Six Town Housing Limited (202116266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116266

Six Town Housing Limited

05 December 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. the condition of her property upon moving in following a mutual exchange.
2. repairs needed at the new property.
3. dissatisfaction with the handling of her complaint.
4. a pest control issue at the property.

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 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

a pest control issue at the property

Paragraph 42a says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident first reported a pest control issue in August 2021 but the problem became significantly worse in October 2021 after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 20 August 2021. The issue did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint and will not be considered by the Ombudsman since the issue of pest control has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is an important part of our process that we give landlords a fair opportunity to put things right through their complaints process.
The resident has advised the pest control issue was effectively resolved in February 2022 following installation of a new kitchen.

Background and summary of events

The resident and her partner made a joint application for a mutual exchange from one secure tenancy to another on 14 April 2021. The resident was eight months pregnant at the time and wanted to move to a larger property to have more space for her two children and partner. The evidence suggests that the resident became aware of the availability of the property in March and made some initial enquiries about the property to the landlord in April.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of both properties to be swapped. The resident’s existing property was found to be in good condition. Various issues were identified with the property that the resident intended to move to. These were noted on the inspection form as a stairlift being present, an altered opening to the loft space, a missing internal door, a cat-flap alteration made to one of the doors, some damaged plaster work in one of the bedrooms, as well as damaged fencing and a possible boundary dispute with a neighbouring tenant.
The inspection form as well as all other relevant documents for the exchange were signed by both parties during the sign-up process which occurred on 24 May 2021. The form states that ‘the incoming tenant is strongly advised to undertake their own thorough inspection’ and also says that the landlord will only undertake repairs which are its responsibility as defined in the tenancy agreement.
There is evidence that the resident was aware of some of the issues with the property (such as the stairlift and loft) prior to moving in but wanted to go ahead with the exchange. However, the resident was unable to visit the property when it was empty and the evidence suggests that the resident (or her partner) was only able to visit the property once before moving in.
The resident says that she felt pressurised to move by the landlord’s staff and also because on the day of the move which was 24 May 2021, the person due to move in to her property began putting their belongings on her lawn while she was still there.
On 31 May 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the condition of her new property. The resident said the stairlift was a hazard to her young children. The resident said there were broken windows, huge cracks and holes in the walls and ceiling, a broken shower and broken cupboards in the kitchen. The resident said that if the property had been properly inspected it would not have met a decent standard. The resident requested information about the decent standards expected by the landlord for the quality of its homes.
On the 3 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident about her complaint and asked her to clarify any repairs she wished to raise.
The landlord visited the property on 2 July 2021 as part of its stage one response to the complaint. Details of the repairs required were sent to the resident on 7 July. These repairs included renewing front and back doors, renewing the ceiling in the main bedroom, replastering walls in other bedrooms, removing all rubbish from the back garden and providing a £50 redecoration voucher. The resident was advised that there was a 12 week manufacturing time for the doors.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that an ‘opportunity to question the general condition of the property’ was missed and it would be changing its mutual exchange procedures as a result.
2. The repairs detailed on 7 July 2021 were in the process of being carried out.
3. It acknowledged that the mutual exchange should have been ‘paused’ to bring the property up to a more acceptable standard before the resident moved in.
4. The landlord agreed to contact the neighbour to assist with the fencing issue and make safe any fencing posts on the residents side.
5. The complaint was found to be ‘part justified’ since the landlord said its staff had correctly followed its procedures – although those procedures would be changed as learning from the complaint. The landlord found that its staff had not rushed or pressurised the resident unfairly during the swap.
6. £50 redecoration vouchers would be provided to the resident.
