Woking Borough Council (202122187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122187

Woking Borough Council

20 July 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

This complaint is about:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s permanent move.
2. How the landlord handled estate and building management.
3. How the landlord supported the resident during her move.
4. How the landlord dealt with reports of staff misconduct.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s permanent move.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme says that a complaint may not be investigated where a complaint has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter as part of legal proceedings.
In her formal complaint the resident has said that the landlord had not provided suitable alternative housing and that the landlord’s steps towards legal proceedings amounted to harassment. When the landlord progressed with possession proceedings and the first Court date was set for 26 July 2022, the resident then began a process of voluntarily moving. The Court hearing still took place and the Court was satisfied that the landlord had offered the resident reasonable alternative accommodation. Therefore, this matter has already been considered by the Courts and will not be investigated further.

Background

The resident had a protected tenancy of the property which began on 29 March 1993. The property was a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a regeneration area.
The property was in a large-scale regeneration area which consisted of the demolition of 573 homes. The regeneration had been authorised by the local authority on 6 April 2017 and the land in which the property stood was transferred to the developer as part of a compulsory purchase order on 16 December 2021.
Under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985, the landlord was required to consult with secure tenants on changes which were likely to affect their housing. In December 2017, secure tenants were consulted on the proposed tenancies which would be offered by the developer. There was regular communication with all residents of the regeneration area during the years leading up to this complaint.
The landlord appointed an independent tenant advisor to provide affected tenants with free, impartial advice about the regeneration. In addition, a special team was set up by the landlord who engaged with the regeneration areas residents to offer them support with accommodation moves.
The resident was 85 years old, and the landlord had referred her to adult social care on 3 occasions in the years leading up to this complaint. It was concerned about her mental wellbeing which included hoarding. At the time of the complaint, adult social care was not involved with the resident and the landlord did not know of any formal health diagnoses.
The resident’s property was due to be demolished as part of the yellow phase in December 2021 with other residents having been moved out by this point. The landlord met monthly with the developer to discuss the regeneration and this meeting included updates on priority home moves which included the resident.
The landlord had agreed regeneration commitments about how it would deal with residents affected by the regeneration and had a document which featured its key pledges which detailed items such as available support and home loss payments. Within this document it said that it would offer elderly and vulnerable residents extra support in moving and gave some examples of what this support could be, such as by providing a full packing service and unpacking service and ensuring the new property met their needs.

Summary of Events.

The resident had been offered 2 other properties and had not engaged with the landlord over the move that was required to allow for the area’s regeneration. Due to this the landlord had served a Notice Seeking Possession on the resident on 21 October 2021. No Court proceedings had been commenced at this point.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said it was holding a bungalow for her, and it suggested that she visited to see if it suited her needs early in the new year.
The resident replied on the same day to say:
1. She was not moving to the suggested bungalow due to the area it was in.
2. All around her buildings were being demolished and the landlord was harassing her as it had served a Notice Seeking Possession.
3. She was entitled to a like for like new property in terms of size, a private garden, sitting room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, hallway, and private garden.
4. The area was now in tier 4 covid-19 restrictions and that she would need to find her own accommodation and pay for it herself.
5. There had been previous incidents of theft by landlord employees and the resident was seeking court action herself.
Early in January 2022 during an email exchange the landlord and resident discussed the following key points:
1. The landlord had purchased a bungalow for her to match her requirements. It had a new kitchen and bathroom and it had been redecorated throughout.
2. The landlord respected that the resident did not wish to travel to see the bungalow due to her Covid-19 concerns. Instead, it arranged for photographs to be sent to her. It also let the resident know that when she was able it would pay for her transport costs and meet her at the bungalow so that she could view it in person.
3. It also suggested 2 other properties which were coming available and gave a brief summary of the area they were in for the resident to consider.
