Paradigm Housing Group Limited (202016626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016626

Paradigm Housing Group Limited

30 June 2022

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 regarding:
1. The condition of the property when it was let.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
4. The resident’s management transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. She has resided at the property, described as a three-bedroom, semi-detached house, since 2021.
The landlord’s Void Standard outlines that it carries out a “visual check” of a property’s structure to assess if it is wind and watertight. Its Repairs Policy states that repairs are attended to according to their urgency, including a 24 hour response time for emergency repairs (“repairs needed to avoid an immediate danger to personal health or safety or serious damage to the property”). Other repairs are attended to within “an average of 15 working days” or within 60 working days for more routine repairs.
The landlord’s Management Transfer Policy, taken from its website, states the process “only allows for one offer to be made” and “if you are made an offer…and this is refused, then you will be removed from the…register.”
Within the complaint, the resident has stated that she considers the condition of the property and repair issues have caused her stress and impacted on her and her family’s health. In accordance with Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between any disrepair issues and reported health conditions. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a further personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Summary of Events

The resident’s tenancy began on 10 March 2021, having been awarded a management transfer from another property within the landlord’s stock.
On 17 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request an inspection of the exterior render of her property. Records show an inspection was arranged for the following day. Records also show the Local Authority’s Housing Standards Team (HST) contacted the landlord the same day after the resident contacted them about the condition of the property. The HST advised the resident had sent them photos of the property which they described as appearing “neglected” (although it is not clear if this is their own description or the resident’s) due to “heavily peeling render and…window cills…covered in moss and Verdigris”. They also reported “plaster in one of the bedrooms has fallen off, leaving bare brick”.
Repair records show the landlord raised an inspection order regarding “damp affecting walls in bedroom” on the same day, however this was cancelled after the resident called again on 22 March 2021 to report a leak in her property. The landlord raised an emergency 24-hour repair order and records indicate it attended the same day. A note from the attending plumber advised that they “found radiator away from the wall on one side following tenant’s own plasterer attending.” Further information shows that the resident contacted the landlord again on the same day to report that her living room ceiling had now collapsed following the leak, causing her injury. The landlord raised a follow-on order the same day to replace the ceiling in the resident’s living room, which was provisionally booked for 26 and 27 April 2021 as a standard 60-day repair. It also raised a further order to inspect the resident’s roof and chimney stack.
Records show that on 21 March 2021, the resident submitted a complaint about the condition of her new property. She reported there had been another leak which had “ruined the living room ceiling” and spoiling recently completed decorations. She requested that “someone higher” carry out an inspection and give her “an answer” regarding the leak. She also contested that the property was in a “good shape” as she had been told by the landlord and operatives. Records show the landlord raised an emergency repair to investigate the reported leak the same day. On 22 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of her complaint and noted that it regarding “the state of (her) property”.
Following the resident’s reports of a further leak, records show the landlord attended to resolve the issue. Internal correspondence noted that “the resident is using private contractors to carry out repairs” and that the landlord’s operative believed the leak had been caused by “a leak coming from the upstairs radiator in the back bedroom” and the radiator not being connected properly after being removed, which in turn had caused damage to the living room ceiling. The operative provided photos taken during their attendance.
Further repair records indicate the landlord also attended to a report that the resident’s toilet had come loose on the same day. Notes indicated the operative reported alterations had been made to the cistern, and the resident’s contractor was believed to have “put boarding behind (the) cistern.” A follow-on repair to “rehang cistern and reinforce stud wall” was carried out on 25 March 2021.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response, which it stated was about the resident’s belief that the property was not ready for occupation when it was let due to repair issues internally and externally and that the landlord had not addressed the repairs quickly enough “because the repair jobs…are not within the emergency category timescale”. It noted the resident had reported on 16 March 2021 that plaster had fallen from the bedroom wall and injured her son while redecorating, and that a leak on 22 March 2021 caused the living room ceiling to collapse, which injured the resident. It acknowledged the resident had asked it to consider compensating her for “the cost of plastering work and the rent (she was) paying on 2 properties” because she felt unable to move into the property in its current conditions.
After investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord made the following findings:
1. It was satisfied the property was “ready for occupation when (the resident) signed the tenancy agreement” as it “met our published void standard”. It advised the “decoration was of an acceptable standard and all fixtures and fittings…had been checked to ensure they were in working order.”
