Taunton Deane Borough Council (202014914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014914

Taunton Deane Borough Council

21 January 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 response to the resident about:
1. Repairs reports.
2. The property condition and level of checks when he moved in via mutual exchange.
3. Health and safety concerns.
4. The property’s lack of modernisation.
5. His request to move.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority, and moved into the property via mutual exchange in 2019. The resident is elderly and occupies the property with his son.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation and free from serious and immediate risks to health and safety, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions. To meet its responsibilities, the landlord operates a reactive repairs service for day to day repairs, and carries out major works under improvement and cyclical works programmes.
The landlord, as a local authority, has a statutory duty to assess and enforce health and safety in privately rented housing using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), a risk‑based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. A local authority cannot take statutory enforcement action against itself for its own housing, however it is expected to use the HHSRS to assess its housing and to ensure this meets the Decent Homes Standard.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort. Whether a property may be in unreasonable repair depends on whether building components are old and need replacement or major repair; while whether facilities may not be modern depends on whether a property lacks more than three relevant facilities such as reasonably modern bathrooms. The Decent Homes Standard advises that identification of hazards should be a trigger for remedial action, which the landlord’s website confirms may involve it working to make a property safe.
The landlord’s tenant welcome pack confirms that mutual exchange is one way a tenant can move into a property and it details that a mutual exchange may be refused under the Housing Act 1985 for certain reasons. The welcome pack confirms a property is inspected before mutual exchange and that the internal condition becomes an incoming tenant’s responsibility. This reflects that a mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, but a means by which tenants ‘step into the shoes’ of tenants they exchange with. This means that the incoming tenancy takes occupation of the property ‘as is;’ that the landlord does not carry out usual void checks; and that mutual exchange properties may not be to the same standard of repair as a property that has been through a voids process.
The welcome pack also explains that mould and condensation that occur may result from living conditions rather than property defects, and details ways to avoid these such as not drying clothes indoors and ensuring there is adequate heating.
The landlord manages its housing moves under a ‘Homefinder’ scheme. Under the scheme’s policy, applicants are allocated priorities based on information provided. To allocate higher priority to applicants based on property condition, specified hazards under the HHSRS must be identified by a qualified officer. To allocate high priority to applicants on medical or welfare grounds, there must be supporting evidence from a professional person, which confirms the impact a property has on an applicant’s medical or welfare condition and the effect a move would have.
The landlord operated a single stage complaints procedure at the time of the complaint, in which it aimed to respond within ten working days. The Ombudsman notes that this has since been replaced by a two stage process.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that the landlord inspected the property in September 2019, when it was occupied by the previous tenant and before it was let to the resident via mutual exchange. The resident moved into the property in November 2019, and the signed mutual exchange agreement confirms the resident inspected and accepted the property condition at the time of the exchange.
On 30 June 2020, the resident’s GP contacted the landlord at his request about the property condition, particularly mould. The landlord attempted a visit on 17 July 2020 and later spoke with the resident the same day. The landlord’s call notes record that:
1. The resident believed the landlord’s inspection before the mutual exchange should have led to his move being blocked, due to the condition. The landlord explained that inspections before mutual exchanges were to ensure everything was as it should be, and that it was his unforced choice to mutually exchange after viewing the property. The resident was advised to submit an application to the housing moves scheme if he wished to move.
2. An inspection was offered, however the resident did not want an inspection or repairs before the property condition was viewed by agencies such as social services.
The landlord noted the resident did not want an inspection but asked a surveyor to arrange a visit, which was carried out on 4 August 2020. Information provided advises this noted that “a few small patches of mould” were caused by condensation and that the resident reported he had burned his hand on pipes. The landlord raised repairs to replace a pull cord, a shower riser, and timber on a fence; install a vent; fit lagging to pipes; and treat mould and redecorate. The landlord’s records advise that by 14 August 2020, these works were complete apart from the mould works.
On 13 August 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that the property was not habitable or safe; there was serious damp in a bedroom and kitchen; and there had been delay and lack of communication after issues were reported and a survey was done. He stated that before moving in, the landlord should have fully inspected the property and fixed a number of problems, which if known by the resident the property would have been refused. He requested to be moved to more suitable accommodation or for appropriate repairs to be quickly carried out.
It has not been disputed that an appointment was subsequently arranged with the resident for the remaining mould works (after initially being marked completed on the system, in error), and that access for this was not gained by the landlord after it attempted to visit.
On 22 October 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint.
1. It detailed the inspection findings on 4 August 2020 and advised that repairs raised after the visit were complete apart from mould treatment, which it had been unable to arrange or gain access to complete.
2. It acknowledged concern about inspections before the mutual exchange, and referred to an agreement which confirmed the resident accepted the property condition.
3. It noted that the resident was unhappy at being informed repairs issues would be looked at, and that he wanted to be moved. It advised that there was no evidence the property was uninhabitable, or that he needed to be moved, and it detailed his current options to move.
Following this, the landlord notes in calls on 10 and 16 November 2020 that the resident refused mould and ventilation works, as he intended to make a further complaint and wanted to move. The resident raised concern around this time via a customer survey, in which he stated the property was not checked before moving in and that he had burned himself on pipes. The landlord conducted an inspection on 19 November 2020 which noted that:
1. The property had double glazing; working extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen; and a six year old boiler and gas central heating system.
2. There was considerable condensation on windows and significant mould growth in some areas, due to excessive drying of clothes throughout the flat and the resident’s acknowledged irregular and limited use of the heating.
3. The resident and his son were advised to dry washing in the bathroom with the door shut and to turn heating on daily for set hours during winter months.
4. The pipe the resident reported burning himself on was now boxed in; will have been the same temperature as radiators (60˚C); and was not normally required to be boxed in for health and safety reasons.
5. The alignment and seal of a fire door, which the resident reported concern about, appeared to be in excellent condition after checks.
The landlord raised repairs after the inspection to clear rainwater pipes of some vegetation; check some exposed wires suspected to be earth bonding wires (to reassure the resident these were safe); paint recently replaced timber on a fence; and adjust a door which caught the floor slightly. The landlord’s repairs records advise that, apart from the pipes and door work, these were completed, and mould treatment was also completed on 7 December 2020.
The resident later contacted the landlord and a further complaint was recorded following calls between 4 and 10 February 2021. In summary:
1. He was unhappy with the property’s lack of modernisation and issues since moving in. He raised concern the property was unsafe and pipes he burned himself on had been dangerous for previous occupants.
2. He advised damp, mould and condensation was still occurring after the mould treatment and greater heating use; and he reported being informed by a plumber that the positioning of water pipes would lead to condensation.
3. He advised he did not want further visits by surveyors or workmen, because nothing had been done after visits and he was not getting anywhere.
4. He complained that he had been threatened by staff.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint.
1. It confirmed it spoke to staff and identified there had been some miscommunication from staff involved with repairs and a move request, which it apologised for.
2. It advised property, gas and electrical inspections took place before the mutual exchange, and explained that the property check was a general check and not a full survey. It advised that a signed mutual exchange contract showed the resident was happy with the state of the property and agreed to take it on. It explained a viewing could not be offered without the previous tenant’s furnishings since it was a mutual exchange property.
3. It explained modernisation had been done at the property including a bathroom upgrade, and it detailed surveyor visits and subsequent actions in relation to these. It advised that most repairs mentioned in the complaint were resolved, but there were a few open repairs delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions, which it would attempt to book in when restrictions eased. It advised water pipes were not the cause of mould throughout the property although there was an open repair for an inspection of this concern.
4. It advised that it shared the resident’s concern about mould and explained there were repairs it had believed would improve the property conditions which access had been denied for. It confirmed it had made recommendations about heating and clothes drying which it believed would improve the property condition along with repairs it offered.
5. It advised that it was still unable to support a request to be moved, and it detailed his current options to move.
In separate correspondence, the landlord informed the resident that other members of staff who were present when he alleged he was threatened confirmed he was not threatened.
After the landlord’s response, information provided advises there was further correspondence about the resident’s concerns, including from an MP, and further inspections were carried out. The resident was provided with single points of contact in relation to repairs and moving, and in June 2021 the landlord installed a ventilation system in the property. The landlord reports the resident subsequently wished to focus on moving and did not want a number of further repairs, so these were placed on hold after a safety review. Information provided advises the landlord helped the resident bid on properties and try to increase his housing priority; offered mediation which he declined; and referred him to a support organisation to try to obtain supporting evidence that the property impacted his mental health. The most recent information provided notes that in July 2021, the resident did not want to engage further with the landlord or a support organisation unless a property was offered. Developments following this are unclear, however as explained at Paragraph 23, events after the landlord’s February 2021 response are not the main focus of this investigation.
In contact with this Service from March 2021, the resident has stated dissatisfaction with the checks before his mutual exchange; the property’s lack of modernisation; and being accused of causing mould. He confirms to this investigation that he has been reluctant to allow works to the property due to concern that they would be done shoddily.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which sets out the type of complaints the Ombudsman will and may not investigate. In accordance with the Scheme, this Service normally investigates complaints which have completed a landlord’s complaints procedure, and normally focuses on events before and during when the complaint was in the landlord’s complaints procedure. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord may be ongoing, this investigation assesses events from June 2020, after the resident’s first reports, until the landlord’s complaint responses in October 2020 and February 2021. Events which pre and post-date these dates are referenced for contextual purposes only.
This investigation notes that the resident has not explicitly brought issues such as allegations of threats by staff, which the landlord has set out that it disputes. There can be different interpretations of events, and where there are two different verbal accounts of an incident, it is hard for this Service to make a definitive decision and decide one is more true than is the other. On the evidence this investigation has seen, this Service is unable to determine what happened, and therefore this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues the resident has brought to the Ombudsman.
This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which have impacted living in the property and his health; and we recognise the concerns he reports have affected and caused distress to him. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health; if a property is unsafe and uninhabitable; if a landlord has been negligent; if a property is adequately modernised; or if a complainant should be moved – as these are not within our role, expertise or jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can assess whether, when considering issues, the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident about repairs reports

