Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202127701)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127701

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

15 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. complaint concerning damp and mould and repairs needed in his property;
2. requests to be moved to another property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 6 February 2020. The property is a ground floor studio flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he must allow the landlord access to his property to carry out repairs or other work.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has various medical conditions, including muscular dystrophy and mental health issues. The resident has said that his mental health issues include anxiety, depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy explains that it has two categories of repairs. It describes ‘emergency work’ as issues where there may be a danger to life or the structure of the property, and that it will attend within 24 hours. It describes ‘mutually agreed appointments’ as repairs that are not an emergency that will be completed at a time that suits the resident and landlord, and within 28 days.

Lettings policy

The landlord’s policy states that it must utilise its housing stock to alleviate housing need by prioritising those in the greatest need for appropriate accommodation.
The policy said that to achieve this it is sometimes necessary to use additional criteria in the allocation of certain properties. Its listed description of potential criteria included ‘age’, with priority being given to those over a specific age.

Transfer policy

The landlord’s policy states that residents can request a transfer to another property for a variety of reasons, including when their current home is no longer suitable for their needs.
The policy states that where a resident makes a transfer application, the landlord will complete a visit to the resident to assess the request. The landlord’s visit will include an inspection of the property to ensure it meets the conditions of its ‘lettable standard’, and it will advise what action is needed where this is not the case.
The policy lists the circumstances in which a resident may be considered ineligible for a transfer. The list includes residents whose properties do not meet the lettable standard.
The policy states that all transfer applicants will be reviewed and assessed in accordance with the banding criteria set out within the landlord’s allocations policy.

Lettable standard

The landlord’s lettable standard is described in a two page leaflet. It explains that properties need to be clean, in good a state of repair and free from damp and mould.

Allocations policy

The landlord’s policy states that it has four priority bands, with ‘band one’ being the highest priority. The policy explained the criteria that made up each band. ‘Band two’ included a criteria that stated that the applicant needs to move because their current accommodation is having a significant detrimental impact on their quality of life for medical, welfare or disability reasons. It states that in this instance the applicant’s need, and the lack of alternative solutions, would need to be assessed by a relevant professional.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy states that it operates a two stage complaint process. It said that residents will receive a written response to their complaint within 10 and 20 working days, at stages one and two respectively. It stated that where investigations cannot be completed within these timeframes, it would explain to the resident why this was the case and provide a revised date by which they will receive a response.

