The Havebury Housing Partnership (202108828)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108828

The Havebury Housing Partnership

16 June 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:
1. Response to concerns raised about the condition of the property at mutual exchange.
2. Handling of repairs raised by the resident on moving into the property, her request for a decant and the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

The resident has vulnerabilities. She reported to the landlord that she has a lung condition (COPD) and further, that she has chronic cluster headaches which are a neurological condition causing pain normally for 10 months of the year with accompanying chronic migraine. She is registered disabled. In her formal complaint it is noted the resident advised that she had not had a break that year and believed the issues with the property and the landlord’s handling of these had exasperated her pain and also made her anxiety and depression worse.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.

Summary of Events

The resident and her husband viewed the property in July 2020 and on 31 July 2020 applied to the landlord to mutually exchange their existing property with the property. The resident’s health conditions and disability were not clear from their Application.
The property was assigned to the resident and her husband on 5 November 2020. On the same date the resident signed a ‘Mutual Exchange Condition Agreement’ (MECA) which stated they had inspected the property and agreed to accept the property in the condition it was in. This also indicated the resident had received a copy of the Property Inspection Report (PIR) and that she accepted ownership and responsibility for non-standard items/tenant alterations.
The resident moved into the property on 8 November 2020. On 9 November, the resident reported a number of issues with the property including:
1. The downstairs floors were uneven and there was mould under the kitchen lino.
2. The brick outhouse was full of mould.
3. The upstairs’ floorboards had gaps, were broken and damp and mould from previous leak.
4. The downstairs ceilings had leak stains.
5. The car port roof was broken.
The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property on 17 November 2020. Its internal notes of the inspection referred to a number of modifications made to the property by the previous tenant including installation of a rear porch and car port, noting it was not responsible for any repairs needed to modifications. The notes referred to repairs it was responsible for, these included:
1. Treating the mould in the lounge
2. Repairing the moving staircase/installing handrail
3. Replacing the damaged floor boards on landing
4. Treating damp/ mould issue in kitchen and lagging cold pipes to prevent condensation building up
5. Removing rear porch
6. Removing boarding in outhouse and treating mould to give the resident use of downstairs toilet
7. Blocking up bottom of chimney
8. Unblocking air bricks in bedroom
9. Replacing broken letter plate
10. Addressing the flooring which curled up in corners.
On 19 November and 25 November 2020, the resident and her husband complained to the landlord about the condition of the property at exchange. The resident said they would not have accepted the property if they had known about the mould and poor condition. They understood that the property had been inspected and deemed fit for habitation which it was not. The resident advised that she had lung disease and was registered disabled and said that the outhouse and kitchen including the cupboards were full of black mould which posed a health risk. They complained that the staircase was not joined to the wall and came away when they walked down the stairs and said that there were cracks in the airing cupboard and bedrooms which suggested there was a subsidence issue. The open chimney in the dining room had soot coming from it and the floorboards on the first floor had not been refitted properly after they had been lifted to repair a leak.
On 23 November 2020, the resident reported a leak from behind the cylinder and the landlord attended on the same day to board the ceiling below. It also raised work orders for repairs to the stairs and upstairs’ landing floor, to treat damp and mould throughout, to block up the chimney, to remove the mouldy boarding in outhouse and to remove the rear porch. These repairs were completed on 26/27 November 2020. However, the landlord acknowledged that further works were required and it also agreed to bring the kitchen replacement forward several years due to its condition and because of alterations made by the previous tenant.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord issued the first stage one complaint response. This service has not been provided with a copy of this response but it is clear within its response the landlord agreed to complete the further repairs needed in January 2021 and also to complete the kitchen by the end of February 2021
On 6 January 2021, the landlord called the resident to advise the works scheduled for that month had been cancelled due to the lockdown. It also said the kitchen installation was suspended pending the restrictions easing.
On 26 April 2021, the resident called the landlord to enquire when the repairs which were due to take place in January 2021 would be completed. The landlord advised it would try to book this work in but there may be a wait.