4. It confirmed a notice seeking possession had been served in October 2021 and stressed that Court action was a last resort for it however it now had no choice. The resident needed to move as demolition work for the next phase of a regeneration programme would begin the following week and the resident was the only household yet to move from the yellow phase of regeneration. Legal action was on hold at this point whilst the resident considered the offers of new properties.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s queries about the bungalows internal and local facilities. An example being it explained there was a wet room, but it would put in a bath if needed and a bus stop with other local shops nearby.
On 17 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. None of the property offers were suitable for her. She felt that the landlord had no intention to rehouse her.
2. The landlord was harassing her and had ‘taken her possessions.’
3. She believed her human rights were being impacted and the landlord was treating her in a degrading way.
On 4 February 2022, the health and safety executive wrote to the developer about concerns that had been raised by ‘a relative’ of the resident regarding the site’s safety. This included:
1. Concerns about the surrounding demolition work for flats and houses which had been ongoing for months.
2. Concerns that there was only one exit/entrance to the building with fencing making the access footpath narrow.
3. There were boards placed over footpaths creating trip hazards.
4. There was poor lighting around the building’s entrances.
On 9 February 2022, following the concern raised about the safety of the block and communal areas around the property, the landlord inspected it with the developer. They agreed:
1. Communal lights to be repaired and communal areas to be cleaned.
2. In the same block as the resident there was a vacant flat where entry appeared forced which the landlord organised to have boarded up.
3. The developer would resight hoarding and fencing which was enclosing the front of the property, obstructing street lighting and visibility of the property.
4. They inspected the front footpath and found it free from trip hazards.
5. That the communal areas had not been cleaned since 9 December 2021 and this needed reinstating.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord contacted its cleaning service to make it clear that despite the building being in a regeneration area, there were residents living in the building and it needed to be cleaned.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord served the resident with a notice of seeking possession.
On 4 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to repeat that it had not found her somewhere suitable to live and to report:
1. Workmen storing motorbikes in the bin sheds.
2. The communal cleaner had not been around since December 2021.
On 8 March 2022, the resident emailed the developer asking them to stop ‘blocking her in.’
On 9 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord for every gas safety certificate from 2011.
On 10 March 2022, following contact with this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to consider the residents’ complaints:
1. That the resident had not been provided with suitable alternative accommodation and the landlord was harassing her.
2. There was no safe exit from the building due to paths being blocked and the fire door being screwed shut.
3. The property had no electricity for 4 days between 4 and 7 March 2022.
4. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from noise which was unspecified.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord’s officer visited the property to inspect the reported fire door (the rear entrance to the building) being screwed shut. The developer was contacted, and the issue was resolved. The officer told the developer that the property remained occupied and that they were not authorised to begin work on the building. The landlord attempted to visit the resident at this point and noted that although the resident was home, she did not open the door, the landlord spoke to her through the letterbox and explained the fire door issue had been resolved.
On 14 March 2022, the resident sent images to this Service of large excavators and piles of rubble in the vicinity of the property. Other images show harris fencing around the outside of the building, cordoning off the communal spaces and wooden fences obstructing local roads.
On 17 March 2022, following a site visit the landlord asked the developers site manager to:
1. Ensure builders were not parking motorbikes or storing items in the bin store.
2. Ensure that the harris fencing and wooden barricades were moved back, so to open up the front of the residents building.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord sent a stage 1 reply to the resident. it said:
1. The resident’s home was the sole remaining occupied property in the yellow phase of a large-scale regeneration development. It had sought to meet with the resident about her need to move but the resident had so far declined to do so.
2. It had made 5 different property offers to the resident.
3. The resident was urgently required to move to allow for the regeneration programme. It explained that whilst it regretted having to take this step, legal action had now begun, and that this action would not amount to harassment.
4. A bungalow had been purchased especially for the resident and adapted for her needs. This bungalow would be held for her and would remain available for her to move to at any point throughout any legal proceedings.
5. When the resident moved, she would receive a £7,100 home loss payment and a £2,650 disturbance payment.
6. Moving costs would be paid for.
7. For her possessions, the new bungalow had an extra bedroom and a garage for storage. A shed could also be organised for the garden as required.