Summary of events

On 28 January 2021, the landlord’s record stated that an inspection was raised for the resident’s property following his report of damp and mould. The inspection was booked for 10 February 2021.
On 10 February 2021, the landlord’s record stated that it completed its inspection of the resident’s property. It identified the need for mould treatment works, and the installation of ventilation and extraction units.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord attempted to call the resident to arrange an appointment for the works identified at its inspection. It did not get an answer and so left a message.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord attempted to call the resident to arrange works, and again left a message. The resident returned the landlord’s call the same day. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that the resident had said he did not want the work identified at the inspection undertaken until after the works to his ‘patio door’ had been completed. The record stated that the resident had separately reported that the ‘patio door’ was draughty.
On 8 April 2021, the landlord sent an internal email concerning the resident’s comments about his ‘patio door’, and the work identified at its inspection that he was refusing. The subsequent internal emails exchanged established that the ‘patio door’ was an internal door to his porch that had either been fitted by the resident or a previous tenant and was not owned by the landlord. The emails advised that this door was not the landlord’s responsibility but that it could be removed for the resident if he wished.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord’s repairs team sent an internal email. It said that it had intended to call the resident to explain the situation with the doors, and to try to book in the works from its inspection. It said it had checked the resident’s record on its system and noted that it had stated that the resident’s grandmother had advised that he had been diagnosed with muscular dystrophy (MD) and was struggling with his ADHD. It queried whether it would be better to try and liaise via the resident’s grandmother. It asked for the advice of the landlord’s sustainment and tenancy teams.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord’s sustainment team replied to the internal email and stated that it had received a referral for the resident the previous week that had been passed to its occupational therapist (OT). It advised that it was concerned about the long-term suitability of the resident’s property for his needs. It said that its OT would be assessing this and would also be happy to try and support with gaining access for repairs. The landlord’s tenancy team also replied and recommended that a supportive discussion be held with the resident before considering tenancy enforcement action to gain access for repairs.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord’s OT replied to the internal email and relayed the key points from her call to the resident as follows:
1. The resident had advised that he had been diagnosed with MD and was having further tests. He was also struggling with his ADHD and anxiety.
2. The resident had said that his ‘patio doors’ were draughty, and the property had damp and mould. He said he wanted to move home.
3. She had advised the resident to consider ground floor flats with low access showers, as that type of property could be adapted for his needs.
4. The resident had declined her offer of mental health support, as well as her offer of grab rails or other equipment as short-term measures.
5. She said she thought it likely that the resident would need to be moved to a more suitable property. She would update his housing application with a view to increasing his banding.
6. She said she would contact him again in a few days, provided him with her direct contact details, and said she would arrange to visit the resident to fully assess his needs.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord’s OT spoke with the resident about his interest in a one-bedroom house with another landlord. The notes of the OT call said that she had advised the resident that the other landlord’s allocation policy may be different to his current landlord’s, and that he could bid for the property if he thought it suitable. She advised that his current landlord “would be looking more at a one-bedroom ground floor flat with a low level access shower, that could be adapted further long term as his health needs change”. The OT noted that she had said the resident should keep bidding on suitable properties as he was desperate to move, and that she believed his banding would be higher than band four, as the landlord was unable to adapt his current property to meet his long-term needs.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident after previous unsuccessful attempts to text and call him earlier in the month. The call notes stated that the resident had said he would still not allow any works to be booked in until his ‘patio doors’ had been fixed. The landlord said that it had advised that there was nothing that could be done about the door, and that the only options were to leave it as it was or to remove them. The resident had reiterated that he would not allow the landlord access until the patio door was sorted out.
On 24 June 2021, the resident spoke with the landlord’s applications officer. The application officer confirmed to the resident that following the OT assessment and the medical evidence he had provided, his housing priority had been moved from band four to band two.
On 26 June 2021, the landlord’s applications officer spoke with the resident and advised him to only bid on ground floor flats with low level access showers. It noted that all his bids to date had been for houses, bungalows and first floor flats.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord’s housing officer opened a case against the resident for refusing to allow access for repairs.
Over the course of July 2021, the landlord’s housing officer made contact with the resident and attempted to agree access for the repairs to his property.
