Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202233454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233454

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

30 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of excess cold in a single-storey side extension.
2. The resident’s mutual exchange application.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made by the resident.

The outstanding issues

The resident reports feeling discriminated against and feels that the landlord is a racist organisation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
The landlord has also confirmed to this Service that it did not receive any complaint regarding anti-social behaviour in the resident’s formal complaint. As the landlord has not referred to any ASB in its complaint responses, this Service is not able to consider this element of the resident’s complaint.
This Service cannot make determinations on impacts to a resident’s health caused by a landlord’s actions or inactions. Such matters should be considered by the courts via a personal injury claim. Whilst the resident has provided this Service with detailed medical records and evidence, it does not form part of the determination in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. This investigation relates to the resident’s experiences when she lived at her previous property which was a four-bedroom, end of terrace property. The resident lived at the property from 22 October 2012 to 16 June 2023. The property has a single-storey side extension which was built in 2002 when the property was owned and managed by the local authority. The landlord became responsible for the property following a stock transfer in 2012.
The resident has outlined that she has health and mobility concerns which include:
1. Severe depression
2. PTSD
3. Anxiety
4. Bilateral vascular necrosis stage 3
5. Type 2 diabetes
6. Osteoarthritis
7. Insomnia

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated in her communications with the landlord that she first reported concerns with excess cold in the single-storey extension since moving into the property in 2012. She has stated that from November 2013 she did not use the room as a bedroom due to the cold and was sleeping in the living room.
Although it is noted that the resident has stated that she has experienced issues for many years, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2023 the resident sent a letter to the landlord in which she made a formal complaint, stating the following:
1. The side extension of the property was extremely cold “like a fridge freezer” and she had not used the room for some time. She further stated that not being able to use the room was also due to a foul smell within it.
2. She outlined her concerns that the side extension did not have a competition certificate, nor did it meet building regulations and she raised concerns for her health and safety. She stated that the issues with the property had caused her ill health and were continuing to affect her health.
3. She requested copies of documents which showed that the property was safe to live in. She also requested that inspections were carried out at the property and any necessary repairs and recommendations were to be carried out.
4. She stated that if the landlord was not able to complete the above, then it should move her to another property.
5. She requested that the landlord allowed her to complete a mutual exchange with anyone who was willing to swap with her.
The landlord’s repairs records show that operatives attended the property on 26 January 2023 and inspected the single-storey side extension. It found that the radiator in the extension was correctly sized for the bedroom area.
The landlord acknowledged the residents formal complaint via a letter dated 27 January 2023. It stated that it would carry out an investigation and provide a response by 10 February 2023. On 8 February 2023 it wrote to the resident and offered an apology as it would not be able to respond within the timescale initially provided. It stated that it aimed to respond to her by 17 February 2023.
The resident sent an email to the landlord’s Senior Operations Manager on 6 February 2023 following a visit to the property on 26 January 2023, from which she requested an update. The landlord sent an email to the resident to advise that its central heating manager had confirmed that the radiator within the extension was adequately sized.
On 12 February 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response in which it stated:
1. It stated that the single-storey extension had been built by the local authority as part of disabled facilities adaptations work, prior to it acquiring the property following a stock transfer. It stated that the local authority was responsible for building control matters.
2. It had inspected the single-storey extension and it had advised her on 6 February 2023 a gas engineer had concluded that the radiator was of an adequate size for the room.
3. Its staff had noted that the room had a concrete floor with a laminate covering which the resident had fitted herself. Its staff had spoken with the resident during the inspection and noted that she stated she was sleeping on a thin yoga mat. The resident was advised that having carpets fitted and sleeping on something more suitable such as a bed would help her to feel warmer.
