Places for People Group Limited (202203396)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203396

Places for People Group Limited

31 January 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
3. The landlord’s communication about a rent increase.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the property between 27 September 2021 and July 2022 following a mutual exchange. The property is a 3-bedroom house, and the landlord confirmed it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident lived at the property with her 2 children. At the time of the exchange, due to the Covid pandemic the landlord was not undertaking physical property inspections. The landlord completed a virtual inspection of the property on 17 August 2021. The inspection report contained photos of the property provided by the outgoing resident. The mutual exchange was approved by the landlord on 3 September 2021.
On 27 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that she had not been able to move her belongings into the property because it was in an unlivable condition. She said this was not the case when she had viewed the property. The resident reported the following to the landlord on this date:
1. All the doors and walls were damaged.
2. The kitchen was falling apart.
3. A large amount of rubbish had been left by the previous resident.
4. The kitchen ceiling was broken and damp.
5. The property had large holes in places and the resident was concerned about asbestos.
6. The front door lock was unsafe.

The landlord completed a repair to the front door lock on the same day. The landlord, on this date, also confirmed to the resident that the weekly rent for the property was £95.13 per week with a service charge of £2.55.

Following the resident’s repair reports, the landlord carried out a survey of the repairs at the property. It also completed a test and repair of the electrics at the property on 28 September 2021. The landlord’s repair records noted that works had been raised on 1 October 2021 for the following:
1. Renewal of an internal door.
2. Repair to the staircase.
3. Repairs to the bathroom, which included the renewal of the bath, taps, shower attachment and sink taps.
4. The reglazing of a window.
5. Repairs to walls throughout the property.

The landlord raised further repairs on 4 and 5 October 2021 to attend to the bathroom floor which was noted as uneven and rotten, and a repair to water coming through the front door. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2021 to report that she had experienced a needle stick injury when cleaning the property. In response, the landlord completed a needle sweep of the property on 1 November 2021.

The landlord completed repairs to the internal door, staircase, bathroom, bathroom floor, front door, and window in November 2022. Following this, further repairs to the walls were completed on 13 December 2021. The repair to the kitchen sink base unit was completed on 7 January 2022. The repair to the window was completed on 12 January 2022 and a repair to the meter cupboard door was completed on 16 February 2022. The resident received a letter from the landlord on 12 February 2022 to confirm her rent payments from April 2022 would change to £102.49 per week. The resident raised further repairs on 22 February 2022 to the stair banisters, wardrobe door, toilet, and the extractor fan cover in the kitchen.

The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 25 February 2022 about the condition of the property following the mutual exchange and repair work to the property. She said she had viewed the property in July 2021, and it had needed decorating and cleaning only. The resident said that on moving into the property she had identified the following:
1. Holes to the interior walls.
2. Missing and broken doors.
3. Damage to the ceiling in the kitchen.
4. Urine-soaked floors in both toilets.
5. Heavy dirt to the kitchen.
6. A leaking kitchen sink with a damaged unit beneath it
7. Broken kitchen cupboards.
8. Damage to the floors throughout.
9. Damage to the banisters.
10. The front door did not shut properly.
11. Rubbish had been left in the property and garden.
12. Graffiti was on an external wall.