On 7 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs including to address leak damage to the lounge ceiling which still had a board on it. She also referred to the boarded up fireplace and uneven hall flooring, meaning she could not have a carpet fitted in the property. She also asked about the kitchen replacement.
The landlord called the resident on 8 June 2021 to discuss the repairs and it advised it would get a builder to undertake work needed to the lounge ceiling and floors as soon as possible. The landlord raised a work order for repairs to the ceiling and floors on the same day.
The landlord’s builder visited the property on or around 23 June 2021 reporting back to the Repairs Manager that the flooring had a void underneath, also mentioning the possibility of subsidence.
On 30 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising she wanted to raise a formal complaint regarding her experience since moving into the property in November 2020. She said due to the problems with the property, it should never have passed the inspection at the time of the exchange. She referenced a large crack in the airing cupboard wall which she said ran into her son’s bedroom and that all the floors downstairs had dropped. She referred to the visit from the builder who found a void underneath the flooring. She complained about the landlord’s prior refusal to have a survey carried out when they told it there may be subsidence. She said they had lost use of parts of the property due to disrepair for example the outhouse due to the landlord having removed the mouldy insulation.
The landlord called the resident on 2 July 2021 to discuss her complaint. On the same day it confirmed by email the points discussed. These included:
1. She had never received the PIR or Electrical report as promised. She felt misled about the state of the property prior to the exchange.
2. The landlord had not been clear about what repairs it was responsible for and what they, as residents were responsible for.
3. She had been left with a board on the ceiling following the repair of leak in November 2020.
4. She still had a boarded up fireplace that was put in place in November 2020 with no clear date as to when this would be fixed.
5. Her request for a survey was rejected and she and her husband felt they were not listened to and this had prolonged the issues.
6. She had to pay extra to heat the property over the winter period and had to get help from a charity in order to do this.
7. It had failed to complete repairs within a reasonable time frame.
8. The new kitchen install had had to be postponed due to the condition of the floors.
9. The landlord blamed the issues with the property on its age rather than conducting a full inspection and temporary fixes were made.
10. The situation had had a significant detrimental impact on both hers and her husband’s mental and physical health.
The outcomes sought by the resident included for the landlord to: confirm a plan regarding how it intended to deal with the subsidence at the property with minimal disruption to her and her family; acknowledge and apologise for the stress caused; explain how the property was let in the condition it was in; agree dates for all outstanding repairs including the kitchen; pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced and for the cost of rugs and winter fuel and; for the landlord to “be more honest and transparent to tenants about the condition of properties”.
The landlord’s internal records show managers met to discuss the action needed to address issues. It notes refer discussing the need for a survey to ascertain if there was subsidence and if this was covered by insurance. It also referred to needing to decant the resident whilst repairs were being undertaken, mentioning her vulnerabilities. Its Repairs and Logistics Manager attended the property on 7 July 2021 to carry out a survey to establish the extent of repairs needed. Their notes mentioned cracks in the ceilings and walls; sloping/ dropping floors; tops of the doorframes not level; some of the architraves “opening at joints”; the fireplace needing “properly” blocking up and; the chimney capping. Their notes also state there was “little sign of mould or dampness” so they did not think there was a moisture problem or rising damp.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. This stated:
1. It was sorry the resident did not receive the property inspection and electrical check reports at the time of the exchange which it had now provided.
2. In terms of defining what it and what tenants were responsible for in their homes, this is detailed on page 16 of its Tenants’ Handbook.
3. With regard to repairs in her home, its Repairs and Logistics Manager had been contact with her over the past week and it had been agreed she would have direct contact with him about the sunken floor.
4. It had completed a survey for insurance purposes to confirm the next steps but it would contact her when it knew more. The time this would take was dependent on the insurance company but it was sorry it did not carry out a survey when she asked it to.
5. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to stay at the property until the works commenced. It said an officer would contact her to discuss her family’s needs in order to arrange a temporary decant to appropriate accommodation.
