Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202120095)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120095

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

23 May 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:
1. Response regarding its repair responsibilities at the property.
2. Handling of a lighting repair.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The resident moved to the property by way of a mutual exchange on 25 October 2021.

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will carry out essential repairs. It also states that the landlord is responsible for:
1. Outside doors, internal doors and door frames, door hinges and door jambs.
2. Garages and outbuildings that exist at the start of the resident’s tenancy or are later erected by the landlord.
Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths, and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings, and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas, or electricity).
The landlord’s Mutual Exchange policy (the policy) sets out its position and approach to mutual exchange of tenancy. The policy states that:
1. The incoming tenant accepts the condition of the property ‘as seen’, however, it will undertake repairs which are its responsibility.
The landlord’s Mutual Exchange leaflet states:
1. Before a resident agrees to swap he/she should check if any improvements have been made outside of the landlord’s standard improvements. This is important as the resident may be held responsible by the landlord if things go wrong.
2. Once the landlord receives the mutual exchange application it will complete an inspection to assess for any alterations made to the property. The incoming resident will be provided with a list of any alterations to the property which he/she will take on as part of the exchange. It provides some examples of non-standard alterations which include:
  1. Sheds or other types of outhouses erected by the tenant.
  2. Non-standard fittings such as kitchen units or other fittings installed by the tenant.
3. Where a resident moves into a property, through mutual exchange, he/she will take on responsibility for the condition of the property, as if they were the previous resident.
4. A mutual exchange does not affect the landlord’s responsibilities. If the repair was one that it ordinarily undertook because of fair wear and tear, then it would do it.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy (repairs policy) states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and urgent repairs within seven days. The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for:
1. Electrical wiring including sockets, light fittings, and switches.
2. Basins, sinks, baths, showers, taps, tap washers and stop taps.