She said she had reported the repairs as soon as she had moved in but some jobs had been partially finished and she had needed to chase them up. The resident stated that repair appointments had been booked but no one had arrived. The resident also raised concerns that the property was rewired following an electrical check and that she felt the check should have been completed prior to the mutual exchange taking place. She also felt her concerns about needles in the property had not been taken seriously. The resident said she had placed furniture and belongings into storage due to being unable to move into the property and these items had been damaged. She also said the stress had impacted her mental health.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 8 March 2022. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It stated that the resident had agreed to accept the condition of the property when she had signed an agreement on the condition of the property on 21 September 2021. The landlord said that Covid restrictions at the time had prevented it from undertaking a physical property inspection. The landlord explained that it had agreed to survey the property and had identified repairs which were rechargeable to the resident. It said it had undertaken the work to make the property safe but had chosen not to recharge the costs of the repairs to the resident. The landlord said it was not responsible for the needle stick injury and had arranged a needle sweep of the property as soon as the resident provided access. The landlord also said it did not undertake routine repairs for a 6-month period following a mutual exchange. In relation to the outstanding repairs, it said a missing extractor fan cover had been reported in February 2022 and would be completed in due course and an appointment for the loose banister had been made for 23 March 2022. It said the crack to the toilet reported in February 2022 was a rechargeable repair and had been cancelled.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2022 and requested confirmation of her rent charges from 1 April 2022 onwards. The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed the amount was £180.25 per week. The resident raised a complaint through her MP to the landlord on 4 April 2022 about the increase of her rent. The landlord responded on 25 April 2022 and said that following an error on its system, the rent originally charged to the resident of £95.13 per week had been incorrect. It said the resident had signed the deed of assignment with the correct amount, but because the landlord had confirmed an incorrect lower rent to Universal Credit, it took the decision to continue to charge this lower amount in order not to create a large debt on the tenancy. The landlord said it had needed to increase the rent to the correct level as per the deed of assignment, when the rent was due to increase in April 2022. The landlord said it had explained the error, apologised to the resident, and informed the resident of the increase.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 July 2022 and advised that she had escalated her complaints to stage 2 on that day. Following further contact from this Service, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 26 July 2022. The landlord provided its final response on 7 September 2022. In addition to its stage 1 responses, it said:
1. It had no evidence of missed appointments or cancelled appointments at the last minute.
2. It was not able to uphold the resident’s request for compensation to replace the items damaged while in storage. As a gesture of goodwill, it had written off the £355.61 of arears on the resident’s rent account.
3. There had been an error in its stage 1 response and it was incorrect when it said it would not carry out repairs in the first 6 months following a mutual exchange.
4. It offered £50 compensation to account for the error at stage one.
5. It had not received the resident’s complaint escalation on 12 June 2022 and therefore had not missed any timescales for response.

The resident confirmed in October 2022 that she remined dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested an investigation by this Service. The resident confirmed to this service that she had not moved into the property and had ended the tenancy due to the outstanding repair work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

Part of the resident’s complaint concerned the resident’s report of a personal injury from a needle at the property. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court. This Service can investigate how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a needle injury and look at whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances.
The resident’s complaint included a claim of compensation for damage to personal belongings that she had placed in storage while living away from the property. The Ombudsman cannot establish the legal liability for damage to personal belongings. This matter is better suited to an insurance or legal claim.
The resident’s complaint included concerns regarding a rent increase. The Ombudsman cannot assess the level of rent increase since taking up the tenancy. This is because complaints that relate to the level of rent or liability to pay rent fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal. However, this Service has considered the way the landlord communicated the increase to the resident.
In her complaint, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused it is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange.