The resident expressed further dissatisfaction in August 2021 following contact with the landlord’s call centre about replacing a bin. The resident said that her partner’s request to speak to a manager was refused after the call centre operative told her that replacing bins was the responsibility of the local authority and not the landlord. This was handled promptly by the person dealing with the repairs who said that the issues raised about the call centre would be picked up.
The resident also raised further repairs including problems with the bedroom door coming off its hinges, leaking taps in the bathroom, problems with the bath and shower screen and missing skirting boards. The resident raised the issue of rats being in the local area on 7 August 2021.
On 9 August 2021, the resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two. The resident said:
1. She felt pressurised during the swap due to the officer changing the arrangements for the sign-up and not returning her calls.
2. She did not get the opportunity to see the property empty, although she was aware of some outstanding minor jobs needed before the move.
3. She would not have signed for the property if she had been aware of what she described as its ‘extremely poor condition.’
4. Repairs raised in June via a video call with a specific officer had not been raised correctly and the officer was lying about the number of emails she had received from the resident about repairs.
5. There were outstanding repairs including a leaking chimney requiring repointing.
6. Due to leaks from the bathroom through the kitchen ceiling, they had been unable to bath or shower for two weeks.
7. Health and safety risks were not picked up before they moved in.
8. She was dissatisfied with staff members including the person who had investigated the stage one complaint who she said had been biased and did not believe her side of what happened.
9. The resident had incurred lots of costs that weren’t properly covered by the decoration vouchers.
On 13 August 2021, the landlord carried out a room by room inspection of the property. The property was visited again on 15 August to check on quality of the plastering work. On 19 August, the landlord contacted the resident confirming what jobs remained outstanding.
The resident made a compliment about a member of the landlord’s staff on 18 August 2021 who she said had gone ‘above and beyond’ to keep her updated on repair issues.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaints response. The landlord said:
1. Mutual Exchange homes were taken on an ‘as seen’ basis
2. The landlord had been clear about its process for repairs before and after the exchange and had advised the resident of the outcome of its inspection on 11 May. The landlord said the resident’s partner confirmed he was aware and confirmed he wanted to go ahead.
3. A number of repairs were identified on 2 July 2021 which should have been picked up by the landlord at the point of inspection on 11 May 2021.
4. The landlord acknowledged it should have provided the resident with a copy of the inspection report earlier and ‘could have done more to ensure the property was suitable to move into.’
5. The landlord did not uphold any of the complaints made about individual staff members.
6. The landlord acknowledged there had been service failure in raising repairs during June caused partly by staff absence.
7. It would include call centre training on mutual exchange repairs as part of the learning from the complaint.
8. £75 decoration vouchers were offered. Additionally, the landlord offered to reimburse the residents disposal costs up to £200 if invoices or receipts were provided by the resident.
On 24 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up various repairs including her request for a new kitchen. The resident also raised the rat problem she had reported in August again. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and reported the pest control issue to the local authority saying the matter was urgent.
The landlord provided an update to ongoing repairs including damaged plaster and brickwork on 22 September 2021. On 26 September 2021, the resident said she had missed a pest control appointment due to being in hospital with the baby.
On 1 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about a pest infestation. The resident was very distressed and said there were rat droppings in the kitchen making it unusable and unhygienic. The landlord responded the same day saying it was seeking clarification from the pest control manager of the local authority.
Pest control treatments started on 28 September 2021 with further visits on 12 and 26 October 2021. Treatments also took place during October and November in neighbouring residences and gardens.
Emails between the landlord and the Local Authority indicate that rat burrows were found at the end of September close to the resident’s property and a neighbouring property. Drainage checks were carried out and debris was cleared from the area. Several pest control treatments were carried out during October and November 2021.
The resident has stated that the pest control issue was resolved in February 2022 when her kitchen was replaced. The resident confirmed that all outstanding repair works in her property have now been completed but this was not until approximately August 2022.
The landlord informed this service on 17 January 2022 that in light of the pest control issues arising shortly after the end of its internal complaints process it has increased its compensation offer to the resident to £400.