2. It noted it had offered the resident her property via a management move, after it had accepted an application from her in October 2019. It noted that, having previously made her three direct offers between October 2019 and April 2020, which she refused, it had made one final offer and advised her this would be its final offer. It clarified that its policy stated only one direct offer would normally have been made but it had considered the resident’s situation and used its discretion to ultimately make four direct offers. It acknowledged the resident may have felt she had no choice but to accept the fourth offer, but advised it was satisfied that it had acted fairly and reasonably in handling the management transfer process.
3. Regarding the condition of the property, the landlord noted it had sent the resident “30 photos” on 9 March (2021) and, while it accepted photos would not “give…the same experience as viewing the property”, it noted the resident had not raised “any concerns about the condition of the property” at the time.
4. It acknowledged the resident had raised “a number of repairs” at the property since her tenancy began and that she believed these were taking too long to resolve and had not been given the right priority. However, it stated that the priority times for the jobs raised were “all appropriate and in line with our repairs policy”. It advised it had raised “a number of emergency jobs when it was appropriate to do so” and clarified that emergency repairs were designed to, for example, stop a leak but that that “a further lower priority job would need to be raised to fix the problem”. It clarified that, having reviewed the repair orders raised, it did not “believe (it) should have done anything differently” and that “although there may be repairs needed, this does not mean that the housing falls below the letting standard.”
5. The external rendering at the property was due to be addressed as part of the landlord’s cyclical maintenance plan in 2023 but it had raised a further inspection to assess “its current state”. It outlined it had raised a further order for a roof inspection and any necessary follow-on works, an inspection of the resident’s fencing, and clarified that the resident’s toilet cistern had been “made safe” with follow-on work scheduled for 15 April 2021.
6. It clarified that, following a surveyor’s inspection, “it is clear you have made changes to the small bathroom without requesting permission (from the landlord)” and that, as a result, the resident would be “responsible for maintaining (them) for the lifetime of the tenancy or putting them back to the original condition if you move out”. It also advised that, after investigation by its operative, it was satisfied “the cause of the leak which has caused damage to the living room ceiling…(was) a leak from behind the bedroom radiator.” It restated its position that, as the radiator had been removed from the wall by the resident’s contractor and not the landlord’s operatives, the resident would be held liable for “any work we undertake to repair the lounge ceiling.” It advised the resident to speak to her contractor about an accidental damage claim, or to pursue the matter via her own contents insurance policy.
7. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, advising that the property met its void standard and that some of the repair issues discussed were caused by the resident’s own contractor. It further stated that the resident had not allowed it to inspect the blown plaster as, when it had attended to inspect the matter, “he found the walls already plastered”, meaning it had not seen evidence of the problem and was not “obliged to meet costs of works that we had no opportunity to attend to”. It advised the resident would remain liable for the rent at her current and former properties as it was her “choice” to extend her former tenancy and, “as the reason…you cannot move into the property is because of the damage caused by the leak, which was caused by your contractor, it is not our responsibility to cover your costs”.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on 9 April 2021. In an email to the landlord, she stated she was unahppy with its response and raised the following points:
1. She could prove that her contractor had not touched the radiatior the landlord claimed was the cause of the leak and subsequent damage to the living room ceiling. She queried what investigations the landlord had undertaken to establish that her contractor was at fault and also stated her bedrooms had “damp walls” which she stated would not be caused by a leak.
2. She contested the landlord’s version of events regarding repairs carried out to the toilet cistern.
3. A surveyor and two landlord operatives had told her that “the leak comes from the chimney stack where the tiles have fallen off” and that the Local Authority’s Environmental Health team had advised the property was “not in a standard to be living in”.
4. She believed the landlord should have considered the age of the property before letting it to her, claiming it was more than 80 years old and expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time taken to resolve outstanding repairs.
Landlord repair records show it attended the property to repair the living room ceiling on 26 April 2021. Three days later it also emailed the resident to confirm that it had awarded her a decorating pack as it had clarified that it would not be decorating the ceiling, only making good following the leak damage. Repair records also show that, after raising a further inspection request for the resident’s roof, a contractor attended on 5 May 2021 to carry out a further assessment. Having identified that repairs were required (replacing tiling and removing the front guttering and downpipe before replacing with deep flow guttering and connecting with a new downpipe), the landlord’s contractor advised that works could only continue after an asbestos check was completed. This was arranged for 8 May 2021 and, having come back with no concerns, repair work to the roof began on 11 May 2021 as scaffolding had already been erected.