On 28 July 2021, the housing officer wrote to the resident with reference to their discussions. The letter advised that the works had been booked for 2 September 2021 and stressed the importance of the resident allowing access to avoid action being taken against his tenancy.
On 2 August 2021, the landlord’s housing officer wrote to the resident with reference to their telephone conversation on 30 July 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s request that the works booked for 2 September 2021 be carried out only in the afternoon. It confirmed that the landlord would do this, but advised that it was very likely that further appointments would then be required to complete the works.
On 27 September 2021, the landlord’s OT sent an internal email that explained that a studio flat such as the resident’s current property would not meet his long term needs. It confirmed that this was the reason that the landlord was not adapting the resident’s current property.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord’s housing officer wrote to the resident with reference to their telephone conversation on 15 September 2021. It thanked the resident for allowing access on 2 September 2021, and confirmed a further repairs appointment was booked for the afternoon of 3 November 2021. It again warned of the potential consequences of refusing access.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord’s housing officer wrote to the resident to confirm their telephone discussion on 3 November 2021. It advised that a further repairs appointment had been made for the afternoon of 25 November 2021. It again advised of the importance of the resident allowing access.
On 24 November 2021, the resident called the landlord and advised he had fallen in his bath and caused some damage. The landlord raised works for the bathroom.
On 1 December 2021, the resident’s grandmother called the landlord to cancel his bath repair.
On 1 December 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that explained that its housing officer had issued the resident a ‘pre-formal tenancy warning’, and was due to visit on 7 December 2021 to discuss this with him.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord’s housing officer sent an internal email and provided an update on his visit to the resident the previous day. The key points were as follows:
1. It said that the condition of the property was generally good throughout, but the bath and basin were cracked. The bathroom door handle was also broken and the unit under the kitchen sink was mouldy.
2. It stated that the bath had been damaged when the resident fell, and that the resident had said the basin crack happened when he was cleaning it.
3. It said that it had told the resident that as the property was in good condition, his pre-tenancy warning case would be closed. It had advised him of the need to keep allowing access for repairs.
On 14 February 2022, the resident returned a call from the landlord. The landlord’s call notes recorded that the resident had wanted to complain that his kitchen and bathroom repairs had not yet been done. It noted that it had called the resident back the following morning and confirmed the repairs had been booked for 15 March 2022.
On 17 February 2022, the resident called the landlord and cancelled the repairs work booked for 15 March 2022, as he said he would struggle to manoeuvre around his property with operatives working there. It said that he had asked if the works could be completed after he had moved out.
On 22 February 2022, the resident called the landlord and complained that his property was damp and unfit to live in. The call notes stated that the resident became very angry.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord sent an internal email that stated that the surveyor’s appointment to visit the resident booked for that day had been cancelled, as the resident had reported he had Covid 19.
On 4 March 2022, the resident called the landlord’s customer service (CS) team. The notes of the call recorded on the landlord’s system stated that the resident was “really not happy” and had said that his size and MD made it difficult for him to manoeuvre in his property. He was struggling to use the bathroom or kitchen, and both areas needed significant work. The previous month he had asked for the work to be cancelled until after he had moved out, as he would be unable to cope with it. The situation was badly affecting his mental health and he wanted to discuss it with a manager. The notes stated that it had been late on a Friday afternoon and the manager had been unavailable, so a call back to the resident was agreed for 7 March 2022. The notes stated that the landlord’s tenancy manager had subsequently tried to call the resident the same day but did not get an answer.
On 7 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and reiterated the physical and mental difficulties he was experiencing and his concerns regarding the work needed to his property, which he said could not be done while he was living there. He included photographs of inside his property depicting the issues. The email was forwarded to the landlord’s tenancy manager, who was asked to call him. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He had been asked to provide medical evidence in support of his request to be transferred to a property suitable for his needs.
2. He was expecting another medical letter from the hospital that he would pass to the OT.
3. He had pets and as such did not feel that a temporary move while the landlord completed the work to his property would be suitable.
4. He was desperate for a move to a property with a level access shower and a kitchen big enough for a chair, that would be suitable for future adaptations.
5. The landlord had made numerous appointments for repairs operatives but he would wait in without anyone arriving. The mould issue had returned and was unresolved.