A mutual exchange is an assignment of tenancy between two social housing tenants. Put simply, one party swaps their home legally with another.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it will ensure a property is in a good state of repair before an exchange takes place. It says that the incoming resident accepts the property in the condition they find it. The policy also states that the landlord will not undertake internal redecoration, cleaning and will not carry out rechargeable repairs that are the former resident’s responsibility. It says the landlord must carry out its normal repair duties and ensure the property meets its void standard before agreeing the exchange.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy stated that the incoming resident accepts the property in the condition they found it. The landlord’s mutual exchange application form signed by the resident on 21 July 2021 confirmed that she had viewed the property and accepted its condition. This evidenced that the resident had the opportunity to view the property and accepted its condition prior to moving in. However, it was noted that, due to the Covid pandemic, the landlord was not operating its normal process for mutual exchange at the time the exchange went through. This clearly impacted upon events.
On 27 September 2021, the resident signed the letter of assignment for the mutual exchange. The document set out that the resident had inspected the property and understood that she accepted it in its present state of decoration and repair. Therefore, if the resident was not satisfied with the condition of the property on this date as presented by the outgoing tenant, she did not have to accept the tenancy.
Part of the landlord’s mutual exchange process involved a property inspection, prior to the landlord approving the mutual exchange. The landlord said in its complaint response that due to Covid restrictions in place at the time of the exchange, it had been unable to complete a physical inspection of the property. It said it had been undertaking virtual inspections during this time. The mutual exchange application form stated that due to the pandemic restrictions the outgoing resident would be asked to provide detailed photos and videos of the property.
The Ombudsman notes that the mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate the voids inspection used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to relet following the end of a tenancy. However, the inspection should still be thorough enough to be able to highlight any areas of concern.
The property inspection report was completed on 17 August 2021 and included 50 photos of the property. The report noted that there was no kitchen door in place. While the report showed a number of photos, it did not appear to show all angles of the rooms. It did not contain photos which showed the full bathroom or the kitchen and was therefore not sufficient to assess the full condition of the property. It was also clear from the photos on the report that one of the internal doors was damaged. The report reviewed by section had also not been completed by the landlord to confirm if the landlord had reviewed the report. The landlord did not provide any evidence to this service to demonstrate that it had asked the outgoing resident to address any repairs prior to the exchange being approved on 3 September 2021.
This Service accepts that the landlord had a duty to protect its staff and residents during the Covid pandemic. However, no evidence was provided to demonstrate the landlord had considered other options to ensure a thorough inspection was completed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to either arrange for a socially distanced inspection, a video call or to delay the exchange until the landlord was able to physically inspect the property. The report was also completed in August 2021, when according to the government guidance, Covid restrictions had been lifted. An inspection in person at the time would have been a more suitable approach in identifying any repair issues at the property.
From the information provided, the landlord’s inspection process prior to a mutual exchange was insufficient, and although it is a visual inspection only, and is not intended to replicate a voids inspection, there were failings in the way it was conducted, and in relation to the quality of the inspection records. The virtual inspection should have included all rooms at the property. If a full report had been completed by the landlord, it may have identified the repairs required to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it would have refused to allow the exchange to be completed had it known the condition of the property at the time of the exchange. It was clear that the landlord’s mutual exchange process had here failed to identify the property was not in a suitable state of repair.
The resident raised in her complaint that following the electrical check at the property, the property had needed to be rewired. She said this should have been checked prior to her moving in. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy did not specify when an electrical check would be carried out as part of its process. It was evident from the landlord’s repair records that an electrical check and the subsequent repairs were completed at the property on 28 September 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to undertake this check prior to the resident moving in in order to ensure the safety of the resident.
The resident told the landlord on 27 October 2021 she had experienced an injury from a needle while cleaning a cupboard in the property. A needle sweep of the property was completed by the landlord on 1 November 2021. The landlord said in its complaint response that this was completed as soon as the resident was able to provide access to the property. It is not clear if the landlord discussed any temporary accommodation with the resident in the meantime to ensure the safety of her and her children.
The landlord said it had not been aware that needles may have been present in the property. It said if it had known of a risk, the previous resident would have been required to pay for a needle sweep before the exchange was approved. This Service was not able to establish if the landlord had been previously made aware of a risk of needles at the property. However, a proactive approach from landlords is expected, when handling such issues prior to mutual exchanges taking place. While this Service acknowledged that this incident was significantly distressing for the resident and her family, the landlord had taken the appropriate action in arranging a needle sweep of the property once it was aware of the risk.
The landlord said in its final response that it was unable to offer the resident any compensation in relation to the resident’s belongings becoming damaged while placed in storage due to her not moving into the property. In relation to this the landlord said it had written off the resident’s rent arrears of £355.61 as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord said it had not agreed that the property was uninhabitable. It said if it had been uninhabitable, it would have provided temporary accommodation immediately. This was a reasonable response from the landlord. While it was evident that the condition of the property following the mutual exchange had been distressing to the resident, the repairs had not been deemed significant enough to have required the landlord to provide temporary accommodation.
Overall, the resident had accepted the property as it was when she signed the deed of assignment and the agreement on the condition of the property. However, it is not clear if the repairs would have been identifiable at the time she visited the property. While it was accepted that the landlord had amended its mutual exchange inspection process due to the Covid pandemic, the virtual inspection that did take place was not detailed enough to demonstrate the full condition of the property.
The landlord’s offer to waive £355.61 of rent arrears was not sufficient to account for the distress and detriment cased to the resident. The resident was significantly dissatisfied with the property, and as a result did not fully move in and ultimately gave up the tenancy. Although the landlord did not agree that the property was uninhabitable, the high number of separate repair issues raised after the mutual exchange took place, demonstrated the property was not in a good state of repair at the time of the exchange. The landlord did not acknowledge that it failed to carry out a thorough inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange or that its process for enabling the exchange was not appropriate in this case.
The landlord therefore did not adhere to its own policy to ensure the property was in a good state of repair before the exchange took place. For these reasons, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange. Compensation of a further £400 has been ordered in line with this Services’ remedies guidance for a failure that had adversely affected a resident. A recommendation has also been included for the landlord to review its mutual exchange procedure, taking into consideration what action it would take when it was not possible to carry out a physical property inspection in future.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