The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 10 May 2021. It summarised the complaint as being about:
1. The resident feeling she had been given no choice but to accept the property and being misled about its condition by the landlord’s Lettings Team.
2. After she had reported blown plaster, she had initially been asked to provide an invoice for works that she had organised privately, but was then redirected to a different department when she did so.
3. The property was in a “poor condition externally” and there were “issues internally”, particularly in the lounge (where the ceiling had “come down”) and the bathroom.
4. The landlord’s slow response to repair requests and its unsupportive response to her report that her son was injured by falling plaster.
5. The landlord also outlined the actions that had been completed following its Stage One response, which included an inspection of the resident’s roof and repairs to a leaking radiator and toilet and cistern, although a re-inspection had been raised for the latter repair as there was “still a problem”.
The landlord noted that the resident had reiterated concerns and raised further issues in her escalation request, including that she disagreed she should pay rent on two properties concurrently, the photos she was shown of the property before letting were selective and did not reflect the “extent of repairs needed”, that her and her family’s health had been affected, why it was taking the landlord so long to complete outstanding repairs and that she had spent time and money chasing the landlord by phone. In its response, the landlord made the following findings:
1. It was satisfied that its Stage One complaint response had been “handled fairly” and (the resident’s) concerns were addressed. It reiterated its position that the resident had not requested permission to carry out her own repairs, and that it believed these had caused the leak in her bathroom which ultimately caused the ceiling beneath it to collapse. It clarified it would seek to recharge the cost of these works.
2. It advised it had found no evidence that its staff had been rude to the resident and noted that, regarding the alleged injury suffered by her son following the ceiling collapse, this was being addressed separately via a personal injury claim so it would not address this matter further in its complaint response.
3. It advised it considered that “elements of your complaint…should be upheld” following the completion of a roof inspection and concluded the property “did not fully meet our void standard” after it identified that repairs were required to the roof. However, it also noted that the need for repairs “were not apparent to the (void) inspection officer” and advised that “void inspections may not pick up roof problems that are not apparent from outside (or on the ground).”
4. As it had established the property needed roof repairs carrying out when it was let, the landlord concluded it was not appropriate to “charge (the resident) rent for 2 properties from the time your tenancy at (the property) started”. It clarified that, once works to the roof were completed, it would provide the resident with a moving-date, and she would be charged rent at both her current and former properties from that date.
5. It acknowledged the resident had had “a stressful time” which had affected her family and offered £100 “to reflect the cost of calls you have made and the inconvenience you have suffered in recent weeks”.
On 2 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service to refer her complaint as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She again refuted that her contractors were responsible for causing the leak which damaged her living room ceiling, or that they had touched the toilet cistern and believed she should not have to pay for any repair costs. She referred to the landlord’s acknowledgement (in its Stage Two response) that the property had not met void standards when it was let to her, stated that plastering in three rooms had cost her £1,550 and advised the situation had caused her stress to the extent that her hair was falling out. She advised the landlord had not responded to all the concerns she had raised and, while she acknowledged its compensation offer, she considered that £300-400 would have been a more reasonable offer in light of her “expenses”. She also stated she expected the landlord to complete all outstanding repairs before she should be expected to move in and to complete work to the outside rendering “within a more acceptable timeframe, before 2023”.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord has advised that, following the completion of its complaints procedure, on 4 June 2021 it issued the resident with a rent credit of £1,433.19 to cover the period from the start of her tenancy. It also advised the £100 compensation offer was accepted and received by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let

The landlord’s Void Standard policy states it aims to “ensure that properties are safe, secure and free from health and safety hazards.” It further advises that the Standard “supports the specific commitments contained in our Lettings Policy, to repair and let properties to a defined property standard.”
Repair records show the landlord undertook multiple works on the property while it was void and these were post-inspected in January 2021. Within its Void Standards policy, the landlord notes it will carry out a “visual check to (the) roof” of its properties and “appropriate repairs…to ensure (they are) wind and water tight”. It will also “check for any signs of structural damage…or rising damp.”
After the resident’s tenancy began on 10 March 2021, she logged a complaint on 21 March 2021, raising concerns regarding a recurring leak which had “ruined the living room ceiling” and the general condition of the property. In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord stated it was satisfied the property was in a lettable standard when the resident signed her tenancy agreement, the decoration was “of an acceptable standard” and it had checked all fixtures and fittings. It acknowledged that some repairs had been necessary since the tenancy started but denied this meant the property fell below a “lettable standard.”