6. It confirmed that it would also complete the repairs to the ceiling and fireplace and renew the kitchen once she and her family had moved out of the property. It was sorry that it had not addressed the ceiling and fireplace sooner.
7. it acknowledged that she had incurred costs for additional heating and temporary rugs due to not being able to fit carpets because of the issues with the flooring. It offered the resident £300 towards these costs. It explained that the check carried out prior to the mutual exchange was a visual check and the condition of flooring under the carpet would not have been checked.
8. It apologised for not listening to her fully and for not carrying out a survey sooner. It offered £150 in compensation for other repairs not being completed in a reasonable time and £50 for the distress caused. In addition, it offered a payment of £1,000 for the inconvenience caused by having to move her to another property. It said this payment was usually made once a tenant moved back into the original home however it was willing to pay this amount to her at that time along with the £500 in compensation.
On 15 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She stated:
1. She had not received the PIR, only the electrical report. This should have been included within the paperwork when she had to sign and accept the property condition. As such, they signed “blind” as these reports were not provided.
2. She thought inspections would protect them. The electrics were ok but the house was “falling down” referring to the board on the ceiling to stop the cylinder “falling through the ceiling”.
3. Its signposting to the tenant handbook was not helpful as they exchanged without being told of the alterations / property condition and had since been told the landlord was not responsible for parts of the property that had been adapted by the previous tenant. The omitting of the PIR had “devastated” their lives and had prevented them from making an informed choice.
4. She was too unwell to be going through this. The resident reiterated her health conditions.
5. Insulation in the outhouse had been removed to treat mould meaning she no longer had use of this space.
6. The rugs and oil costs incurred were more than the sum offered.
7. They asked to be moved out while repairs were undertaken in November but were told it was not necessary, so they unpacked and now they need to be decanted. The £1000 offered does not adequately address the distress caused.
8. They had lived for nine months in a cold damp house that was not fit for habitation referring to kitchen and floors. She disputed its suggestion that the issues could not have been known from the mutual exchange inspection.
9. They had spent significant time in communication with the landlord pursuing a fix to the issues, to the extent of involving Environmental Health in November.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. In its stage two final complaint response dated 29 July 2021, the landlord said it was sorry for the impact the situation had had on her and her family.
It acknowledged that on moving into the property, the need for some repairs became evident quickly and subsequently it was identified that there may be subsidence in the property that required further investigation and repair. There had been delays in undertaking these repairs, which it said were partly due to the lockdowns from January 2021. However, it acknowledged communication to her around this has been poor, with her having to contact it for updates. It apologised for this.
It confirmed she was advised that as it was a mutual exchange, her home was ‘taken as seen’. It explained this was the case for many repairs, but not for all of those that she reported to it. It referenced discussing a move to an alternative home temporarily whilst works were being undertaken. It reiterated it was in communication with its insurers about this which it said may take “some time”. It said she had indicated she was open to moving as soon as a suitable option was found even if this was before it had a start date for the works.
It referenced the resident’s requirements for the temporary home including for it to be rural and close to her children’s school and said that the availability of this type of accommodation may be limited so it would be helpful if this was widened in order to maximise her chances of moving. It said it would do things to support her for example paying for her children to take taxis to and from school. It said she could discuss this with the officer that was dedicated to finding a new temporary home for her and that they would stay regularly in touch with her.
It said it would review learning from her complaint including the information provided to her at exchange in relation to the condition of the property.
The landlord apologised for the lack of clarity regarding repairing responsibilities and said it would again review this as part of the process and ensure this was clearer moving forward.
It apologised for the delays in communication particularly from January 2021 onwards when she had to contact it to receive an update on repairs. It said would review its repairs process and its communication with residents and it was also reviewing staffing to structures within its Asset Management team to support the services it wanted to deliver which would prevent this happening in future.
The landlord said it had agreed with her to keep her complaint open as it acknowledged there was more it needed to do before her complaint was resolved.