Under the terms of the tenancy, and in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home. This includes internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, plasterwork, and windows.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, appointable repairs within 28 days and planned repairs within 90 days. The policy says that damage caused by a resident may be rechargeable. The policy says that in the event that a resident is not at home for an appointment, the landlord will leave a card to advise the repair will be cancelled if contact by the resident is not made. The landlord will contact the customer by phone, if on the day, a repair job has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances or if a timed visit is unable to be met.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy defines a rechargeable repair as a repair which is above or beyond normal wear and tear and arises from abuse, accidental damage, neglect, or deliberate damage.
It was evident that a number of repairs were required to the property when the resident moved in on 27 September 2021. The condition of the property was accepted “as found” by the resident. However, the landlord’s mutual exchange policy made clear that the landlord should have ensured the property was in a good state of repair before the exchange took place. Therefore, in the event that repair issues were reported at the point the resident moved into the property, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have investigated the issues and provided any repairs needed which it was responsible for.
Following moving into the property, the resident raised a number of repairs to the landlord. The landlord told the resident the repairs were rechargeable under the terms of the mutual exchange agreement, but it had agreed to carry out the repairs in order to ensure the property was safe.
The repairs to the front door had been raised and completed on the day the resident’s tenancy was assigned on 27 September 2021. This was appropriate and in line with the policy for emergency repairs. The landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the electrics. The appropriate electrical checks and electrical repairs were undertaken on 28 September 2021 the day after the mutual exchange had taken place.
Following the landlord’s visit to the property, a number of repairs had been raised between 1 October 2021 and 5 October 2021. This included repairs to an internal door, staircase, bathroom fittings, the bathroom floor, a window, walls throughout the property, and to assess and repair water coming through the front door. The landlord completed the repair to the bathroom floor and the water ingress from the front door on 5 November 2021. These repairs were completed just outside of the 28-day timeframe as set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
The repairs to the internal door and staircase had been completed on 29 November 2021 which was 59 days after the work was raised. The landlord completed the repairs to the bathroom fittings on 25 November 2021. This was 55 days after the work was raised. The time taken for the landlord to complete these repairs was inappropriate and did not meet the timescales in its repair policy.
The repair work to the walls throughout the property was noted by the landlord as completed on 13 December 2021. This was 73 days after the repair was raised. The timeframe for the repair was again not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s own repair policy.
The repair to the window was completed on 12 January 2022, which was a timeframe of 103 days. The landlord’s records noted that an appointment was attended on 5 November 2021 to measure the window and the repair was then completed at a subsequent appointment on 12 January 2022. It is accepted that a repair can on occasion require more than 1 visit to resolve. In this case the repeat visit was necessary, however it was noted that the timeframe between the initial repair appointment and the completion of the repair was 68 days. This repair took too long and did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s policy.
A further repair to the kitchen sink unit was raised on 28 October 2021. This was noted as completed by the landlord on 7 January 2022. This repair took 71 days to complete. This timeframe was again inappropriate and did not meet the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The repair to the meter cupboard was raised on 8 November 2011 and completed on 16 February 2022. This was a timeframe of 100 days to complete. The landlord confirmed in its evidence to this Service, that it had to cancel the initial appointment on 6 January 2022 due to non availability of staff. The timeframe for this repair was excessive and did not meet the service standards set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