Landlord records show that, following an attendance by a plumber on 22 March 2021, who attended a report of a damp wall but could find no sign of a leak, a further inspection was raised to check the resident’s roof. In its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord outlined that, once this inspection had been carried out in April 2021, it had discovered defects in the roof. It accepted the defects it had identified meant that the property had not “fully met” its void standard when it was let and that repairs to the roof were required. Records show the landlord organised a further inspection from a contractor and, following a short delay while an asbestos test was carried out, works including stripping out “tiles, felt and batten around the chimney stack”, installing “new membrane around the entire chimney stack”, installing leadwork to the front apron of the chimney, replacing tiles and installing a new lead back gutter were undertaken. Records indicate the works were completed in May 2021 and, from the information available, were raised and progressed in a timely fashion and in line with the landlord’s repair standards.
It was appropriate that, after carrying out further inspections to the property, the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response made clear it had altered its position and that it now accepted the property had not met its void standards when the resident’s tenancy began. It was positive the landlord accepted its earlier stance had been incorrect, although it is noted that this was following the receipt of new information regarding the roof. Based on the evidence available, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there is no indication that the landlord’s position in its Stage One response was unreasonable. Repair information seen by this investigation relating to other repair issues raised by the resident (including the external rendering and plastering) does not indicate that the property would have failed to meet the landlord’s void standard for any other reason.
Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that not all repair issues are necessarily visible during void inspections. Its Void Standard outlines that the landlord carries out a “visual inspection” of the structure of the property. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident will have been frustrated that further repair issues became apparent only once the tenancy had started, the landlord demonstrated that it carried out a void inspection in line with its Void Standard and there is no evidence that this wsa deficient. Once the issues with the roof were identified, it acted promptly to organise the required works with a contractor and, from the evidence available, it appeared to act in a timely fashion to ensure these were completed before the resident moved into the property.
Having acknowledged the property had not met its void standard when it was let to the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord then agreed the resident should not be held liable for rent at the property until the required roof repairs were complete. It acted reasonably by agreeing to issue the resident with rent credit of £1,433.19 and offer £100 for “inconvenience” (and towards the cost of phone calls made to the landlord regarding repair issues). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the rent rebate and award of a compensation was appropriate, in line with what this Service would expect to see and amounted to reasonable redress in consideration of the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling

Landlord repair records show the resident, having already made a report of a leak that was affecting her living room ceiling, made a further report on 26 March 2021 to advise the ceiling had now collapsed, injuring her. Records show the Local Authority had also contacted the landlord after being provided with photos by the resident which showed a “bulge” in the ceiling.
Information provided to this Service indicates the landlord attended on both 25 and 26 March 2021, having raised emergency 24-hour repair orders following reports from the resident of a leak which was affecting her living room ceiling. While the leak does not appear to have been resolved on the first attendance, the landlord otherwise responded appropriately by attending promptly and giving the job the correct emergency priority according to its Repairs Policy.
Following its attendance, records show the landlord spoke to the resident on 29 March 2021 to discuss returning and ensuring the ceiling was safe and follow-on works were raised to repair the ceiling, with an appointment booked for 26-27 April 2021. Additional works were also raised and completed regarding inspecting affected light fittings. While the ceiling repair appointment was outside the landlord’s stated target time of an “average 15 working days”, it advised the resident it was the earliest appointment available and that this was largely due to the backlog of works caused by Covid-19 related restrictions. This Service is aware of the knock-on effect lockdowns and Covid-related restrictions had on landlords, who were largely unable to attend to non-urgent repairs in people’s homes for large periods of 2020 and 2021. Repair records show the landlord acted reasonably by communicating effectively with the resident and being transparent about why the appointment was not available sooner. It also tried to treat the resident fairly when advising it would bring the appointment forward if there were any cancellations. This was appropriate and showed the landlord was attempting to complete the repair as soon as possible for the resident.
Records show the repair was completed during the original appointment slot and, three days later, the landlord emailed the resident a decoration pack after clarifying that it would not carry out decoration of the ceiling, only making good the damage. While the resident had requested the landlord carry out decorations, the landlord’s Repairs Policy states that decorations are a resident’s responsibility, so it was acting in line with its policy when declining to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord could have considered exercising its discretion to redecorate the ceiling, it is also noted that the landlord believed the cause of the leak was unpermitted works carried out privately by the resident and it was therefore considering recharging her for the cost of repairing the ceiling. In the circumstances, the landlord acted reasonably by using its discretion to provide a further decoration pack to the resident.