8. Made an offer to meet the resident at home or a community venue if required.
In addition, the response discussed building maintenance, including lack of cleaning, communal lighting not working, poor security and bins not being emptied. It said:
1. It was sorry that block cleaning had not been taking place and it had been instructed to be resumed.
2. The refuse contractor had been instructed to make sure there was a regular service.
3. Communal lighting had now been fixed.
4. The door entry system had not worked for a long time however as the resident was the sole occupant of the building, a lock would be fitted to the front communal door, and she would be given a key.
5. It provided gas records from 2018 – 2021 which confirm the gas at the property was capped.
6. It had identified it held no electrical safety certificate from a June 2021 inspection and due to this, requested for a further inspection with the appointment booked for 25 March 2022.
7. It apologised for these issues and agreed to credit the rent account with the relevant service charges where the service had not been delivered.
8. Weekly checks on maintenance, cleaning and bin collections would now be completed by the housing manager.
The response also considered the reported disruption from building work. It said:
1. Noise disturbances created by the large-scale building works were inevitable.
2. The contractor was signed up for the consider constructors scheme which expected the contractor to manage their impact on neighbours.
3. It had spoken with the contractor to ensure they did not park motorbikes in the bin store.
4. The harris fencing was being relocated to open up the block at the front.
5. The new lock on the front door would limit access to authorised workmen only.
After this response, during March and April 2022, there was a series of queries from the resident about the bungalow the landlord was holding for her. The main points within the correspondence included:
1. Provision of maps and information on bus routes for the bungalow were provided.
2. It estimated that the new rent would be a social rent amount although might be more than her current rent. It reassured her that this would be covered by housing benefit.
3. The bungalow’s kitchen would have space for a fridge, freezer, washing machine and electric cooker but not a dishwasher or gas cooker.
4. The hot water came from an immersion heater and there were solar panels on the roof.
5. It offered ‘a few weeks’ for packing and moving from her current property to the bungalow.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord completed an electrical safety inspection at the property and no issues were identified.
On 4 April 2022, following correspondence with a refuse disposal contractor the landlord ensured that bin collection was resumed at the building.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord organised for a contractor to carry out a lock change on the communal entrance way so that a key could be issued to the resident.
On 26 May 2022, the resident contacted this Service to say that the landlord was not rehousing her and that it wanted her out ‘with no possessions. The landlord was asked to consider the below at stage 2 in its complaints process.
1. There had been ASB, the front door of the block had been banged on and ‘soiled.’
2. She did not have the keys to where some of her belongings were stored and believed the items stolen.
3. She was blocked in, and the foot paths and roads were closed, this stopped her putting her items in storage.
4. She could not afford the bungalow; the council tax was too high, and it had no space for her appliances.
5. She disputed that the bungalow had 2 bedrooms saying that 1 bedroom had a room with a back door into a conservatory meaning it would not be safe.
6. Referring to a pending Court date that she would be ‘out on the streets’ next month.
7. The electrician who completed the recent inspection had caused damage to her freezer, ‘other items, and appliances.’
On 15 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm:
1. It was aware the resident was now speaking with Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and encouraged her to get advice from that service.
2. The bungalow would continue to be available for her to move and it would pay for a taxi for her to view it.
3. The new tenancy would be a secure tenancy, which was the same as she had at her current property.
4. It would pay for a removal company and assist with packing and moving the items. It would also ensure there was suitable vehicular access to move items out and that all her possessions could come with her as she chose.
5. If the resident remained unhappy once she was in the new bungalow it would continue to support, her in accessing the housing register where she would be given a high priority (Band B) for a move so she could choose a different home.
On 15 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to say:
1. She was being accused of not wanting to move and would instead pay for a hotel to have a bath and a suitable shower.
2. The bungalow being offered was a higher tax band making the offered property more expensive.
3. Asked it to confirm what it meant by the same tenancy.
4. Her furniture had been damaged by damp and mould at the property and would not all be moved with her.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint review. It said:
1. Regarding ASB it was aware there had been break ins and the theft of copper piping on the regeneration site. The landlord was employing security patrols and it suggested the resident called the Police and provided dates and times of when she heard issues occurring.