Assessment and findings

The Condition of the Property At the Point of Exchange

It is not disputed by the landlord that it ‘could have done more to ensure the property was suitable to move in to.’ The resident has said that if the landlord carried out its inspection process correctly, the property would not have been deemed to be of an acceptable standard. The learning and changes made to the landlord’s processes outlined below indicate that the landlord is broadly in agreement with this and said in its final stage response that it should have ‘paused’ the exchange to allow repairs to be carried out.
The landlord’s ‘mutual exchange factsheet’ document sets out the landlord’s policy on mutual exchanges as well as information given on its website. The document says that swaps are made on as ‘as seen basis’. The landlord says that as part of the mutual exchange process it will carry out:
1. A tenancy audit – to check on issues such as rent arrears
2. A reference check – if the swapper is not a tenant of the landlord
3. An inspection of your home to ‘check its condition and for any unauthorised alterations’
There is no evidence that the above processes were not carried out. The inspection carried out at that time emphasised alterations as well as health and safety issues, and at the time of the resident’s exchange, the inspection had been correctly carried out since it was not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all repairs required at the property.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards. The HHSRS says that landlords should take preventative measures to ensure that the risk of accidents or harm in the home is reduced as much as possible. This includes issues such as ensuring doors are stairs properly secured and safe.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The Home Standard includes ensuring that homes meet the Decent Homes Standard components which relate to the degree of thermal comfort in a resident’s home as well as the general standard of repair.
The landlord says that its procedure is to carry out inspections of both properties prior to the exchange and sign up taking place. The purpose of the inspection is to identify any health and safety issues and notify the resident of any alterations made by the previous tenant. The inspection also serves to clarify which repairs are the resident’s responsibility and which repairs will be taken up by the landlord. The inspection report document itself does include advice to residents to carry out their own thorough inspections before moving in.
The landlord has acknowledged that various repairs (including extensive replastering work, repairs needed to windows and doors, and work in the bathroom) all should have been picked up and clearly identified at the point of inspection. Additionally, the inspection document was not provided to the resident until the sign up a couple of weeks later. The landlord recognised this as a failure and said it would be changing its procedures accordingly. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to correct its processes.
The landlord says that it had phone conversations with the resident’s partner prior to the sign up and he was aware of certain issues such as the stairlift and fencing but wanted to go ahead. Records also show that the resident made enquiries with the landlord on 6 April 2021, querying when capital works were due for the doors and kitchen and if the stairlift could be removed by the disability team.
Both parties confirm that the resident was unable to view the property when empty. The landlord says that the resident (or her partner) did visit the property once before moving in. This visit was not facilitated by the landlord and is another process that has since been amended following the resident’s complaint. No evidence has been found by this service that the resident was unduly rushed by staff members in to making the swap.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord has reflected on what happened and reviewed its processes and procedures for mutual exchange as a result. The learning from the complaint includes:
1. The inspection form to be given to tenants on inspection not at sign-up.
2. The property inspection should identify all works required (not just alterations) and indicate whose responsibility it is to carry out each repair.
3. The ability for the landlord to pause exchanges while works are carried out should be built in to the mutual exchange process.
4. For the landlord to facilitate viewings for both parties prior to swap and ensure all documents completed at sign up are read and understood.
5. Reviewing and updating the information about swapping on its website.
The landlord did not offer the resident financial redress for its acknowledged failure to pause the mutual exchange during the complaints process beyond £75 redecoration vouchers and its offer to reimburse costs to the resident up to the value of £200.
In light of the resultant significant impact on the resident which she says included periods when certain rooms were not available such as two weeks when the bathroom was out of use (due to a leak) and several months of subsequent disruption caused by ongoing works, further redress is appropriate. Overall, there was a failure to ensure the property was suitable to move in to and compensation of £350 would be appropriate.

