Southend-on-Sea City Council (202127516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127516

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

9 March 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.

Background

The resident is an introductory tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began on 18 October 2021. The property is situated in a block of flats. The resident has stated that she has mental health vulnerabilities, which is also noted by the landlord.
In August and September 2021, the property was included in the landlord’s major voids works due to the extensive redecorating that was needed. The handover documents from 7 October 2021 confirmed that the property was ready to let and had been fully redecorated, but was awaiting new storage heaters. Between October and December 2021, the resident reported several repair issues, such as: a plug socket, which was not working; a broken window; and redecoration of the front door and bedroom. Throughout this period, the landlord’s contractors attended the property on several occasions to complete works. The resident also requested for a shower to be installed due to medical reasons, which the landlord later installed before redecorating the bathroom.
On 15 December 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the condition of the property. She was dissatisfied that repairs were still outstanding such as: one of the windows in the property, which she said had fallen on her head, and that there was no heating in the property due to an electrical issue. She was also unhappy with a lack of communication from the landlord, especially when considering her vulnerabilities. The resident stated that the landlord had previously offered her £250 compensation, which she believed was not sufficient.
In January 2022, the resident stated that she only accepted the property due to her mental health conditions, and believed she should have been supported more by a care leavers team. In February 2022, the landlord attempted to visit the resident but was unable to gain access. It later phoned her and recognised that the resident was distressed and anxious. It stated it was happy to assist her with completing an application to move properties, and if she could supply proof, it would consider any exceptional circumstances.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 March 2022. It acknowledged that the property did not meet its void standard when the resident signed up for the property, and apologised that the repairs had not been picked up at the time, which it recognised had caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. It stated that a surveyor had contacted the resident in November 2021, and any repairs had been completed in the following weeks. It added that the resident informed it on 7 December 2021 that the window had been fixed. It informed the resident that it would be offering conditional energy vouchers in the future and could refer her to a free therapy service if she felt it would be beneficial. It stated that it had provided the resident with £20 towards her energy costs, decoration vouchers, and that it had redecorated her lounge and bedroom and provided her with a new shower and tiled her bathroom. It also maintained its previous offer of £250 compensation, which it felt was reasonable.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied with the condition of the property she had moved into and was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord. The resident felt that the compensation offer was not sufficient and is seeking for the rent to be backdated, and to be placed into a more suitable property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy or procedures for tenants. But, on the landlord’s website, it lists the following repair timeframes for leaseholders, which we have assumed would also apply to tenants:
1. Emergency repairs, where life is at risk: within one hour to make safe, and completed within 24 hours,
2. Urgent, where there is an immediate danger to life or limb: within three working days,
3. Semi-urgent, where a repair is necessary but there is no danger: within six working days,
4. Non-urgent: within 21 calendar days and,
5. Minor repairs: within two calendar months.
The Tenancy Conditions states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to window frames and hinges, sockets and heaters (if it fitted them). It states that residents are responsible for painting and decorating and keeping doors in good order.