2. Its cleaning contractor had changed on 1 April 2022. It recognised that the service received by all of its resident was not to the expected standard for the first quarter of 2022/23 and it had credited back 50% of the cleaning service charge to all of these residents, including the resident involved in this case for this period.
3. Regarding the resident not having access to her possessions, this complaint dated back to 2019 when the landlord gave notice to all residents that unclaimed items were to be removed from storage cupboards. At the time the locks to the sheds were changed and the resident was given the keys so she could access her belongings. No evidence had been provided support the residents’ concerns about theft.
4. There were phased road closures in place across the regeneration area which were advertised by the highway’s authority. Vehicular access could be provided through discussion with the site manager which the landlord could assist in arranging.
5. Possession proceedings had commenced as the resident had not moved, and a Court date was set for 26 July 2022. The new bungalow would be let to her on a ‘social rent’ which was affordable with the residents housing benefit entitlement. It was the landlord’s view this property was suitable for the resident’s needs.
6. It said it was committed to rehousing and would not see her made homeless. It explained that it had made 5 different property offers, including the bungalow which it would continue to hold for her. This bungalow had been acquired specifically for her based on her limited criteria.
7. It confirmed once a move was agreed it would organise and pay for removals for the resident.
8. It stressed that the resident was surrounded by building works and due to this noise was to be expected. If specific details of harassment could be provided it would then act explaining that it had done this when it had when stopped the contractor parking motorbikes in the property’s bin areas.
9. A new electrical safety inspection had been undertaken and the certificate attached. No issues were identified, and the property was safe. The electrician also had a surveyor and compliance manager in attendance, and they did not witness damage to possessions.
On 21 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she would love to move as soon as possible.
1. She asserted that the items in the shed had been removed without prior notice.
2. She confirmed she would like assistance with moving.
On 22 June 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with details on the new property, when her tenancy would begin, that a removals firm would provide boxes for her to pack and that it would move her belongings at the landlord’s expense. The landlord agreed to dispose of any belongings the resident left behind that were no longer wanted. The landlord had offered a full packing service which the resident did not want.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord met the resident at the new property to sign the tenancy agreement and other associated paperwork. She was provided with a new tenant’s handbook giving up to date information on the landlord’s services.
The resident began packing her belongings with the support of her daughter into the boxes provided by the removals firm. During this period in the middle of July 2022, there was regular communication with the landlord over various questions on more packing boxes and timescales for the removals firm. A move was organised for some of the resident’s belongings on 19 July 2022 and the resident was asked to go to the bungalow by taxi to show the removals firm where to put her belongings. The resident asked for a removal lorry rather than a van, which the landlord attempted to organise however there were not any available which resulted in the need for the removals firm to make 2 trips.
On 21 July 2022 more items were moved from the property to the bungalow by the removals firm. The resident was provided with a pre-arranged, pre-paid taxi which the resident did not use. This meant she did not visit the new property whilst the removals firm was unloading. That day the resident contacted the landlord to say:
1. The removal company did not take everything that was packed and ready to go.
2. She was too slow for the landlord’s expectations, and her daughter had been unwell and now was unable to help.
3. The resident had decided not to take several bulky furniture items which she said had been damaged by mould.
4. The removal firm had not given the new property keys back.
The landlord had arranged for a plumber to install a dish washer and a washing machine at the bungalow on 25 July 2022 and had retained a single front door key so that it could access the bungalow with the plumber. The resident expressed concern about this as she did not want people accessing the bungalow whilst she was still at the property. After exchanging emails seeking to reassure the resident the landlord agreed to this request and asked to meet with the resident to go through all the keys to check they were all working and whether there were any missing. If necessary, it said it would then arrange for more keys to be cut or to change the locks. The resident was unhappy that she had not been given all of the keys to the property during the property sign up meeting.