It is noted the resident disputes the landlord’s assertion the leak was caused by works carried out privately by her contractor, particularly to a bedroom radiator, and she has provided the landlord, and this Service, with photographs she stated proved the radiator was not removed from the wall by her contractor. However, the landlord’s repair records consistently indicate that its attending operatives believed the radiator had been removed and not properly reconnected, which caused a leak and subsequent damage to the living room ceiling.
This Service has considered photographic evidence provided by both parties and cannot establish one way or the other whether the resident’s contractor did, or did not, remove the radiator from the wall or whether this was the cause of the leak. However, based on the information available, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord cannot be said to have acted unreasonably by reaching the conclusion that it did. Having done so, it then acted appropriately, and in accordance with its Repairs Policy, by advising the resident of its position regarding recharging her for the cost of repairing the ceiling in a timely fashion and it was consistent in its position when addressing the issue in its complaint responses. From the evidence available, there is no identified service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the collapsed ceiling.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

Aside from the repairs addressed above, the resident also raised general concerns about how the landlord responded to other repair issues reported at the property. These included repairs to a toilet cistern, which caused another leak in the property, issues regarding internal plastering and garden fencing, and external rendering (which was also referred to in an email to the landlord sent by the Local Authority’s Housing Standards Team).
While the resident has expressed dissatisfaction at the length of time taken by the landlord to respond to her repair reports, evidence seen by this Service appears to show the landlord responded promptly and reasonably to the repair reports it received.
Regarding issues with internal plastering, which the resident stated caused an injury to her son when it felt from the wall, in its Stage One complaint response, the landlord advised that it had not had the opportunity to inspect the “blown plaster” as the area had already been re-plastered when it attended the property. While the resident referred to the matter in her complaint, and it is noted that she submitted a personal injury claim separate to the complaint procedure, landlord repair records do not contain any reference to a specific repair report received regarding the plastering. In addition, correspondence seen by this Service shows the resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2021 regarding “the cost of getting (the wall) plastered” and noting that “it took time to re-do”. This indicates that the landlord was reasonable in advising that it had not had the opportunity to inspect the plastering before the resident undertook work privately to repair it. There is no evidence the landlord was given the opportunity to inspect the plastering and it was therefore reasonable that, in its correspondence with the resident and its complaint responses, it advised it did not consider there was any service failure.
Regarding the external rendering at the property, records show the landlord advised the resident this was due to be assessed under its cyclical works programme in 2023. While this Service has seen photographs which show the rendering is split and appearing damaged, and concerns were also raised with the landlord by the Local Authority’s HST, the landlord’s position that this was not an urgent repair and could be suitably dealt with under its cyclical programme was not unreasonable.
However, the landlord subsequently agreed to raise an inspection to assess the condition of the rendering earlier. This was a proactive step for the landlord to take and showed it took concerns raised by the resident seriously. It acted promptly to raise an inspection and, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has confirmed that repairs to the rendering were completed. While the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of work carried out, this will not be considered in this investigation as it post-dates the period covered by the complaint and the landlord has not been offered the opportunity to respond to these concerns. If the resident is unhappy with the quality of work carried out, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
Records show on 19 March 2021 the resident also reported that the toilet cistern in the upstairs bathroom was not secured to the wall. Landlord records show it logged the repair request on 22 March. It attended on 25 March and completed a “temporary repair” and raised further, follow-on works to “re-hang WC cistern and reinforce wall stud”. Further repair records indicate the problem was identified as being “heavy cistern on plasterboard (which) needs further support” and an appointment was made for 15 April 2021. This was one day outside the landlord’s “average” repair target of 15 working days and, as noted above, it is acknowledged the landlord was, along with other organisations within the sector, dealing with a large backlog of non-urgent repairs. While records show the resident advised the landlord on 25 March 2021 that she felt the repair should be a “priority” and done sooner, the landlord fairly advised that the job would take 3 hours to complete, and the appointment was the earliest it had available. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the April appointment was not an unreasonable length of time for the repair to be carried out and the landlord acted reasonably by outlining its position. There is no evidence of any avoidable delay on the landlord’s part.