The landlord is obligated to consider any repairs reports and take steps to resolve any repairs it is responsible for, under its policies and its responsibilities set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Following reports from the resident such as in June and November 2020, the landlord has carried out multiple inspections of the property; raised necessary repairs it has identified; and gone on to complete, or attempt to complete, multiple repairs it identified. It does not appear disputed that the resident has not provided access for repairs that were then delayed or were not completed. This Service assesses whether a resident’s actions mitigate issues such as delay or lack of completion of works and in this case, the resident’s reluctance to allow works to go ahead at points appears to have impacted the landlord’s ability to complete repairs.
The resident has expressed concern that the landlord stated he had caused mould. The landlord’s initial recommendations concerning drying clothes and heating use do not appear unreasonable, as they were based on first hand assessments by staff, upon whose opinion the landlord is reasonably entitled to rely. The recommendations were also in line with advertised guidance about mould and condensation. The landlord later took further action by carrying out further inspections, installing vents, carrying out mould treatment and installing a ventilation system. This demonstrates that the landlord has, over time, reviewed further appropriate actions and been resolution focused in respect of this issue.
This investigation notes that on receipt of the complaints, the landlord issued responses outside the 10 working timescale of its complaints policy at that time; for example after the complaint in August 2020, the landlord did not issue a response until October 2020. That said, this investigation recognises that the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions will have impacted the landlord’s service delivery, and considering that the landlord had been working to resolve repair issues in the interim, the time taken to issue responses does not appear to have been overly unreasonable or caused significant detriment to the resident. This investigation notes that when the resident complained in February 2021, the landlord’s response was the same month and therefore more timely.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports has been reasonable. The landlord carried out inspections of the property, identified necessary repairs, and carried out repairs it gained access for. The landlord provided initial recommendations about mould based on first hand inspections and later took additional actions in respect of the issue, which shows the landlord has sought to be mindful of repairs obligations over time and sought to take relevant action. When the resident informed the landlord that he did not want any more works, it reviewed if outstanding works had health and safety implications if they were not done. Although the landlord provided complaint responses outside its prescribed timescales, this Service recognises these may have been affected by external factors and these appear to have caused no real detriment to the resident.
This investigation notes the landlord has informed the resident that there are repairs which would benefit him and the property, which the resident did not agree to and have therefore not been progressed. This investigation makes a recommendation to the landlord related to this.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition and level of checks when he moved in via mutual exchange