Assessment

It is not disputed that the condition of the property following the void period was not up to the landlord’s standard. It acknowledged that it failed to identify repairs that were needed in the property initially, and due to this the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience. The landlord also acknowledged that it should have ensured the property had met its void standard, and that, at times, there were delays in it completing the works.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right prior to the complaint being raised by providing the resident with £250, which it felt was sufficient redress for the repair issues and the impact on the resident. In addition, it stated that it had installed a shower in the resident’s property and tiled the bathroom, which had cost over £1000. It had also provided the resident with £20 compensation towards additional energy costs due to draughts entering through the windows in the property. Furthermore, the landlord stated it had provided the resident with decoration vouchers, and had decorated the resident’s bedroom and lounge.
It should be noted that the resident had requested the shower for medical reasons, and the landlord had agreed to install this prior to the complaint being raised. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord agreed to install the shower due to the condition of the property and therefore, as the shower appears to have been a medical adaptation, it was not appropriate for the landlord to consider this as part of its redress. It is therefore recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to what can be appropriately included in its offer of any redress, to avoid a similar situation happening in the future.
It is difficult for this Service to determine whether the landlord had correctly followed its void process as no void policy or procedure was provided to this Service. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that repairs should have been identified at an earlier stage and that the void works it had carried out were not completed to an appropriate standard. When considering this, it was appropriate for the landlord to take responsibility for completing any outstanding repairs.
The repair timeframes listed on the landlord’s website states that semi-urgent repairs would be completed within six days, non-urgent repairs would be completed within 21 calendar days and minor repairs would be completed within two calendar months. From the evidence provided, the landlord attended to the electrical socket repairs within 15 calendar days and the lounge wall repairs within 12 calendar days. Although the landlord has not specified what these repairs were categorised as, when considering its repair definitions, it would be reasonable for the repairs to be treated as non-urgent. Therefore, these repairs were completed in line with the landlord’s policy.
Likewise, on 19 October 2021 the resident reported that there was a broken window in the property. Although the repair log for the work order does not contain specific details about the resident’s report, she later stated that the window had fallen out. On 16 November 2021, the landlord provided the resident with £20 towards additional electric costs which it later stated was due to draughty windows. The landlord stated in the complaint process that the resident had reported that the window was fixed on 7 December 2021, which is why no works were completed on its behalf. It had acted appropriately initially by raising the works, and it was reasonable for it to consider the additional costs which may have impacted the resident. When considering the above factors, it was not unreasonable that the landlord considered the issue to be resolved, and that no further works were necessary.
However, there were instances where it is not wholly clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord acted in line with its policies. Prior to the resident moving in, the landlord acknowledged that the property was awaiting the installation of storage heaters. Although the landlord stated that two storage heaters were replaced, there was no evidence provided to this Service to show the completion date of the works. Therefore, this Service is unable to determine whether the works were completed within an appropriate timeframe and is an example of poor record-keeping on the landlord’s behalf.
Nevertheless, on 13 December 2021, the resident reported that the storage heaters in the property were not working again, and the landlord attended to resolve the issue on 14 December 2021. In this instance, the landlord had dealt with the issue promptly, in line with its policies. Although the resident has stated several times that she spent a considerable length of time without heating in the property, from the evidence provided, it does appear that she also had electric heaters during this time, and was therefore not without heating in the property. The landlord has also stated that the storage heaters were working and its contractors had attended to provide the resident with instructions on how to use the radiators, which is evidence of it taking her concerns seriously.
Furthermore, at stages throughout the complaint, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s bedroom had been decorated, and confirmed to the resident that the front door would also be repaired/decorated, but the repair log provided by the landlord does not evidence the completion date of such works. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to review its record-keeping processes to ensure it is keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records of any repairs and communications.
Throughout the repairs process, there were times when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication on the landlord’s behalf. For example, on 25 November 2021, where she raised concerns about a contractor raising works without telling her what they were for, and on 16 December 2021, when she informed the landlord she was unhappy that it had not been in contact despite her mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord acted appropriately by considering what additional support it could provide to the resident and informed her that it could refer her to a therapy support service, and a more general support service who can visit the resident to provide assistance. This is evidence that it had tried to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
It is noted that the resident requested to be moved into a different property as she no longer feels comfortable in the property in view of what has happened, and that the local authority was assisting the resident with this request. On 9 March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the request had now been closed. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any one time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence.
The resident has also stated that she was seeking for her rent to be backdated for three months due to the issues she experienced. Whilst this Service recognises that the property not being up to the landlord’s standard would have been distressing to the resident, the landlord’s qualified staff had not classified the property as uninhabitable. Whilst it is clear that there were several repairs needed within the property, the resident had accepted the property during handover in its condition at that time, and the landlord had appropriately accepted responsibility for repairs after they had been identified.
When considering all of the above factors, the landlord had clearly recognised that its void standard had not been met, and appropriately accepted responsibility for putting this right. It also appropriately acknowledged that this had caused distress and inconvenience for the resident, and in view of this it offered the resident £250 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £250 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances, with one exception. The exception being the landlord’s poor record-keeping which impacted the ability of the Ombudsman to make determinations on whether some repairs were completed in line with its policies. Therefore, further compensation is due.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £350 would provide reasonable redress for the failings identified throughout this investigation. This is inclusive of the £250 previously offered, if it has not yet been paid, and is line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £350 compensation, which is inclusive of the £250 previously offered, if it has not yet been paid. This is made up of:
  1. £100 for the landlord’s poor record-keeping,
  2. £250 previously offered to the resident in view of the delays and distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Review its record-keeping processes to ensure it is keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records of any repairs and communication from residents.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to what can be appropriately included in its offer of any redress, to avoid a similar situation happening in the future.