The Extracare Charitable Trust (202415163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415163

The Extracare Charitable Trust

26 September 2025

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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
   1. sales journey and commitments made during that process.
   2. associated complaint.

Background

2. The residents are joint leaseholders of a 2-bedroom flat within a retirement village. Both leaseholders have submitted the complaint, but for ease of reference in this report, both parties will be referred to as “the resident” and “they/them/their.” The resident’s lease began on 20 December 2023. The retirement village is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a specialist provider of retirement housing for those aged 55+. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. The resident notified the landlord of the issues on 21 February 2024 when they raised a formal complaint. The key points were as follows:
   1. they were unhappy with the communication with the sales team.
   2. cleaning was not completed as agreed during the sales process, and they had incurred costs to complete this themselves.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 March 2024. The key points were as follows:
   1. the breakdown in communication was due to staff changes but once they had been resolved the communication was handled professionally.
   2. a sparkle clean and had been completed on 20 November 2023 and the carpets had been cleaned on 21 November 2023. However, it could not see that the last clean, scheduled to be completed prior to the residents moving in, had been completed, so it accepted there had been a partial service failure and apologised.
   3. it offered to reimburse the cost of the carpet clean and the filters for the cooker hood to the value of £153.89.
   4. it said to avoid this issue happening again, it would now be conducting inspections with new residents prior to them moving in. This would give an opportunity for any issues to be identified and, if so, for both parties to agree an action plan to rectify anything of note.
5. The resident escalated their complaint on the same day, and in summary:
   1. said they would accept the reimbursement but felt the landlord had overlooked most of the details of the complaint.
   2. questioned the standard of the cleaning and carpet cleaning.
   3. said they had spent a lot of time and effort to ensure that the apartment was in the state that it should have been in when they moved in, and this was immensely stressful for them over the Christmas period.
   4. added their unhappiness of the cleanliness of the bathroom.
   5. said they were unhappy that the landlord’s offer was only for their cash outlay, and they expected a reasonable offer of compensation.
   6. said that because of how the landlord dealt with resales, by buying it back from the previous owner and charging them for any required repairs, they expected the property to be in “as near to the condition of a new apartment as possible” and this hadn’t been the case.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. The key points were as follows:
   1. whilst the contractor had provided evidence that the cleaning had taken place, it could not confirm this as it was not checked at the time.
   2. it felt the resident should be compensated for the cost of a professional clean and offered £160 compensation – to cover 8 hours of cleaning at a rate of £20 an hour.
   3. it apologised that it had not previously considered the residents time and effort to rectify the issues but felt its updated offer of compensation now accounted for that.
7. The resident replied on the same day expressing their dissatisfaction at the amount of compensation offered and requested that this was increased significantly.
8. The resident came to us on 15 July 2024 and asked us to investigate their complaint. They said that they were seeking an increased offer of compensation to adequately reflect the distress, inconvenience and time spent getting their property to the standard they expected when they moved in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s sales journey and commitments made during that process.