In its ‘further response’ of 13 August 2021 the landlord responded to additional points raised by the resident regarding the type of inspection carried for mutual exchanges. It said whilst it usually carried out a more in depth “stock condition survey” every five years, as there had been repeated mutual exchanges with the property, the carpets had not been lifted to survey the condition of the floors. The landlord said that in this circumstance it relied on tenants raising disrepair issues.
It confirmed that it had recently changed its approach so that repeated mutual exchanges, included a fuller inspection every third exchange. Further, it said that its surveying team would carry out mutual exchange inspections going forward. It stated that it hoped that this would avoid a situation such as hers in the future.

Post final response

The resident contacted this service at the end of September 2021 advising she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the disrepair issues since moving into the property and with the level of compensation offered.
She also explained that the three alternative properties offered by the landlord for her and family to move into whilst the repairs were being undertaken were unsuitable and she had now asked for a permanent move to allow them to settle into a new home. The landlord’s handling of the decant process after the date of its final response has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process, therefore the Ombudsman cannot consider any concerns about the suitability of alternative homes offered or the resident’s request for a permanent decant under this investigation.
Both parties informed the Ombudsman on 17 May 2022 that the resident had accepted an offer of an alternative property that day.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles (DRPs), which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has handled any matters raised by a resident by following reports or complaints raised with it, either in accordance with its policies and procedures and reasonably.

Landlord’s response to concerns raised about the condition of the property at mutual exchange.

When a property is obtained via a mutual exchange, the condition of the property is usually accepted “as found” by the incoming residents. Nonetheless, the landlord’s tenancy policy makes clear that the exchange will not be completed until the property is in a reasonable and safe condition. Therefore, in the event that disrepair issues are reported at the point the resident moves into the property, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate the issues and provide any repairs needed which it is responsible for.
In the resident’s case, it is evident that she and her husband viewed the property in the summer of 2020 and they subsequently signed the document MECA on 5 November 2020. This stated they agree to accept the property “as is” and in its existing condition, that she had received a copy of the PIR and that she accepted ownership and responsibility for non-standard items/tenant alterations. The PIR dated 21 November 2020 states the overall decorative condition to be “fair” and notes a number of “non-standard” items including the side and rear lean-tos.
It is clear from the resident’s complaint raised with the landlord that she felt she had not been properly informed about accepting the condition of the property “as is” at exchange, including any alterations made by the previous tenants. However, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord did take reasonable steps to make her aware of this situation. It is clear however from the resident’s complaint that she did not receive the PIR in a readable format, at the point she signed for the exchange. Whilst the absence of this document was inappropriate, it is noted that the resident had the option of contacting the landlord prior to signing the MECA if she could not view the PIR or if she had any queries about the references to non-standard items, there is no evidence of her doing so.
However, after moving into the property on 8 November 2020, the resident immediately raised a concern to the landlord about the property being in a condition of disrepair. The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property which took place on 17 November 2020. Whilst the landlord explained to the resident that as a mutual exchange, she accepted the property as she found it including alterations made by previous tenants, it agreed to undertake the repairs it deemed were needed and that it was responsible for. This approach taken by the landlord was appropriate (the landlord’s handling of these repairs is considered further below).
It is evident that the resident and her family were very distressed by the state of the property and felt it should not have passed the inspection carried out by the landlord prior to the exchange. In its responses, the landlord explained that only a “visual” inspection is carried out for mutual exchanges as the property is still furnished and carpeted whilst this inspection is carried out as the tenant is still in occupation. Further, it said whilst it usually carries out more in-depth surveys of its properties every five years, as the property had been subject to repeated mutual exchanges, a more comprehensive survey including lifting carpets to survey the condition of the floors had not occurred rather it relied on tenants raising disrepair issues, which had not happened prior to the resident’s tenancy.
The PIR provided to the Service confirms the mutual exchange inspection was not comprehensive and focused on the decorative condition. Therefore, due to the repeated mutual exchanges in this case, it appears the opportunity for a more in-depth survey was missed. In its responses, the landlord did advise that it had recently changed its approach to inspecting properties where there had been repeated mutual exchanges, confirming going forward it would carry out a “fuller inspection” every third exchange. Additionally, its surveying team would carry out mutual exchange inspections going forward.