Summary of events

On 22 August 2021 the resident applied to mutually exchange. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident to confirm that the application for the mutual exchange had been approved. The date of the correspondence is unclear; however, the landlord advised that the tenancy would be assigned to the resident from 25 October 2021 on completion of the deed of assignment.
Within the letter, the landlord asked the resident to sign and return the deed of assignment ready for a telephone appointment on 22 October 2021. It provided details of the rent and enclosed a specimen tenancy agreement and advised the resident to read it. It confirmed that an officer would contact the resident to arrange to see his proof of identification.
It stated that as part of the conditions of the mutual exchange the resident would be required “to accept the property and the garden in its current state of repair”. This included the internal decoration and cleanliness. It stated that the acceptance was “without prejudice” to the resident’s future responsibilities as a tenant.
The landlord also recommended that the resident view the property prior to signing the assignment paperwork to check the current condition. It invited the resident to contact it if he had any questions.
On 17 October 2022 the resident signed a “Mutual Assignment (exchange) Sign Up” form (the form).
The resident signed to agree that he would accept ownership and be responsible for the following in the property:
1. TV aerial fitted to the chimney stack.
2. Satellite dish fitted to the side elevation of the property.
3. Outside tap fitted to the rear elevation of the property.
4. Area of paving slabs located along rear elevation of the property.
5. Area of paving slabs located to rear elevation of attached outbuilding.
6. Timber door and framework enclosing sheltered area serving rear external door to property and outside toilet.
7. Timber shed.
8. Internal doors and furniture.
9. Built in wardrobes in bedroom one.
10. Bathroom: shower screen, bath panel, sink, taps and vanity unit, towel rail above radiator, glass effect shelf above bath taps.
11. Kitchen: two shelving units fitted to ends of the landlord’s supplied wall units.
Evidence provided to this Service shows that the deed of assignment was signed, and the resident became responsible for the tenancy 25 October 2021.
On 1 November 2021 the resident reported that the light switch in one of the bedrooms was tripping the other lights. As a result, the lights were not working upstairs. On 2 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. In summary he said:
1. He had reported that the upstairs lights were not working on 1 November.
2. He was told he would have to wait until 5 November 2021 for an electrician to attend.
3. He considered that this was a long time to wait for something as essential as lighting because his daughter had autism and developmental co-ordination disorder which meant that she tripped and stumbled daily.
4. He had purchased a lamp but could only afford one for the upstairs which was causing a health and safety concern.
The resident also attached a copy of the form and asked if the landlord could explain what the document meant. He queried what would happen if the items that had been listed broke and whether the landlord would repair them.
The landlord responded on 3 November 2021. In summary it said:
1. It was sorry that the repair could not be done until 5 November 2021. This was because it had not been classed as an emergency as the resident had said he had other working lights and could plug in a lamp. It had copied in its repairs team to see if it could be done quicker.
2. The items listed were fitted by the previous tenant and as he had mutually exchanged, he would take on this responsibility.
The resident and the landlord continued to exchange correspondence on the same day. The resident advised that he had spoken to the previous tenant who had informed him that the items on the list were all there when she moved into the property except the satellite dish. On this basis he considered it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair. In response, the landlord advised that the items would not come under its repair remit as it had not installed them.
On 4 November 2021 the resident made a formal complaint. In summary he said:
1. He was unhappy that he had to wait five days for an electrician to repair his upstairs lights.
2. When the repair was reported the landlord was informed that the lack of lighting was having a detrimental effect as he had a disabled daughter who was prone to tripping and stumbling.
3. He was dissatisfied that the landlord would not complete any repairs now or in the future on the following items:
  1. Outside tap.
  2. Rear paving slabs.
  3. Outside timber door and framework, enclosing the sheltered area.
  4. Built in wardrobes in the bedroom.
  5. Shower screen, bath panel, sink, taps and vanity unit in the bathroom.
  6. Two kitchen shelving units.
4. He was happy to accept responsibility for the other items on the list, which was part of his signing up agreement, but he did not agree that the items listed above were his sole responsibility.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and stated it would respond within the next ten working days.
The landlord attended the property on 5 November 2021 and determined that a standard lamp had blown which in turn shorted the switch in the bedroom. This tripped the residual current device (RCD) to the upstairs lights. It changed the lamp holder and switch and reset the RCD. All the lights upstairs were left working.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It apologised that it had not responded to the light repair within 24 hours as it should have in accordance with its Right to Repair scheme.
2. It had reminded members of its contact team that qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair scheme had different response times. It apologised again for the inconvenience caused.
3. It had studied the documents signed by the resident prior to him moving to the property. He had signed to take responsibility for the items mentioned as part of his complaint. The items did not form part of its maintenance schedule and it would not carry out any repairs required in the future. It enclosed a copy of the signed schedule.
The resident and landlord exchanged further correspondence that day. The resident said that before requesting the escalation of his complaint, he wished to know which of the items listed were not part of the landlord’s maintenance schedule. He was aware that he signed the form but did not fully understand the contents of the document before he signed. He also felt that by not signing it he would not have been able to move.
In response, the landlord advised that it had “taken the items out of any repairs schedule/responsibility” as the resident had signed to “take ownership”. It added that the form was “clear” as to what it was asking the resident to sign for; and any concerns or questions could have been answered at the time.
The resident subsequently escalated his complaint; and on 17 November 2021 the landlord acknowledged his request. It advised that it would provide a full written response by 26 November 2021.
On 25 November 2021 the landlord sent its stage two response. In summary it said:
1. The resident had advised that he wished for this part of his complaint to be escalated to stage two, so that he could make the Ombudsman aware that he had to “wait three days without working lights” in the property.
2. It referred to its response at stage one in respect of the delay to the repair of the upstairs lights and apologised again. It had identified improvements because of the complaint which were as follows:
  1. More effective checking and repair logging system. Including how it logs the repair at the initial stage of reporting.
  2. More robust tracking system for ongoing repairs.
  3. Visibility of active repairs so that tenants could view the status of their active repair.
3. It was undertaking a full review of its repair service and invited the resident to be part of the review so that it could get a good understanding of what it did well and what it could improve.
4. It was aware that the resident had raised some concerns regarding the mutual exchange assignment form that he had signed. This document confirmed that he was happy to accept the property he was moving into in its (then) current condition. The document also detailed the items that the incoming tenant would be accepting responsibility for. These items were identified during an inspection.
5. As part of the mutual exchange process, it had written to the resident and confirmed that the application had been successful. The letter included the following – “As part of the conditions of this mutual exchange you are required to accept the property in its present state of repair, internal decoration and cleanliness, and the garden within the curtilage of the dwelling in its present condition; all without prejudice to your future responsibilities as a tenant. We recommend that you view the property prior to signing assignment paperwork to check its current condition”.
6. It had recommended that he view the property before he signed any documents. It had also encouraged him to raise any issues with the outgoing tenant or itself if any clarification was required prior to exchange or signing of any documentation.
7. It wanted to reassure the resident that it would carry out essential repairs to his new home. However, if the resident remained dissatisfied with its response, the resident could refer the matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He contacted his local MP, who referred the matter to this Service. The resident said that he remained unhappy as:
1. While the landlord had apologised for the delay in carrying out repairs to the upstairs lighting, he wished to make the Ombudsman aware of the matter.
2. He had signed the mutual exchange paperwork. However, he felt that he had “no choice” but to sign the form. He accepted that under the mutual exchange agreement he would be taking on responsibility for items that had been installed by the previous tenant. However, the previous tenant did not install all of the items. He therefore considered that it was unfair that he would be responsible for repairing these items.