It was clear that a number of the repair works completed by the landlord following the resident’s mutual exchange, was not completed within the 28-day timeframe for repairs set out in the landlord’s repair policy. The delays were excessive and inappropriate. The delays had resulted in the resident enduring the outstanding repair work for longer than necessary. This caused her further distress and inconvenience.
The resident had reported a further repair to a loose banister and wardrobe door on 22 February 2022. The landlords repair records noted that this repair job was arranged for 23 March 2022, and was cancelled due to no access or contact from the resident. This was a reasonable action by the landlord. The landlord’s records noted a card had been left at the property in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s complaint response also noted the resident had reported a crack to the toilet on 22 February 2022. The landlord said that this was a rechargeable repair, and it would not carry out the repair unless the resident agreed to pay for this work. The landlord did not explain why it had categorised this as a rechargeable repair. This was therefore unreasonable. The landlord should had here provided the resident with the reason it had considered this a rechargeable repair.
The resident raised concerns in her complaint in February 2022 that some of the repair jobs raised had not been completed and she had needed to chase these up. This included holes to walls and a repair to the kitchen ceiling. From the evidence provided by the landlord to this Service, the repairs to the walls were noted as completed in December 2021. However, the repair work to the kitchen ceiling had not been raised by the landlord. This was despite the resident reporting this when she moved into the property in September 2021 and also again in her complaint in February 2022. The landlord failed to act on this report or address this in its complaint response. As such, it failed to put things right for the resident.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had undertaken a number of routine repairs to the property since the resident had moved in. It said that it did not undertake routine repairs for a 6-month period following mutual exchange. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that this information was incorrect and offered the resident £50 of compensation to account for this.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that has happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord had here acknowledged its error, but the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures identified. It had not sufficiently considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of being informed she could not access routine repairs for a period of time.
The resident said in her complaint that the landlord had not turned up to repair appointments and had cancelled repair appointments at the last minute. The landlord responded to this in its final response and said it was not able to find evidence of missed or cancelled appointments. It was not possible from the evidence provided by the landlord to determine the full correspondence between the landlord and resident in relation to repair appointments. However, the landlord’s repair records had noted that an appointment on 6 January 2022 to repair the meter cupboard was cancelled on the same date. The landlord had not demonstrated that it contacted the customer by phone and informed her of this as set out in its repairs policy. This was not customer focused and had caused the resident further inconvenience, in addition to the inconvenience already caused to her by the high numbers of appointments she had allowed access for.
In conclusion, the repairs to the internal door, staircase, bathroom fittings, window, walls, kitchen sink, and meter cupboard were not carried out within the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repair policy. It was also clear that repairs to the kitchen ceiling, banisters and wardrobe door remained outstanding and the repair to the toilet was cancelled. The resident was also provided with incorrect information about the landlord’s responsibility for repairs. The compensation of £50 offered in relation to the incorrect information about repairs did not go far enough to put this right for the resident. Therefore, this amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident a further amount of compensation of £250 to account for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s communication about a rent increase.