Therefore, by inspecting the property after the resident reported disrepair issues and by committing to address repairs it deemed it was responsible for, the landlord responded appropriately. Further, as it acknowledged and apologised for elements of its service that were not provided to the expected standard during the exchange process, including the PIR not having been sent to her in a readable format, this demonstrates the landlord was open and honest about what went wrong.
The landlord’s review of its mutual exchange process based on the resident’s experience, also indicates a willingness to learn from outcomes which is in line with our DRPs. However, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its service failures, which would have been appropriate. Therefore, the overall redress offered was not sufficient to resolve this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs raised by the resident on moving into the property, her request for a decant and the level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s repair policy states emergency repairs will be attended within 6 hours or repairs to make safe completed within 24 hours, this includes a water leak. Non-Emergency repairs will be completed within 15 days and larger works, including plastering or damp problems, will be completed within 80 days.
Due to issues such as the staircase not being securely attached to the wall and reported damp and mould in the property, the resident told the landlord that she felt the property was unsafe particularly in light of her health conditions and because children were living at the property. Whilst this is understandable, based on the evidence, it is clear that the landlord promptly inspected the property and agreed to provide repairs it had identified were needed and it was responsible for. These included: treating mould; repairing floorboards on the landing; repairing the staircase; removing (mouldy) plasterboard in outhouse and; lagging pipes in the kitchen. It raised the relevant work orders on 18 November 2020 which included dismantling the rear porch despite this being a tenant alteration that it had said it was not responsible for. It is noted that the landlord carried out these works within two weeks.
Therefore, as it promptly carried out repairs to address many of disrepair issues raised, the landlord acted appropriately in this regard. However, further repairs were identified by the landlord and it agreed to complete these in January 2021 which it estimated was a two day, two-person job. These included a repair to the lounge ceiling which the resident originally reported had staining to it from a previous leak. It is noted that further damage was caused by a fresh leak coming through the ceiling that the resident reported on 23 November 2020. The landlord’s repair records confirm that it raised this an emergency repair to address the leak which it found was coming from behind the water cylinder. Its repair contractor attended to the same day, repaired the leak and temporarily boarded up the lounge ceiling.
As it handled the reported leak as an emergency as per its policy, its scheduling of the ceiling repair for January 2021 was appropriate as this was within its published timescales. Repairs to the flooring and blocking up of the chimney were also booked in for this time. In addition, the landlord confirmed it would provide a replacement kitchen by the end of February 2021. Whilst a replacement kitchen was not due for several years, as the kitchen had been modified by the previous tenant, the landlord’s proposal to replace the kitchen as a resolution, was reasonable as it shows a willingness by the landlord to address the issues the resident was concerned about.
Due to Covid-19 restrictions, the outstanding works were not completed when advised to the resident. As the cause was outside of the landlord’s control, it is not responsible for this delay. Nonetheless, in the circumstance it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have contacted the resident once restrictions had started to ease in March 2021, in order to re-book the works. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so which prompted the resident to contact the landlord on 26 April 2021 to enquire when the outstanding repairs would be carried out. The landlord said it would re-schedule the works however there is no evidence of it acting on this promise causing the resident to have to contact the landlord again on 7 June to chase the works. The lack of action or communication from the landlord from March to June regarding rescheduling the required works, was unreasonable and constitutes evidence of a failure in the service provided.
In response to the resident’s further contact on 7 June 2021, the landlord raised another work order in relation to ceiling and floor repairs and confirmed to the resident on 9 June that its builder would attend soon to undertake the works. Whilst they did attend on 23 June 2021, the repairs were not carried out which the landlord’s communications with the builder indicate was due to their concerns about the condition of the downstairs flooring and the possibility of subsidence. The landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 7 July. Whilst the landlord’s internal records show its surveyor did not find any signs of damp at the property, they identified cracks in the walls and ceilings. This prompted the landlord to refer the matter to its insurers on the same day due to the possibility of subsidence. This was an appropriate course of action to follow in light of the surveyor’s findings. It confirmed this to the resident in its stage one response and that it was willing to decant the resident and her family to an alternative property.