9. The resident agreed to purchase the property from the landlord on 3 August 2023. They initially dealt with a sales associate, who left the organisation. The landlord appointed a new sales associate on 21 September 2024.
10. The resident says that it was agreed with the landlord during their viewing of the property that white goods would be supplied and the carpets would be cleaned. They attempted to confirm these details on 1 September 2023, but their email was returned as undelivered. The resident also advises that they spoke with another sales associate on the same day, who confirmed in a telephone call that it had arranged the purchase of the white goods, the cleaning of the carpets and a full redecoration of the property.
11. The landlord has not provided any correspondence between it and the resident prior to 21 September 2023. So, whilst we do not have evidence of any agreements made prior to this date, the landlord has provided its introductory emails with the resident on 21 September 2023. In these the resident told the new sales associate that the landlord had previously agreed that, prior to the resident moving in on 20 December 2023, it would complete the following:
    1. to steam clean the carpets throughout
    2. to provide white goods
    3. to fix the kitchen blind
    4. to replace the bathroom flooring
12. There has been no suggestion that the landlord disagreed with the resident’s email, and the evidence shows that it arranged for the work to be completed, prior to the resident visiting the property on 27 November 2023.
13. We have not been provided any specific notes from the visit on 27 November 2023, however the evidence shows that on the following day the sales associate requested that the blind was refitted in the kitchen and an area in the lounge was to be touched up as there was some visible scuffing.
14. The resident visited the property again on 12 December 2023. As this visit had been unaccompanied, the resident emailed the landlord the next day about their concerns. The resident has provided this email. In this they said that “the window area in the bedroom is still to be painted and we also noticed the skirting board on the right as you walk in the bedroom is scuffed/marked” They said that they hadn’t noticed this previously because it was where the shower screen had been placed, although it was still in that position. They also said, “We’re assuming the apartment will be cleaned before we move in!” The landlord responded that it had “sent this to our maintenance team who will ensure this is done and the apartment will be cleaned before you move in.”
15. The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 December 2023 and asked if the touch up painting had been completed and if the shower screen had been fitted. The landlord checked the property on 19 December 2023 and confirmed both had been completed. The resident moved in on 20 December 2023 as planned.
16. When the resident raised their complaint on 21 February 2024, the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to tell the resident that the cleaning and carpet cleaning had been completed on 20 and 21 November 2023, however it added that because it had no evidence that the final clean was completed in December 2023, it accepted there had been a partial service failure. It was positive that, despite its assertion that the main cleaning and carpet cleaning had been completed, that the landlord apologised for this and offered to reimburse the cost of the carpet cleaning and the cooker filters.
17. The landlord, however, failed to recognise, in its stage 1 response, the time the resident had spent cleaning the property or the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident because of this. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response. In this it recognised this failure, and as redress, apologised and offered £160 compensation, calculating this to be equivalent to 8 hours of professional cleaning costs.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately responded to the resident’s escalation concern that the clean may not have taken place. It accepted that whilst the contractor had provided evidence that the cleaning had taken place it could not confirm this, as the local team had not checked the property at the time.
19. We recognise the resident’s distress that their move was not as smooth as it could have been had the cleaning been completed as agreed, and how significant this move was to them, given it was to their retirement home.
20. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. Whilst we note that the cleaning issues were resolved by the resident and not the landlord, we understand the landlord was not aware of the issues until January 2024, when the resident raised the issues with their resident’s association. Therefore, in these circumstances we accept that the landlord did not have the opportunity to put things right at the time the issues occurred. When the landlord was made aware of the issues, it recognised its failures, and as redress apologised and offered compensation.
22. The landlord’s level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation. Our guidance suggests that this level of compensation is used for failures where a landlord’s action or inaction have caused short term distress and inconvenience and time and trouble for a resident.
23. The landlord has also demonstrated learning from this failure. It has implemented a new process, in which the landlord and residents will now inspect a property together, prior to completion to identify any issues, to allow them to agree a time bound action plan to resolve any identified issues.
24. We have, therefore, found that overall, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s sales journey and its commitments made in that process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

25. The landlord’s complaint policy states that Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 days and responded to within 10 working days. It also explains “where we legitimately need more time to respond at Stage 1, we must agree a new deadline with the resident” and that this would be agreed in writing.
26. The resident’s initial complaint was acknowledged the day it was received, with the landlord issuing its response 18 working days later. The landlord provided evidence that it agreed a new deadline to issue its response with the resident.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response was acknowledged and issued in line with its policy. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns around the standard of the property, given its unique resale process.
28. The resident had purchased the property as a 100% leasehold, directly from the landlord, rather than the previous occupier. This was because it is a condition of purchase/resale that, on exit, this property must be sold back to the landlord. In return, the landlord guarantees to repay the original purchase price minus a village refurbishment fund of 1% of the original purchase price per year (or part year), up to a maximum deduction of 10%, a set price admin fee, any sum due to pay for dilapidations to be repaired and any outstanding charges up until the point the lease is surrendered.
29. Because the resident is aware that, in accordance with the terms of the lease, that “the outgoing resident or their estate” could have been “charged for wants of repair” to allow the landlord to “offer the apartment for sale in as near to the condition of a new apartment as possible” their expectation was that the property would be “in a clean and habitable condition”. The landlord’s failure to address this escalation point meant it missed the opportunity to clarify its position on what it considered “dilapidations to be repaired” to be, on surrender of a lease, or if cleaning costs would ordinarily be included in any such charges. Had the landlord answered this point the resident would likely have felt that it had understood their complaint more thoroughly.
30. The resident told us that they would have preferred it had the landlord spoken with them about the complaint during the process. Whilst the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code) sets out that a landlord must provide different channels for a resident to make a complaint, such as by telephone call, there is no expectation that a landlord must call a resident as part of its investigation. The Code does, however, expect that a resident is given a fair chance to set out their position. In this case the resident had helpfully submitted a comprehensive complaint which detailed their position and there was no specific request for a call to discuss this further. Therefore, whilst the resident would have preferred a call, the landlord’s approach to its investigation and its response was in line with the expectations of the Code and its policy and there was no service failure on this point.
31. We are, however, aware that the landlord advertises that it welcomes feedback from its residents to help it grow as a charity, therefore, considering the resident’s feedback on their complaints journey, we recommend that the landlord engage with the resident about this.
32. Overall, we consider there to be a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it failed to address a key point of the resident’s escalation request in its stage 2 response.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s sales journey and its commitments made in that process.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of the complaint handling failures identified in this investigation.
    3. provide us with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should pay the resident the £313.89 compensation it offered in its formal responses if it has not already done so. We have found reasonable redress based on this being paid to the resident.
37. The landlord should contact the resident to obtain feedback in relation to their complaints journey.