On 8 March 2022, the resident called the landlord twice to ask when a manager would call him. The landlord’s CS team and tenancy manager exchanged various emails. The CS team reported that the resident was becoming increasingly irate and verbally abusive. He would not accept anything he was being advised and wanted to speak to a manager about an emergency decant. The tenancy manager replied to the CS team and said that she had tried to call the resident on 4 March 2022, but would not consider a decant at this stage. She advised that the resident needed to allow access and that a case should be raised if he refused.
On 10 March 2022, the resident called the landlord’s CS team to check that his email had been received, and requested to speak with various staff. The CS team advised the resident that the matter was being handled as a complaint, and that the various teams involved would work together to achieve a resolution.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged that his call to it on 4 March 2022 was being handled as a formal complaint. It said that it would respond within 10 working days.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord’s CS manager spoke to the resident and discussed the issues relating to his complaint. It was agreed that the landlord’s lettings manager would call the resident in the following days to discuss his wish to move.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would not be able to respond to his complaint within 10 working days. It stated that it needed to carry out further investigations in order that it could respond fully.
On 18 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service and said that the landlord had told him that there would be a delay in responding to his complaint, but that he had not been provided with a revised date by which the landlord would respond.
On 18 March 2022, the resident called the landlord’s CS team multiple times, and cancelled a surveyor’s visit that had been booked to his property.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord’s lettings manager called the resident to discuss his wish to move. The key points of the landlord’s recorded notes of the telephone discussion were as follows:
1. The lettings manager discussed the medical aids offered by the landlord’s OT and the alternative ground floor flat that the resident had been offered, both of which he had declined.
2. The resident said that he wanted a bungalow with a garden. The lettings manager had explained that he would be unlikely to get a bungalow, as they were in extremely high demand and that preference is normally given to applicants over 60 years old. She noted that the resident was not willing to listen to this.
3. She explained that a bigger ground floor flat was well suited to his needs, and recommended that he expand the narrow geographical area he was bidding for properties in.
4. The resident had said that he wanted to be in a higher banding. The lettings manager had explained that he was in band two and that she could not increase that as it was already correct.
5. The resident told the lettings manager that she was a “scumbag” and not to call him again, before he terminated the call.
On 24 March 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord to advise that the resident had contacted us concerning his complaint, and advised the steps it should take to progress the matter.
On 24 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and raised a number of points about his housing need. The resident said he had been told he could not have a bungalow due to his young age, and disputed why age should be a factor when it was unrelated to disability.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident (the copy of the letter seen by this Service was undated, but the landlord has provided an emailed version that confirms the date.) The landlord said that its understanding of the resident’s complaint was that he was struggling with the state of his flat, and that his MD made it difficult for him to manoeuvre around it. His kitchen and bathroom required works but the resident could not allow people into his property to complete these due to his conditions. This was impacting his health and he wanted to be moved. The landlord said it had not upheld the resident’s complaint. The key points of the landlord’s letter were as follows:
1. It had completed an inspection of damp and mould at the resident’s property on 10 February 2021, and completed mould wash and stain block works, along with installing extraction and ventilation units.
2. Following another report of damp and mould from the resident it had booked an inspection for 2 March 2022, but the resident had cancelled it.
3. It had raised works for damp and mould but the resident had cancelled them. He had said his mental health and mobility issues made it too difficult to have people in his property.
4. It relayed its notes and outcomes from the resident’s telephone call with its lettings manager on 22 March 2022.
5. It said that it would provide mental health, or any other, support that it could to assist the resident in allowing works to take place.
6. It stated that its OT had an appointment booked with the resident to make an assessment. Once this was done, the OT would liaise with the lettings manager to consider the resident’s long term needs.
7. It urged him to consider the lettings manager advice to bid on properties in other areas to boost his chances, and asked that he refrain from verbally abusing its staff.
On 25 March 2022, the resident sent a series of emails to the landlord that expressed his dissatisfaction with its complaint response, and requested it be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process. The key points of the resident’s escalation request were as follows:
1. He disputed that the landlord had ever offered adaptations to his property, or that it had installed a ventilation unit or extractor fan. He said that the inspection for 2 March 2022 had been wrongly booked on a day he was unavailable.
2. He stated that the OT had already assessed his property and had advised him that no adaptation works could be done to his property as it was too small.