The resident has expressed concern that the landlord’s checks before his mutual exchange were inadequate, and believes his move should have been blocked because of the property condition. The landlord has referred the resident to the agreement where he accepted the property condition, and has explained how checks it carried out were not full structural checks.
When a tenant moves to a property via mutual exchange, it is a tenant’s responsibility to check they are happy with a property’s condition, and the mutual exchange agreement confirms there was opportunity to view the property and confirm satisfaction with the condition before moving in.
The resident is of the view that the landlord should have conducted a full health and safety assessment before the mutual exchange, however there appears to be no specific evidence that the extent of the landlord’s inspection before the mutual exchange was unreasonable and out of line with its obligations. It is not disputed that before the mutual exchange, the landlord carried out an inspection where it satisfied itself as to the general property condition. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of the first hand assessments of staff, and this shows that it fulfilled its policy to inspect a property before a mutual exchange. This also shows the landlord had opportunity to identify if there were any issues such as very poor decoration due to mould, where it would have been obligated to take action. The landlord’s findings after reports of mould in June 2020 was that there were a few small patches, rather than very poor decoration.
This investigation further notes that no concerns were reported until eight months after the resident moved into the property, which appears to confirm that the property was not in an unreasonable condition at the time of the mutual exchange. This investigation would expect to see evidence of reports immediately after moving in if the condition was unreasonable. It does not appear unusual or unreasonable that repairs later arose which needed to be reported to the landlord, for it to consider in accordance with its repair obligations.
This means that while the resident has also stated that the landlord should have blocked the move because of the property condition, there appears to be insufficient evidence that the property condition was, or is, unreasonable. This investigation notes that under the law, a landlord may only refuse permission for a mutual exchange for limited reasons, and the reasons stated by the resident is not one of these. This investigation does note that a landlord may refuse permission for a mutual exchange where it considers that accommodation is not reasonably suited to an incoming tenant; and while there is no evidence of any failing for this aspect, this investigation makes a recommendation to the landlord related to this.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition and level of checks was appropriate, as it has reviewed and responded to the resident’s concerns reasonably. There is no evidence that the property was in an unreasonable condition when the resident moved in. It is not disputed that the landlord inspected the property before the mutual exchange, and there is no evidence this was out of line with its obligations. The signed mutual exchange agreement shows that the resident accepted the condition of the property when he moved in, along with an obligation to report any subsequent repairs to the landlord’s reactive repairs service. There is no evidence that the landlord was obligated to block the mutual exchange for the reasons the resident has detailed.

The landlord’s response to the resident about health and safety concerns

The resident has expressed concern that the landlord breached the health and safety of him and previous occupants, particularly in respect to a pipe he burned himself on. This investigation understands the distress this will have caused him, and understands the resident’s view that the presence of such issues show a health and safety failing on the part of the landlord. It is clear from the information and evidence provided that the resident strongly believes that the landlord did not comply with healthy and safety requirements and has repeatedly expressed his views and concerns in different ways.
This investigation notes that as a local authority, the landlord has a role in enforcing housing health and safety and cannot take legal enforcement action against itself. There is however an expectancy that the landlord will use the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which the landlord uses to assess health and safety in private rented housing, to ensure its own housing meets relevant standards. It should also be noted that it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to make a legally binding decision on whether a landlord has been negligent, or breached health and safety legislation. However, as stated above, this investigation can assess whether the landlord responded reasonably.
The landlord operates a reactive repairs service, and information in relation to the Decent Homes Standard and the HHSRS advises that a report of a health and safety hazard should act as a ‘trigger’ for remedial action to be taken. The landlord appears to have acted in accordance with these by taking steps to inspect the property and to complete repairs such as cover the pipes the resident reported he had burned himself on. Information provided advises that the landlord reviewed the resident’s concern and concluded there was no specific requirement for the pipes to be covered on health and safety grounds, and the landlord has informed the resident that the property is habitable. There does not appear to be any evidence of fault with the landlord’s conclusions, for example the HHSRS sets out that to prevent the likelihood of burns and scalds (including to children), hot surfaces should be covered if they exceed a certain temperature. The information available advises that the radiators and pipes in the resident’s property fall below this level.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s health and safety concerns appears to have been reasonable. The landlord took appropriate steps to consider the resident’s concerns through inspection of the property and to take action for any issues it identified. There appears to be no evidence that the landlord was required to cover the pipes in the resident’s property on health and safety grounds, and its position that the property is habitable appears reasonable as this is based on assessments of staff, upon whose opinion the landlord is reasonably entitled to rely.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property’s lack of modernisation

The resident has expressed general concern that the property lacks modernisation. The landlord has reviewed this and informed the resident that some modernisations have occurred such as a bathroom upgrade, while from information provided other components such as heating and door systems have also been renewed.
The landlord’s obligations include repair and maintenance of the structure of the building, which includes to carry out repair or replacement of old building components where this is considered required. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point modernisations, improvements, and cyclical works are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff and contractors are best qualified to determine when repairs or replacement are required. However, this investigation can assess whether the landlord has responded reasonably.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that the property lacks modernisation appears to have been reasonable, as it has reviewed and set out a reasonable position on the concern that has been raised in this case. There is no evidence that the landlord is failing its obligations, as there is no evidence that it is failing to repair or replace old building components of the property which are considered to require repair or replacement. If the resident has specific concern about disrepair or lack of modernisation of certain aspects of the property, he has the option to raise this to the landlord, or to ask the landlord when it estimates it will next carry out any modernisations, improvements, or cyclical works to the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident about his request to move