4. It advised that it could offer her support in obtaining a bed and/or mattress and asked her to make contact if she would like more information.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 6 March 2023 and stated that it had contacted the building control department at the local authority to look into the completion certificate for the single-storey side extension. It stated that if the certificate was not available, it could arrange for a building inspection to take place at the property. It would provide a further update when it had further information. The resident was also advised that discussions would take place with its staff around the resident’s rehousing request.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed her escalation request to stage 2 of its complaints process. It advised that it aimed to complete its investigations and provide her with its stage 2 complaint response by 8 March 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 March 2023 and advised that it would not be able to provide its stage 2 response within the timescale provided. It stated that it aimed to respond by 22 March 2023.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 14 March 2023 following a call from a member of its staff to arrange a visit to the property. The resident stated:
1. She was frustrated with the number of visits that the landlord was making to her property. She stated that the visits were affecting her mental and physical health.
2. The frequent visits were affecting her privacy and she stated that mixing with people was affecting her health and making her conditions worse.
3. She asked the landlord to provide solutions to her concerns rather than to keep making visits which she felt were unnecessary.
4. She advised that she would no longer allow access to the property unless it was for the landlord to carry out repairs to the single-storey side extension.
5. She referred to ASB that she had experienced at the property but did not state if these were recent or historic incidents.
6. She requested that the landlord provided its updates and responses to her in writing or via telephone.
The landlord responded to the resident the following day via email. It apologised for any dissatisfaction it had caused by trying to arrange meetings with her and stated that it was not its intention. It confirmed that it wanted to find resolutions to her concerns and resolve her complaints. It had escalated her concerns to its senior management team and offered an online meeting so that it could discuss her options and outline the required works at the property. It would then be able to provide her with its stage 2 complaint response. It stated that it wanted to do this with her best interests at heart and to involve her in the decision-making process.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2022 in which it stated:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. Following a call with the resident on 3 March 2023 it had gained a better understanding of the complexities of the issues raised.
2. Its staff had attended the property in early January 2023 to assess the cold within the single-storey side extension. It had concluded that the radiator was of adequate size for the room. It also considered that the single-storey extension was safe.
3. It had instructed an independent surveyor to carry out an inspection of the extension. An inspection date would be arranged with the resident directly. It had advised the surveyor to bring identification and wear a mask also.
4. It would complete any recommended works or actions which may be identified following the surveyor’s report being received. It stated it would prioritise these actions to minimise the impact on her health and wellbeing.
5. It confirmed that following checks made on its stock transfer list from the local authority that the property was classed as a 4-bedroom house. It also confirmed that the single-storey side extension was built in 2002, following the relevant planning permission being granted. It understood that building regulations were not completed at that time. In relation to this, the independent surveyor it had instructed would carry out a full check of the property and this would be just as comprehensive to ensure that health and safety standards were met and ant required works would be completed.
6. With regards to a previous mutual exchange request in September 2021, it stated that there were reasons due to which it was declined. However, due to data protection matters it could not share these with the resident. It stated that it required proof of other adults living at the property which would support her exchange request with a tenant of a 6-bedroom property. It advised that if the resident could evidence this it would look to support her exchange request. It offered the resident support should she require it.
7. It offered its sincerest apologies for any distress it had caused her. It acknowledged that it had not always follows through on commitments it had made with her. It had fed this back to ensure it kept customer service and service standards its priority. It confirmed that it was in the process of providing customer service training to its staff across the organisation. It hoped that it could rebuild its relationship and trust with the resident.
8. In relation to the resident stating that she felt the landlord was a racist organisation, it advised that racism was not tolerated and it took such matters very seriously, with zero-tolerance approach. It advised the resident to make contact if she wished to report an incident and it would investigate.