3. He said that the landlord had attended multiple times without completing works, and that he had never refused access. What works had been done had been completed to a poor standard.
4. He queried what alternative property the landlord was claiming he had refused. He said if it was the ‘hard to let’ one it had only mentioned on the telephone to him, it was because it did not meet his medical needs.
5. He said he had disposed of furniture damaged by damp and mould, and just wanted to be moved.
6. He expressed his concern at the amount of false information there had been in the landlord’s complaint response, and that he felt he was being lied to.
7. He said he would speak to people respectfully if they did the same to him.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged receipt of his request to escalate his complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord advised it would respond to the resident within 20 working days.
On 1 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and cancelled the job to install the extractor and ventilation units due to take place later that day. The resident contacted the landlord a number of times over the course of April 2022 and expressed his continuing dissatisfaction.
On 3 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. The landlord’s letter broke down the resident’s individual issues and responded to them point by point as follows:
1. It accepted that it had not yet installed the ventilation and extractor units in his property, and apologised that its stage one complaint response had got this wrong.
2. It said it had compiled a full timeline of all repairs appointments for the resident’s property. This included the reasons for those that did not go ahead, including any that he had refused or cancelled. It attached this timeline and information for the resident.
3. It stated it had completed a full survey of his property in February 2021, and that the timeline included in its response showed its numerous attempts to book in works. It had attended on 8 and 25 October 2021 and 25 November 2021, but further attendances were still needed. It could find no records of agreed repairs appointments that it had failed to attend.
4. It said its applications officer had discussed an alternative property with the resident on 18 March 2021, after the resident had explained that he needed to sit down to cook but his kitchen was too small to fit a chair. The officer had advised him of a ground floor flat with a larger kitchen and a level access shower that the resident had not bid on. This advice was offered solely because the property met the resident’s medical needs, and had nothing to do with it being ‘hard to let’. It stated that the resident had said he did not want to live there.
5. It listed the properties that the resident had bid on that included 20 one or two bedroom bungalows or houses, and 2 two bedroom first floor flats. It explained that none of these properties were suitable for his medical needs, and therefore no offers had been made.
6. It urged the resident to bid on ground floor flats with level access showers, to allow him to move home more quickly.
7. It agreed that its OT had said that the resident’s property was too small to be adapted. It said it still wanted the OT to visit him to discuss temporary measures such as grab rails and a small disabled chair for his kitchen, until a suitable one bedroom ground floor flat became available.
8. It accepted that the resident did not currently want its mental health support, but stated that the offer remained open.
9. It provided a copy of its transfer policy to the resident. It explained that the policy required that his property be of a ‘lettable standard’ in order that he be considered ‘transfer ready’ and eligible for a move.
10. It stated that it needed the resident to allow access to complete works for the damp and mould, and to replace his bath and basin. It explained that without this work, the property was not of a lettable standard and the resident would not be ‘transfer ready’. It asked that he contact it to agree when the works could be booked in for.
11. It said it understood the resident’s anxieties around having operatives attend. It reiterated its offer to support him with this through use of temporary accommodation or daytime space at a residential block while the work was undertaken.
12. It said it was concerned at how long the works had been outstanding and the impact on the him and the property of living with damp and mould. It said it had asked a housing officer to discuss his specific requirements with him to mitigate the impact of the works. It advised that it would have to consider tenancy enforcement action if the resident continued to refuse access.
13. It explained its need to treat all residents fairly in line with its transfer and allocation policies. It explained the various criteria such as ‘local connection’, ‘over 60’s’ and ‘medical need of an adapted home’, that were headlined on each property’s advertisement. It advised the resident should only bid on properties that he was eligible for.
14. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
On 3 May 2022, the resident called the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with its stage two complaint response.
On 6 May 2022, the landlord’s repairs team sent a text message to the resident trying to make an appointment to complete repairs to his bath and basin and measure up ahead of the ventilation system installation.
On 7 May 2022, the landlord’s repairs team sent an internal email requesting advice following the resident’s response to its text message. The resident’s message had reiterated all of the issues with his property and complained that the landlord would either not show up for appointments or would only do half a job. The resident said he was happy to let the landlord complete works if they were done properly and felt that he was being unreasonably blamed for not allowing access. The landlord’s internal email said it had replied, explaining the works it was trying to book in and offering to send a surveyor, but the resident had replied with “read my last text message”.