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord has not fulfilled his request to move. The landlord has reviewed the resident’s request and his claim that the property is uninhabitable. It has satisfied itself as to the property’s habitability, informed him that it is unable to support his request, and detailed his options to move. The landlord later appointed a single point of contact to provide support with bidding and to liaise with the resident and an external organisation, in order to try to build up a case for the resident to be moved.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether a tenant should be rehoused. It is also not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a housing transfer application which involves a local authority, as such complaints are determined by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, this Service can assess in a limited way whether the landlord appears to have followed proper procedure and responded reasonably.
The landlord has an obligation to handle housing transfers and allocations in accordance with policies, which ensures all residents are treated fairly and consistently. The housing moves scheme, which the landlord uses for its allocations, requires there to be a serious hazard in a property to prioritise a move on property grounds; and requires there to be professional evidence to prioritise a move on medical grounds.
The landlord’s response appears to have been in accordance with the policies it follows. The landlord’s position that it cannot support a move on property grounds appears in accordance with policies, as it has not identified that there is a serious hazard in the property. The landlord’s attempt to work with the resident to explore if there is evidence to move on medical grounds, reflects that the resident is required to provide professional evidence to prioritise a move on medical grounds.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move appears to have been reasonable. The landlord has considered the resident’s request to move and appears to have responded in line with policies; provided additional support in recognition of the resident’s situation and circumstances; and has sought to be customer and resolution focused by trying to explore available options to try to achieve the resident’s desired outcome.
As noted above, it is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a housing transfer application which involves a local authority, and the resident has the option to refer a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he disagrees with the landlord’s decisions, in terms of how it has prioritised his application and its overall management of this process.
This investigation notes that the most recent information provided advises that the resident decided not to try to explore a move on medical grounds, however this investigation makes a recommendation to the landlord related to this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident about:
1. Repairs reports.
2. The property condition and level of checks when he moved in via mutual exchange.
3. Health and safety concerns.
4. The property’s lack of modernisation.
5. His request to move.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident about repairs reports

The landlord carried out inspections of the property, identified necessary repairs, and carried out repairs it gained access for. The landlord based initial assessments about mould on first hand inspection and has sought to be mindful of repairs obligations over time by seeking to take relevant actions. While the landlord provided complaint responses outside its prescribed timescales, this Service recognises these may have been affected by external factors.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition and level of checks when he moved in via mutual exchange

The landlord reviewed and responded to the resident’s concerns reasonably. It is not disputed that the landlord inspected the property before the mutual exchange, and there is no evidence this was out of line with its obligations or that the property was in an unreasonable condition when the resident moved in. The signed mutual exchange agreement shows that the resident accepted the condition of the property when he moved in, along with an obligation to report any subsequent repairs to the landlord’s reactive repairs service. There is no evidence that the landlord was obligated to block the mutual exchange for the reasons the resident has detailed.

The landlord’s response to the resident about health and safety concerns

The landlord took appropriate steps to consider the resident’s concerns through inspection of the property and to take action for any issues it identified. There appears to be no evidence that the landlord was required to cover the pipes in the resident’s property on health and safety grounds, but it did so as a way of trying to resolve the resident’s concerns. Its position that the property is habitable appears reasonable as this is based on assessments of staff, upon whose opinion the landlord is reasonably entitled to rely.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property’s lack of modernisation

The landlord reviewed and set out a reasonable position on the resident’s concerns in this case, and there is no evidence that the landlord is currently failing in its obligations in respect of the property’s modernisation.

The landlord’s response to the resident about his request to move

The landlord appears to have considered and responded to the resident’s request to move reasonably and in accordance with policies. It appears to have been customer and resolution focused by trying to provide support and by trying to explore available options to try to achieve his desired outcome.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer to carry out outstanding repairs in the resident’s property.
The landlord to review current support it can offer to the resident to help him explore a move from the property, and inform him of this.
The landlord to review if there are any additional steps it might take, or incorporate in property inspections, to ensure that accommodation is reasonably suited to incoming vulnerable tenants, in the case of a mutual exchange. This could include considering its approach to aspects such as uncovered pipes where an incoming tenant is vulnerable.