However, after attending on 15 April 2021, the resident raised another report on 23 April advising of a further issue with the cistern. Records indicate the landlord raised an order to attend again and establish “why this keeps happening” and completed a repair on 4 May 2021, which was within its repair target, although the details of the exact repair are not noted. However, the landlord’s responses to reports of issues with the cistern appear to have been reasonable.
It is again noted the landlord stated work carried out by the resident’s contractor caused problems with the cistern, and the resident strongly stated this is not the case. Photographic evidence of the cistern taken by the landlord during the voids process means that, while this Service again cannot determine whether the private works were the cause of future repair issues, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord was entitled to reach this conclusion and cannot be said to have acted unreasonably as a result.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer

The landlord’s Management Transfer Policy notes that the process “only allows for one offer (of a property) to be made.” In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord acknowledges that the resident advised she felt “forced” to accept the property as she was told that this would be the final offer made. However, it also outlined that it had made three previous offers which the resident had declined. Although this Service has not seen details of the offers the landlord made, it is noted that the resident has not, in her complaint or correspondence with the landlord or this Service, raised any issue with the properties offered.
From the limited evidence available, the landlord appears to have processed the resident’s application promptly, adding her to its management transfer list in October 2019 and making an offer of an alternative property shortly after. This Service has not seen details regarding why the resident refused this property but it is not disputed that the landlord then proceeded to offer a further two alternative properties between October 2019 and April 2020.
From the evidence available, the landlord appears to have acted fairly by using its discretion to make more than the one offer usually available under its Management Transfer Policy. Having carried out a review of the resident’s application in 2020, it then agreed to further use its discretion to make one further offer, which the resident accepted in March 2021. While it is appreciated the resident states she felt pressured into accepting the property, given she had been advised she would be removed from the Management Transfer list if she refused it, the landlord appears to have acted reasonably by making a final offer, having already offered two more properties than would normally be the case under the policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appears to have tried to treat the resident fairly and act sensitively and it would not be reasonable, or in line with its stated policy, to expect it to make unlimited offers.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding the condition of the property when it was let.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a collapsed ceiling.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
3. The resident’s management transfer.

Reasons

The landlord carried out a number of repairs at the property during the void process and, as stated in its Stage One response, it was satisfied that the property met its Void Standard at the start of the tenancy. However, after further inspection of the roof, it subsequently determined that it had not met the Void Standard as there were defects which needed rectifying.
It acted appropriately by carrying out further inspections when these defects became apparent and records show it managed the subsequent inspection and repairs in a timely fashion. It also acted reasonably by acknowledging in its Stage Two process that it had changed its position regarding whether the property met its Void Standard at the start of the tenancy. It also acted reasonably by agreeing to refund the resident rent due and that she should not have to move in until works were completed. It was also reasonable that it offered a further small sum in respect of the cost of the resident’s phone calls and stress caused.
The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property, attending on an emergency basis on two occasions, making safe and raising follow-on works accordingly. While it is noted the resident strongly disagreed with the landlord’s assessment that work undertaken by her contractor caused the leak and subsequent ceiling damage, this Service has not seen evidence that shows the landlord’s position to be unreasonable. The landlord was entitled to reach that conclusion based on its void inspections and reports from its operatives and it still exercised its discretion to award the resident a further decoration package after advising it would not carry out redecoration of the ceiling itself, in accordance with its Repair Policy.
Records show the landlord responded promptly to other repair reports raised by the resident and it arranged follow-on works in a timely fashion. Where later appointments were arranged outside of its repair targets, records show the landlord acknowledged this with the resident and, in two cases, advised it would bring the repairs forward if it had cancellations elsewhere and raise an inspection to try to assess if work needed doing earlier than planned under its cyclical works programme. While it is acknowledged the resident would have preferred appointments to have been resolved sooner, especially given she was waiting to move into the property, there is no evidence of any avoidable delays on the landlord’s part.
The landlord acted fairly and reasonably by making the resident more than one offer of alternative accommodation, despite not being obliged to under its Management Transfer Policy. There is no evidence that it mishandled the original transfer application, and this Service has not seen evidence of any concerns raised about the suitability of previous offers declined by the resident. While it is acknowledged the resident may have felt “pressured” when advised by the landlord that it would not make any further offers if she refused this property, it was reasonable of the landlord to make one final offer and, having already exercised its discretion, it was entitled to advise it would not make any more.