Summary of events after the landlord’s complaint process was concluded

In late May and early June 2022, the landlord’s internal emails recorded a lengthy discussion between the managers of its relevant teams, as well as its OT. The discussion regarded a ground floor flat that the resident had been matched to. The key points and considerations were as follows:
1. The resident had stated his strong preference for a bungalow, as he found flats depressing and it would also provide a garden for his pets.
2. It was discussed that, although a bungalow could be suitable for the resident’s needs, there was almost no realistic possibility of him getting one. It said this was because bungalows in the specific area he wanted to live in were scarce, and either wheelchair users or disabled people who were over 60 would almost certainly bid for them, and as such would qualify ahead of him.
3. The case was made that the flat he had been matched to was larger than his current studio flat, and so would solve at least some of the current issues he was experiencing. It would also be a means of resolving his complaint.
4. This was countered by the fact that the flat had a bath rather than a low access shower. As such, it did not match his needs, nor would it improve the situation he was currently in beyond its greater size. It also had a step up to the front and back doors.
5. It was discussed that there could be potential to adapt the entrances and bathroom of the property, but that it was not guaranteed and would be a long term option.
6. It was eventually decided that, on balance, the property was not suitable for the resident’s needs and would not be offered to him.
Over the course of June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed his view that a named member of the landlord’s staff was not offering him certain properties for personal reasons. The landlord’s records said that the resident was advised that personal factors played no part and it was following its policies.
On 22 May 2023, the resident told this Service that people close to him had helped him clean his property up and complete some repairs, but that many of the issues were still ongoing. He said that he had been offered an alternative suitable property, but that the decision was then reversed because the relevant member of the landlord’s staff did not like him.
On 7 June 2023, the landlord told this Service that the resident had continued to either refuse access for works, dispute the nature of the proposed works or reschedule dates for it to be done. It provided a list of the proposed works to the resident’s property that involved around two days of plumbing and carpentry works. The works included the renewal of the resident’s bath, bath panel, bathroom door handle set and wash hand basin. It also included the renewal of skirting board, plinths and sink base unit, and the repair of the leak under the sink. The landlord said that, given the time that had passed, it also wanted to complete a property condition survey to check if these works were still sufficient and identify any further repairs.
On 9 June 2023, the landlord sent a ‘pre-formal tenancy warning’ letter to the resident. It said that it had unsuccessfully tried to arrange a property condition survey in January 2023 and had now booked one for 15 June 2023. The letter warned of the potential for formal tenancy or legal actions if the resident did not allow access.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the circumstances of this complaint were challenging for both the resident and the landlord. The resident has evidenced of his diagnosis of MD and ADHD. He has also described himself as being a large man that often struggles both in the company of others, and with the challenge of living and manoeuvring in a small studio flat.
The Ombudsman sympathises with the situation and difficulties the resident has described, and has identified areas in the following assessment where the landlord had the opportunity to handle the matter in a way that could have been more likely to achieve a positive outcome. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did, in the main, act in line with its policies, and finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of either the resident’s complaint regarding his repairs, nor in its handling of his request to move.

