlord decided that for this work, and the unrelated renewal of the stairs, the resident needed to be rehoused in temporary accommodation.
16. The landlord did not have a policy or approach on how it would deal with damp and mould reports. Our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould though recognised that the causes can be complex and can require multiple investigations to identify and resolve. Sometimes there are multiple causes, which the landlord found was the case in the resident’s property. It is therefore not a failing that it had not fully resolved the damp and mould problem in the resident’s home a year after she had reported it. Records show the landlord was proactive in its attempts to identify and resolve the damp and mould during that period, although we understand it must have been a distressing time for her.
17. In complex cases where the cause is unknown or multi-faceted, it would be reasonable for a landlord to look for interim solutions to improve the conditions for resident’s living in properties effected by damp and mould. We have seen evidence it did by applying mould treatments, which may have helped alleviate the situation. It would also be reasonable for landlords to keep residents informed about what was happening and when. This did not always happen in the resident’s case as there were several times she called for updates, which was unreasonable.
18. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its communications failings and that it should have provided additional support to her. This was particularly important given the resident made it aware that she had a disability, which it should have recorded on its system and explored if there were adjustments it could offer. The landlord also awarded compensation of £150, which it told us was made using our guidance on remedies. We find this was proportionate to the impact on the resident of its communication failings up to this point (late October 2022).
19. We were unable to establish how long the landlord had planned the repairs to take when the resident was in temporary accommodation from the available records. The landlord could not provide evidence of this or its communication with the resident about timescales. It has also not been possible to determine when the works started. All we can say is that there are gaps in those provided between a key lock being installed in February 2023, to allow full access to operatives and mid-June 2023 when the logs record several jobs began, but what these are is not noted.
20. Landlords are expected to keep detailed repair records because they have a legal duty to complete repairs within a reasonable time. As such, it is a failing that the landlord cannot show it met its obligations to complete repairs within a reasonable time. However, it said it believed the extent of the repairs would usually take around 6 months from the date it got full access. The resident advised us that she was told it would be 6-8 weeks. Due to lack of records, we are unable to establish what the intended timescale was and how it was communicated to the resident, which is itself a failing.
21. Records show that a post inspection, completed by the contractor’s surveyor on 24 July 2023, deemed the work to be acceptable and the property “fully habitable.” There was then a delay of over a month in the landlord completing its own inspection. While true, we have also seen that it was liaising with the resident about replacing floor coverings, which were needed for her to be able to return to the property. The available records show that a provisional moving date was set with the resident for 20 October 2023. As explained earlier, this did not go ahead because further issues arose. We recognise it must have been distressing for her, but nothing in the evidence indicates this could or should have been foreseen as the landlord had twice inspected the works beforehand.
22. Considering the above, we have found service failure because the landlord has not demonstrated that it took all reasonable efforts to complete repairs after gaining full access in 2023 as promptly as it could. It has also not shown it kept the resident updated to a reasonable extent. This understandably caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience that was unavoidable. We have ordered it to pay compensation above its original award.

23. At stage 1, the landlord largely responded within the timescales and standards set in its complaints policy. These aligned our Complaint Handling Code. It acknowledged the complaint and issues raised, replied within 10 working days, and addressed the points raised. The landlord also took accountability for its communication failings and recognised it should have done more to support the resident. It also took some appropriate steps to put things right. However, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge that it had not informed the resident about the outstanding repairs, which is a failing.
24. There was a gap of a year between the resident complaining and her contacting our service about the situation. In that time her concerns had evolved and we asked the landlord to address them if it had not already done so. It would have been appropriate and in line with its complaints policy for the landlord to speak to the resident to clarify what she was unhappy with. It should then have followed this up with a written acknowledgement. The landlord should have raised a separate complaint to address the new issues.
25. Apart from speaking to the resident, the notes of which we have not seen but is not disputed to have taken place, it has not demonstrated in the records that the landlord followed any other of the steps it should have. The stage 2 also referred to the repairs aspect but it did not include any narrative or give a decision. This was contrary to the landlord’s commitment, published on its website, to thoroughly investigate complaints. It did though meet the 20 working day timescale, albeit at the expense of providing a quality response.
26. Considering the above, we have made a finding of maladministration. Not addressing the resident’s concerns fully was one of the reasons she gave for referring her complaint to us. Its missed opportunity caused the resident some distress and inconvenience, for which we have ordered it to apologise and pay compensation.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

27. While advisory, our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a timetable for repair visits.
    2. Keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records that provide an audit trail of what repairs have been done and when.
28. In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of repairs and how long they were expected to take when she moved into temporary accommodation. They were also insufficient to demonstrate it was doing everything it could to progress repairs. Frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord had followed our spotlight report recommendations.