Regarding the resident’s complaint that the landlord should have listened to them when they first reported disrepair and possible subsidence in November 2020, in its response the landlord acknowledged and apologised for not having fully listened to the resident and for not carrying out a survey when she initially asked. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances because as previously mentioned, the landlord had inspected the property at that time in response to the resident’s concerns raised about the condition. The level of expertise held by its member of staff is unclear from the available evidence however their notes of the visit indicate they carried out a thorough inspection which led to the landlord carrying out a number of repairs. Whilst a surveyor or specialist may have identified the possibility of subsidence sooner, it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the findings of the property inspection carried out in November 2020.
In her escalation request, the resident said they originally asked to be decanted in November 2020 whilst it undertook repairs however as the landlord told them this would not be necessary they unpacked, yet now there was a need to decant.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did not have a decant policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint (it is noted from the landlord’s decant policy dated September 2021 that the absence of a policy has since been addressed). However, usually a temporary decant will be provided either as a result of an emergency event causing the property to become uninhabitable or where the extent of repairs required mean the resident cannot remain. Based on the landlord’s understanding of the extent of repairs needed at that time, its decision not to decant the resident at that time was reasonable. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that its decision made in July 2021 to offer the resident and her family a temporary move to an alternative property was to ensure minimum disruption to them whilst its insurers undertook further investigations to establish if there was subsidence and for the remaining works to be completed.
In its stage two final response, the landlord confirmed that to minimise the disruption caused by the temporary decant, she and her family could move into a suitable alternative property as soon as one had been found. It also offered to provide support such as covering reasonable taxi costs for her children to travel to school if she widened her requirements for a temporary decant as the availability of properties that met her stated preferences, was limited. It also said a dedicated officer would help with finding her a new temporary home who would regularly stay in touch with her.
Therefore, whilst it is acknowledged that the delay by the landlord in identifying the extent of the repairs needed meant its decision to decant the resident was also delayed, its allocation of a dedicated officer after agreeing the decant shows it was taking reasonable steps to ensure the process would be effectively managed. Based on the evidence overall the landlord’s handling of resident’s requests for a decant was reasonable and it is noted that both parties have since confirmed that a decant for the resident has been agreed.
In its complaint responses, the landlord offered £500 in compensation based on £300 towards additional heating costs and costs of rugs as a result of being unable to lay carpets due to the condition of the floor, £150 to compensation for outstanding repairs not being completed within a reasonable timeframe and £50 for the distress caused. It also offered a payment of £1000 for inconvenience caused for having to move to another property which it said it was happy to pay at that time in one payment with the £500.
Whilst the resident remains unhappy regarding the level of compensation offered, bearing in mind the landlord addressed many of the repairs within the first few weeks of them being raised, and some of the delay with completing further repairs was as a result of Covid-19 restrictions, the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. It is noted the total amount offered by the landlord falls into the highest tier of the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance which states awards of £700 or above are in recognition of failures which have had a severe long-term impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its response to concerns raised about the condition of the property at mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when handling repairs raised by the resident on moving into the property, her request for a decant and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to make the resident aware that she was accepting the property in the condition it was found in. It also apologised for not providing the PIR in a readable format at exchange and for the lack of any in-depth survey and confirmed it had since made changes within its processes to address these issues. However, as it did not offer any compensation when this would have been reasonable.
The landlord offered appropriate redress for the disrepair issues raised either by providing the repairs needed or by offering appropriate compensation in recognised the impact and stress and inconvenience caused by its delays in completing further repairs and for instances of poor communication.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pay the resident £200 in compensation for stress and inconvenience caused by acknowledged failures during its mutual exchange process.
2. comply with this order within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the compensation offered in the complaints process in the amount of £1500 if it has not already done so.