Assessment and findings

Response regarding its repair responsibilities

Prior to raising his complaint, the resident queried the documentation relating to the mutual exchange process. He advised that he did not fully understand the contents of the form and wished to know what it meant in terms of the landlord’s repair obligations for the items that had been listed. The landlord advised that the items were fitted by the previous tenant; and as the resident had mutually exchanged to the property, these items would be his responsibility. This explanation was reasonable in the circumstances, given how the mutual exchange process works and that a new tenancy is not granted when the incoming tenant moves.
However, when the resident pointed out that the items were not fitted by the previous resident the landlord shifted its position without any explanation. It stated it had not installed the items, so they were not its responsibility. While this may not have been incorrect, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided more detail at this point to explain why. It could have also gone further and set out its repair obligations and what items they applied to. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage.
As the resident was dissatisfied with the response, he asked for the matter to be treated as a formal complaint. As detailed above, he advised that he was happy to accept responsibility for some items on the list, but not all of them. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it provided an explanation about the form and confirmed that it had also recommended that the resident visit the property. The landlord added that it had encouraged the resident to raise any issues with the outgoing tenant or to request clarification regarding the documentation prior to signing, if any of it was unclear.
The landlord’s response in terms of the information the resident was provided with was overall appropriate. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the form set out the items that the resident would be responsible for. As such, the landlord had made the resident aware that he would be accepting the property in its (then) current condition, and that there were some items for which it would not be responsible for repairing.
However, the evidence provided to this Service suggests that the landlord could reasonably have provided further clarification in relation to its repair obligations. The form listed items which would ordinarily be the landlord’s responsibility to repair under the tenancy agreement. For example, the sink and taps.
During a mutual exchange process, it is common practice for a landlord to inspect a property and identify any non-standard items installed by the outgoing tenant. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it would not be responsible for repairing these items. For example, by explaining that they were non-standard fittings. The form itself did not stipulate whether any of the items were considered to be non-standard.
The landlord’s mutual exchange leaflet provides some examples of what constitutes non-standard items, but also states that if the repair is one it ordinarily undertakes then it will do it. While this correctly sets out the landlord’s obligations, some distinction could reasonably have been provided to the resident to explain how this applied to the items he was responsible for. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to explain this in its complaint response.
The landlord incorrectly stated in its stage one response that it would not carry out any repairs required to any of the items in the future. In its stage two response it stated that it would still carry out any essential repairs to the resident’s home.
While the later complaint response clarified that the landlord had some repair responsibilities it did not fully explain what they were and how this applied to the resident’s circumstances. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out what items on the list it would have a duty to repair and how it would facilitate that repair if the items were non-standard. Furthermore, the landlord did not clearly communicate what repairs the resident would be responsible for, and why.
In summary there was service failure in the landlord’s response regarding its repair duties at the property. It is not disputed that the landlord ensured the resident was made aware that he was accepting responsibility for the items prior to the mutual exchange. However, it failed to provide an adequate explanation to the resident as to why he was responsible. It also failed to explain what its future repair obligations would be in respect of any items which it had a duty to repair.
The landlord also failed to address this in its complaint response. It focused more on the fact that the resident had accepted the items as part of the exchange rather than explaining why he was responsible. The landlord’s own complaint policy states it will address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling and caused the resident further time and inconvenience having to pursue the matter with this Service.
Toput things right an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused, and to write to the resident to clearly explain what the non-standard items are, and in what circumstances it may carry out a repair and what this would entail.

Handling of the light repair

When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it advised that a partial loss of power is covered under the Right to Repair scheme and that an emergency appointment should have been raised. As it was not, it did not respond to the repair within the required timescale.
The Right to Repair scheme states that a partial loss of power should be rectified within 3 days. However, the landlord’s repairs policy sets out that electrical wiring issues (including lighting) would be an emergency (with a 24-hour response time) if there was an issue that had health and safety implications. It further states that the repair would be logged as “routine 7 days” in the event of faulty light switches and/or sockets. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation within the complaint response should have been clearer here. Nevertheless, it correctly identified an issue with how it had logged the repair and considered its urgency, which was the main issue of complaint.
As the landlord had identified that it failed to meet the Right to Repair timescales during the complaints process, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered compensation at this point as this is the essence of the Right to Repair scheme. That it did not was a failing.
The landlordappropriately recognised its failing in the time taken to repair the light, however it did not fully consider the overall impact on the resident and how it could put it right. The resident had informed the landlord in his complaint that the time taken to reinstate the light had caused distress and inconvenience due to his child’s medical conditions, but this was not acknowledged within the complaint response. The landlord’s goodwill and compensation policy states that it can offer up to £100 compensation where a complaint is found to be justified. It was unreasonable given the upheld complaint and the adverse effect reported by the resident that the landlord did not apply its compensation policy and offer redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response regarding its repair responsibilities at the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a lighting repair.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about his repair obligations lacked clarity and caused confusion. The documentation that was completed by the landlord during the mutual exchange process could reasonably have been clearer too, and this may have avoided some of the concerns that were subsequently raised by the resident.
While the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the lighting repair, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure and address all key elements of the complaint. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total sum of £210 which is comprised as follows:
  1. £60 for the confusion, distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of clarity regarding its repair obligations.
  2. £50 for the adverse effect caused by the delay in completing the light repair.
  3. £100 for its failure to follow its complaint procedure and provide clear reasons for its decision.
Once the above orders have been completed the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to clearly explain what the non-standard items are, and in what circumstances it may carry out a repair and what this would entail.
2. review its current mutual exchange documentation to ensure that residents are provided with sufficiently clear information about the distinction between standard and non-standard items and what this means in terms of the landlord’s repair obligations. The outcome of this review should be shared with this Service also within six weeks.