Handling of repairs after moving in

Extensive repairs were required to the property after the resident moved in.
The resident has complained that repairs she initially reported in June via an online meeting with an officer were not correctly raised. This was investigated by the landlord as part of the internal complaints process where it was acknowledged that there had been delays and some communication failure with regard to the initial logging of the resident’s repairs requests made in June 2021.
The landlord provides information about how it handles repairs on its website. The website says the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and says ‘we will give priority to other repairs according to how urgent it is.’ The website also says that some repairs are given priority if there is a new–born baby in the household as was the case here.
The resident says that she raised several repair requests in June 2021 during an online video call with the landlord. The landlord has accepted in its final stage complaint response that due to staff absence, there was a delay in raising these repair jobs in June and this was not resolved until after the landlord visited the resident in July. This constitutes a delay of three to four weeks with repairs shortly after the resident moved in.
As part of its stage one response, all repair jobs were clarified following a visit on 2 July 2021. These included jobs to replace front and back doors, works on skirting boards and stairlift removal. Further repairs were then raised to investigate leaks and renew the kitchen. The resident was advised that the door manufacture would take 12 weeks to complete and the landlord kept the resident informed on the progress of these repairs which were raised with several different contractors.
Further repair jobs were raised in September in relation to the pest control issue, and finally in November, a works order was raised for work to treat and seal the chimney. The resident has advised that her kitchen was renewed in February 2022 but other repairs continued well in to 2022. The landlord has accepted that there were ongoing repairs at the time when it’s complaints procedure was completed.
In the months from May until the end of August 2021, the landlord carried out several inspections and visits and was in close contact with the resident about the progress of repairs. Certain issues such as the door replacement unavoidably took longer for the landlord to deliver since there was a 12 week manufacture time for these. The landlord communicated effectively with the resident during this period and this is evidenced by the compliment made by the resident about a member of staff in August 2021.
However, it is clear that repairs were still ongoing during August and repair records show that further repair jobs had to be raised in November. It is fair to conclude that overall bthe resident experienced several months of considerable disruption, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to complete repairs in a timely fashion and in accordance with its repairs policy as stated on its website.
A payment of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the acknowledged delay in raising repairs in June 2021 as well the overall timeframe for the repairs would be appropriate.

Complaints Handling

The resident has expressed concerns about specific staff members particularly in the escalation of her complaint from stage one to stage two. The resident said that staff members showed bias in their findings and had lied about the repair requests made by the resident.
The landlord followed a reasonable method of investigating these concerns and showed in its responses that it was willing to accept responsibility for service failures. This service has not found any evidence to suggest the landlord’s conclusions about its staff were incorrect.
As stated above, there have been positive elements of the landlord’s complaints handling. It acknowledged complaints quickly and responded to them within a reasonable timescale. The email correspondence from the resident in general was answered promptly. Customer care issues such as those raised about the call centre were listened to and picked up promptly by the landlord. The landlord has said further training will be provided for its call centre staff.
The landlord has demonstrated significant learning from the complaint. There is evidence that the learning has been followed up and put in to practise with regard to its mutual exchange procedures. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The changes to the inspection process, the new procedure to facilitate viewings and extra training for staff are all examples of learning from the complaint.
However, the landlord could have been more resolution focussed in terms of putting things right by providing suitable redress to the resident. The initial offer of £50 redecoration vouchers at stage 1 and then £75 vouchers and £200 costs at stage 2 was inadequate and did not suitably reflect the level of impact or detriment to the resident caused by the landlord’s acknowledged service failures with regard to the mutual exchange process and repair delays.
It is noted that the landlord was willing to increase its compensation offer to £400 on 17 January 2022 in view of the pest control issues at the property although it is not clear if this was communicated to or accepted by the resident. A recommendation regarding this has therefore been made below.
Overall, communication was good with the resident and the complaints process was effective in attempting to address the resident’s concerns and helping the landlord identify where it had gone wrong with the mutual exchange process and what could be done to improve services for the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the poor condition of her property following a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property following a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that it did not do enough to ensure the property was in a suitable condition before the resident moved in and it should have paused the exchange process.
The landlord has acknowledged that there was delay in the initial recording of repairs raised by the resident in June 2021. The resident experienced several months of disruption caused by ongoing repairs.
The complaints process was effective in addressing the resident’s concerns and the landlord has demonstrated learning from the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £600 (minus any compensation already paid), comprised of
1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out more extensive checks on the property prior to exchange.
2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out repairs at the property.
It is recommended that if it has not already done so, the landlord respond to the resident regarding pest control through its complaints process and make an offer of compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by any service failures in tackling the pest control issue.