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord may increase or decrease the net weekly rent and service element by giving the resident not less than 1 calendar months notice in writing. It said the first review of rent will be on the first Monday in April following the date of the agreement.
The landlord’s rent and service charge policy states that all residents will receive written notice of any proposed changes to their rent or other charges in line with the terms of their tenancy agreement.
The landlord said in its final response that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about her rent account. The landlord said in its response to the MP enquiry that it had identified an error made when it initially calculated the resident’s rent. The deed of assignment stated the weekly rent was £169.26. However, the resident was informed on 28 September 2021 that her weekly rent was £95.13 with a service charge of £2.55. The landlord said it had not changed the rent back to the correct level as it did not want to have created a large debt on the resident’s tenancy. It said it had instead, increased the rent as per the deed of assignment at the point of the rent increase in April 2022. However, it had not demonstrated when or how it had communicated this to the resident.
It was acknowledged that the deed of assignment signed by the resident on 27 September 2021 stated the correct rent amount of £169.26 per week. However, the landlord should have informed the resident of the error it had made as soon as it was apparent, for her to be able to anticipate the correct increase the following April. While it was customer focused that the landlord took responsibility for the initial error and did not change the rent it had initially set in order to not cause a debt on the resident’s rent account, an explanation at the time would have ensured clarity for the resident.
From the evidence provided to this Service it was not clear if the landlord had communicated the correct increase to the resident prior to 31 March 2022. The landlord was obliged to give the resident at least one month’s notice of any rent increase. The landlord had advised the resident of a rent increase on 12 February 2022, in which it stated that the rent was increasing to £102.49 per week from 4 April 2022. However, on the 30 March 2022, the landlord told the resident her weekly rent from 4 April 2022 was £180.25 per week. The landlord did not demonstrate to this service that it had provided the resident with at least one months notice of the increase to £180.25 per week. It was particularly important for the resident to have received the correct notification ahead of time, to ensure that she could update universal credit of the rent increase.
In conclusion, the landlord here had failed to demonstrate that it communicated the rent increase appropriately to the resident. The landlord here should have ensured it had explained the error initially made and that the rent would be reverting back to the amount stated on the tenancy agreement prior to increasing the rent amount. This caused the resident distress and also the inconvenience of taking the time and trouble to find out the correct amount. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication about a rent increase. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. If the landlord is unable to put things right within 24 hours, the complaint is considered at stage 1 of the process and will be acknowledged within 5 working days. The policy says a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If it is not possible for a landlord to respond within these timeframes, an explanation, and a date of when the response will be received is required. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord did agree an extension to its stage 2 response with the resident, in line with its own policy and The Code. The landlord told the resident a response would be issued on 6 September 2022. However, this was provided slightly delayed on 7 September 2022. While the delay was minimal, it caused frustration to the resident who had already agreed to the extension.
The resident advised this Service that she had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 6 June 2022. The landlord said in its final response that it did not receive the resident’s email sent to its customer focus team until 12 June 2022, in which the resident requested to escalate her complaint. It was noted that the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s escalation following contact from this Service on 22 July 2022 and then responded within the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
The landlord failed to address all parts of the resident’s complaint. The resident had raised concerns in her complaint on 25 February 2022 that the electrical check had not been completed prior to moving into the property and that there was damage to the kitchen ceiling. The landlord did not address these issues in either of its complaint responses. As such, the landlord had failed to comply with the Code.
In conclusion, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. While this Service acknowledged that it was frustrating for the resident when she had not received a response to her complaint escalation, the landlord demonstrated that it had not received this escalation. It did then respond in accordance with its timeframes once it was aware of the escalation request. The landlord’s response did not address all points of the resident’s complaint therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handing. Compensation of £50 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, and where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property following a mutual exchange.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s communication about a rent increase.
4. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report. The apology is to be made by a senior director.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £950 compensation within 4 weeks. This amount is in addition to the landlord previously writing off £355.61 of the resident’s rent arrears. Compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to carry out a proper mutual exchange inspection.
2. £50 as previously offered by the landlord in relation to the error in communication about the repairs.
3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the repair work.
4. £200 for the distress, time and trouble caused by the failure to communicate the rent increase appropriately.
5. £50 for the poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation.

It is recommended that the landlord review its mutual exchange procedure, if it has not already done so, to improve the quality of its pre-mutual exchange inspection process. It should take into consideration what action it would take where it was not possible to carry out an in-person inspection in future.