Complaint concerning repairs and damp and mould

Following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 28 January 2021, it was appropriate for the landlord to complete an inspection on 10 February 2021, which was well within the 28 days allowed by its repairs policy. The landlord’s inspection identified necessary works for the resident’s property.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to attempt to book the identified works in with the resident sooner than 4 March 2021, which was 22 days after its inspection. Nevertheless, had it been able to contact the resident, the works could still have been booked in within the 28 day timeframe its policy allowed. The landlord therefore acted appropriately.
The resident refused the identified works on 23 March 2021, citing outstanding works to his internal door. It was subsequently identified that the door in question was not the entrance to his flat and was not owned by, nor the responsibility of the landlord. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident accordingly, and to offer to remove the door, although it was unclear from the landlord’s evidence exactly when or how this was first explained to the resident.
The landlord’s relevant teams sent a series of internal emails on 14 April 2021. The emails demonstrated that the landlord was considering how best to support the resident and that it was sensitive to his needs. It was reasonable for the landlord to delay any potential formal tenancy action to secure access for repairs, until a supportive discussion could be held with the resident. It was also appropriate for the landlord’s OT to speak with the resident and offer mental health support, and equipment to aid his use of the property in the short term, as well as maintaining contact and arranging to visit.
However, it is again unclear to what extent the landlord tried to address the resident’s reports of his door being draughty. Whilst the internal door was not referred to in the resident’s complaint, and may have been neither repairable nor the responsibility of the landlord, the landlord would have been responsible for the main door to the property. The main door was behind the internal door, and it is reasonable to conclude it would have been the origin of any draughts. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman suggested that there was an overreliance on the OT to pick these matters up in addition to her assessment of the resident’s needs and property suitability, that was her primary role. Given that the draughty door was proving a sticking point in agreeing access for the main works relevant to the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence of the landlord’s efforts to resolve this beyond just those made by the OT.
Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to continue trying to book the works in with the resident over the course of June 2021, and for responsibility for this to be passed to the landlord’s housing officer and the efforts continued, through July 2021. This was ultimately successful when the housing officer agreed an appointment for the repairs with the resident for 2 September 2021. Whilst the resident declined, it was also appropriate for the landlord to offer alternative daytime accommodation for the resident while the work took place. The work required more than a day to complete but it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to the resident’s request that it attend in the afternoon only. This increased the number of attendances that would be necessary, but again demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to accommodate the resident’s needs where it could.
The landlord’s ‘pre-formal tenancy warning’ issued on 1 December 2021, and its subsequent visit to discuss this with the resident, was largely for matters unrelated to his complaint. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to take this opportunity for the housing officer to assess the condition of the resident’s property, and remind the resident of his obligation to allow access for repairs under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
Contact between the resident and landlord continued through the early part of 2022 with works and inspections booked and then cancelled. This culminated in the resident’s calls and emails in early March 2022, and it was appropriate for the landlord to handle this as a formal complaint in line with its policy.
The landlord had said that it was acknowledging the resident’s complaint from the date of the call it had received from him on 4 March 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident 10 working days later on 18 March 2022 to advise that it needed additional time to complete its complaint investigation. Whilst this was in line with its policy, it was a shortcoming of the landlord not to also advise the resident of a revised date that he should expect to receive its complaint response, as was also stated in its policy.
The landlord sent the resident its stage one complaint response on 25 March 2022, and it was appropriate for it to explain its understanding of the resident’s concerns and reply to each of his points. It was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate its offers of mental health and other support, and its willingness to accommodate the resident’s needs in any way that it could to allow the repairs to take place.
Nevertheless, whilst the landlord’s stage one complaint response to the resident was reasonable, it is the view of the Ombudsman that it may have been more effective, and allowed for a more concise response, had it kept the focus of the letter more firmly on achieving a resolution, and reduced the explanations of why the complaint had not been upheld. The letter also incorrectly stated that the extractor and ventilation works had been completed. Whilst this was human error, which the landlord subsequently apologised for, the resident’s further responses showed that it did then cause him to question other elements of the landlord’s advice.
The resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process on 29 March 2022, and contact continued between the resident and landlord over the course of April 2022, with works again booked and cancelled. The landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response letter on 3 May 2023, and it again could have benefited from being more focused and concise, in line with the comments above concerning the stage one response. However, the landlord did again appropriately respond to the resident’s points, offered empathetic support and reasonable adjustments, and demonstrated that it had carried out a thorough investigation.
The landlord’s complaint response also made reference to its ‘lettable standard’ and the need for it to complete the repairs in order that the resident would be ‘transfer ready’. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this was handled appropriately, in that the landlord took care to use these parts of its relevant policies to incentivise and encourage the resident to allow access, rather than as something punitive or as a threat.
The resident’s complaint concerned the main outstanding works, and did not specifically reference his draughty door. Nevertheless, the doors had been one of the primary reasons given by the resident for refusing access, and the landlord’s records stated on various occasions that the resident was prone to talking over members of its staff which could make verbal explanations challenging. Given this, the landlord’s complaint response letters could also have provided an ideal opportunity to clearly explain its position regarding the doors and other matters, again with the focus on what could be done to achieve a resolution.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that whilst the landlord may have been able to make better use of its complaint process, it did in the main follow its policies, and acted empathetically and appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaint about repairs and damp and mould. As such, a finding of no maladministration has been determined.