Post complaints process

On 28 April 2023, a property survey was carried out by an independent surveyor, as instructed by the landlord in 5 April 2023. The survey report is dated 9 March 2023 however this is believed to be an error and should be dated 9 May 2023. The report outlined the following;
1. It has inspected the single-storey side extension and stated that it did not fully comply with Building Regulations Approved Document Part M ‘Access to and use of Buildings’, particularly in terms of the bathroom. It did however note that it was unclear if full compliance with this regulation was specific at the time of the construction which was in 2002. A recommendation was made to the landlord as follows:
  1. To confirm the availability of a building regulations completion certificate or;
  2. Apply for retrospective building control approval by a regularisation certificate, which may include exposing the underlying structure to confirm insulation levels.
  3. Further information on the above should be sought from the local authority’s building control department.
2. Some of the external brick work required attention as it was vulnerable to rainwater penetration. A recommendation was made as follows:
  1. Cracks and eroded mortar to be raked out and repointed.
  2. An area of cracking to the front of the property to be monitored for progressive movement.
3. It stated that it was of the opinion that based on (British Thermal Unit) BTU requirements, the radiator installed within the single-storey side extension was is of a sufficient size for the room. It stated that should further assurance be required, it would recommend the room’s heating provision is inspected and suitability is confirmed by a Heating Engineer.
4. Lead flashing on the join between the single-storey side extension and the side wall of the property was substandard. It was also identified that there was open jointing between the brickwork. It outlined that this could make the property vulnerable to rainwater entering. A recommendation was made as follows:
  1. To install correctly formed stepped lead flashing.
5. The rear door did not fit correctly and required a new threshold to ensure a weathertight fit. A recommendation was made as follows:
  1. Replace the threshold with a suitable item and ensure a weathertight fit.
6. There was no evidence of structural dampness in the property and normal readings were taken using a moisture meter. The surveyor concluded that the property was not affected by damp and mould at that time, but evidence of previous mould treatments was noted in the bedrooms.
On 28 April 2023, the resident sent a detailed email to this Service in which she outlined her concerns as follows:
1. Her health had been severely impacted since the start of her tenancy at the property in 2012. She stated she had provided medical evidence to the landlord in support of her rehousing requests but the landlord had not considered this information.
2. She outlined that she had complained to the landlord since 2012 about the single-storey side extension being too cold for her to use as a bedroom.
3. She stated that the landlord had failed to address ASB which she had reported. She described having experienced the following ASB but did not provide detail of when these incidents occurred:
  1. Having been spat on in the face whilst using her wheelchair to attend a doctor’s appointment.
  2. She had been burgled twice at the property.
  3. Her disability cars had been vandalised.
  4. She had lost hearing in both ears due to “extreme noises” from a pump at a swimming pool near to the property.
  5. She had informed the landlord’s staff (including its Chief Executive) of these incidents.
4. She outlined that due to the lack of action taken by the landlord and the severe impact on her health, she had deferred a university course three times.
5. She stated that she wanted the landlord to take the following actions:
  1. To rehouse her with immediate effect on medical grounds.
  2. To compensate her for over 10 years’ of distress, pain, suffering and deterioration of her physical and mental health, due to the landlord’s neglect and failure of its duties to her.
  3. To compensate her for its failures in providing her with accommodation suitable for her physical and mental health conditions.
  4. To compensate her for the lost time she had experienced in needing to defer her university course due to stress, pain and suffering which the landlord’s actions had caused her.
6. The landlord and its staff were hindering her progress, controlling her life and dictating how she should live her life. She described feeling suicidal and wanting to self-harm.
The landlord’s Director of Customer & Community sent an email to the resident on 12 May 2023 in which it was confirmed:
1. It would approve her mutual exchange request.
2. Before the exchange could go ahead, advice was needed from social services around the resident’s mobility and use of a chair lift.
3. An occupational therapist would need to advise and assess the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident moved out of the property on 16 June 2023 having completed a mutual exchange. It stated that it worked outside of its usual process to approve the exchange, and that it considered the resident’s disabilities and circumstances in its decision. It confirmed that following the end of the tenancy, it completed all of the recommendations and repairs at the property, as outlined in the report from the independent surveyor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s tenancy policy states that assured tenants have the right to exchange their tenancy with another tenant of a Registered Provider (another registered social landlord such as a housing association or local authority). The landlord will consent to a mutual exchange unless the grounds for refusal apply.
Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985 and schedule 14 of the Localism Act 2011 outline reasons why a landlord may refuse permission for a mutual exchange application.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy outlines its commitment to providing safe and healthy homes for its residents. To achieve this it will carry out any necessary planned preventative maintenance and repair work, within listed timescales.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excess cold in a single-storey side extension.

In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord made enquiries with the local authority around building control checks made at the time of the single-storey side extension being built. The extension was constructed 10 years before the landlord became responsible for the management of the property
In the absence of building regulation certification it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the property. It is noted that the landlord obtained a report regarding the whole property rather than just the single-storey side extension. This was carried out despite its own gas team stating that the single-storey side extension had adequate heating provision, following an inspection. This approach sought to reassure the resident that the property was suitable for her needs and was a positive step taken by the landlord.
The landlord acted reasonably by offering the resident support with obtaining a bed and mattress after it noted that she was possibly sleeping on a mat placed directly on to the floor. It is however noted that the resident disputes the landlord’s observation in this regard as she stated that she had been using the living room area to sleep in for a number of years, due to her feeling that the extension was too cold.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange application.

There is no evidence to show that the resident complained about the time taken by the landlord in its handling of her mutual exchange request, but she was dissatisfied with its decision to not initially authorise the exchange.
The landlord has advised this Service of the reasons why it did not initially permit the mutual exchange and it is confirmed that due to data protection reasons, it acted appropriately by not sharing personal information regarding the other party with the resident. Although the landlord did not initially approve the mutual exchange application which clearly caused distress to the resident, it did give due consideration to the criteria listed within the Localism Act 2011 in its decision.
The landlord later reconsidered and approved the resident’s mutual exchange request once it had received the requested information from the resident regarding the occupation status of her adult children. It is noted that the resident disputes the landlord’s position that she did not provide information earlier relating to her adult children who would be residing at the property she wished to exchange to. The resident stated to the landlord and this Service that her preferred resolution was to be able to move, which was ultimately approved by the landlord approving the mutual exchange.
The landlord advised the resident to report any incidents of racism, following her claim that it was a racist organisation, however there is no evidence to show that the resident made any reports in this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a excess cold in a single-storey side extension.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application for a mutual exchange.