Property transfer request

The landlord received a referral to assess the suitability of the resident’s property in the early part of April 2021. Around this time, the landlord also received a call from the resident’s grandmother who was concerned for his welfare. On 14 April 2021, the landlord’s internal emails expressed its concern regarding the long term suitability of the resident’s property, and it was reasonable for its OT to call the resident the same day. It was unclear from the evidence provided by the landlord when precisely the OT attended to complete her assessment. However, it is not disputed that it took place, and it was reasonable for the OT to maintain contact with the resident, and to provide him with her contact details.
The resident was interested in bidding on a bungalow with a different landlord, and it was appropriate for the OT to discuss this with him on 25 May 2021. The notes recorded of the OT’s call demonstrated that she again handled this empathetically. However, along with the landlord’s complaint responses and other evidence provided to this Service, they did also suggest that the landlord could have more clearly explained to the resident why he was so unlikely to get a bungalow in the relatively narrow geographical area he was bidding.
At various points, the landlord’s evidence referred to the resident either not being ‘eligible’ or not ‘qualifying’ for a bungalow, or that a bungalow would ‘not be suitable for his medical needs’. As explained above, the landlord had recorded that the resident did not respond well to advice that was contrary to what he hoped for, which could make verbal explanations difficult. The landlord would also have been aware that the resident was anxious and dealing with very challenging circumstances. It was therefore somewhat understandable that the landlord might attempt to couch its language and explanations to the resident, in an effort to manage his expectations without further distressing him.
Nevertheless, the resident suggested at various at times that he did not understand why his age was relevant, and that he believed the landlord was unreasonably denying him properties. He also continued bidding on properties that he had no realistic prospect of being offered. The actual reasons the resident was very unlikely to get a bungalow were discussed internally by the landlord shortly after his complaint had concluded, as detailed above (paragraph 62b). It is the view of the Ombudsman that whilst none of the landlord’s actions were unreasonable, a concise and plainly worded letter clearly explaining these reasons could have been beneficial to the resident, and included either in the landlord’s complaint responses or provided by separate correspondence.
The age criteria applied to the landlord’s advertised properties, and its handling of the resident’s priority banding increase from band four to band two, was all entirely in line with its lettings, transfer and allocations policies. Its various cross-team discussions regarding the resident’s welfare, and how best to support him, also all demonstrated that it consistently considered the resident’s best interests and acted reasonably.
Similarly to the assessment above of the landlord’s repairs complaint handling, there were areas in which the landlord might have better used written communications or its complaint process. However it did mainly act reasonably and in line with its policies, and as such a finding of no maladministration has been determined.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. complaint concerning damp and mould, and repairs needed in his property;
2. requests to be moved to another property

Reasons

Complaint concerning repairs and damp and mould

The landlord responded to the resident’s report of damp and mould within the timeframes stated in its policy, and made multiple attempts to arrange the works whilst considering how it could accommodate the resident’s needs. It appropriately considered, but deliberately delayed, using tenancy action against the resident to obtain access for the works whilst it explored means to support him. When works did take place, alternative daytime residence was offered by the landlord, and the duration of the works were appropriately altered in line with the resident’s requests.
The landlord’s complaint response letters to the resident were overly long and would have been better had they focused more on the resolutions it offered, and less on why the complaint was not upheld. Nevertheless, the complaint letters responded to the resident’s issues and appropriately offered any support the landlord was able to that would allow the work to go ahead.

Property transfer request

Upon receipt of a referral and being made aware of the resident’s MD diagnosis and difficulties, the landlord’s OT acted promptly in contacting him and arranging to visit to make an assessment. It was established that the property was too small to be adapted to meet the resident’s long term needs, and his banding was raised from four to two, all of which was in line with the landlord’s policies.
The landlord offered interim aids for the resident’s property. It also encouraged him to bid on one bedroom ground floor flats with low access showers that were appropriate to his long term needs, and were the most realistic option in the geographical area he wanted to live.
The landlord may have been able to mitigate some of the resident’s frustrations by more clearly explaining why he was highly unlikely to get a bungalow, and made better use of its complaint response letters or used separate written correspondence where verbal explanations were challenging. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did handle the resident’s request to move home empathetically and in line with its policies.