On 26 July 2022, the landlord attended a Court hearing which it had felt was necessary to go ahead as the resident had not moved voluntarily up until this point. Citizens Advice were in attendance to support the resident who did not attend. The Court found that suitable alternative accommodation had been offered and understood that the resident had now agreed to move voluntarily to the bungalow. The Court awarded the landlord possession of the property not to be enforced for 7 days to allow time for the move.
On this date, and following communication with the resident’s daughter who was also present for the move, the landlord agreed to finalise the residents move. The removals firm was not available to take the last of her items and to ensure the resident’s belongings were all moved to the new property, 4 of the landlord’s officers and a contractor used their vehicles to transport the remaining items and the resident to the bungalow. The resident signed a document to authorise the disposal of ‘any items left in the property.’
As the resident had decided not to take some of the large items of furniture, due to mould damage, the landlord purchased the resident an air bed and put it up in the bungalow.
On 27 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to arrange for the washing machine and dishwasher to be connected.
On 29 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report:
1. A plumber had visited but had not managed to connect the dish washer and washing machine, she wanted this to be resolved.
2. There was no TV aerial.
3. There was no recycling or food bin.
The landlord agreed to send its officers to continue to support the resident and to run through any outstanding items re: the move and settling into the bungalow.
On 1 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. Possessions had gone missing during the move between her bungalow and her former property.
2. An example was given that her suitcases containing new items had gone.
3. She wanted to know if contactors had been in the property without her knowledge and believed that the landlord’s staff had searched her property and taken items including important bank documents.
4. She had an airbed that she did not want.
The landlord replied that same day:
1. The suitcases were placed in the bedroom on the first removal date which was 12 July 2022. They were then moved to the bedroom cupboards on 21 July 2022 to make space for the airbed.
2. The airbed had been provided because the resident had said she was not bringing her own bed from the former property. It would remove it if it were not required but the landlord had not wanted the resident to go without a bed.
3. On checking with the officers involved in the move and the removals company no possessions had been removed from the bungalow.
4. The landlord had asked the resident to attend during the move as her attendance at the bungalow during unpacking would have been helpful so she could observe were her possessions were placed, but she had chosen not to get in the taxi.
5. The resident’s former property would be prepared for demolition later this week and the officers will not be able to access it, however, they will visit once to go through and check for remaining items.
6. The landlord’s officers would continue to provide support at the bungalow and will seek to address any issues arising.
On 3 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say:
1. The plumber had not correctly fitted the appliances.
2. The move had been badly planned as the landlord had known that she had more possessions that other people and did not give her enough time.
3. The landlord had not given her the keys to the property meaning she had not been able to move items herself which lost several days.
4. The aerial specialist had visited but had so far been unable to get reception and had suggested she needed a satellite dish.
5. An officer had brought several bags of items from the former property however there were still items in the lounge and kitchen she had been stopped from bringing.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord received an update from the TV specialist that they would attend with 2 engineers on 19 August 2022. The original engineer who attended refused to go back alone. The landlord agreed it would attend at the same time to assist.
On 16 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say:
1. The TV Aerial had still not been fixed and there was still no signal.
2. She had notified her bank regarding fraud, theft and dishonesty by the landlord and the removal company.
3. She would also raise these items with the Police.
On 2 September 2022, the resident wrote a formal complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. The landlord had not given her all the keys for the new property and some of its officers had gone off with keys rather than giving them to her. These officers had used the keys to enter the bungalow and steel her possessions.
2. A member of staff had taken a bag in his car rather than in the taxi, this bag had not been returned to her when she arrived at the property and the resident said it contained her i-pad and multiple phones.
3. There was a drainpipe which was ‘open’ outside her window which caused a smell to come into the property and that this amounted to harassment.
4. The spy hole on the front door was too high for her.
5. A document sent by the landlord was thought to be a forgery.
6. She did not have a TV signal and there was no way of obtaining one.
7. The landlord had ‘crept in’ to the property and provided an airbed which was unwanted and had provided had a split seem.
8. The landlord had given out ‘so many keys.
9. The resident reported documents going missing which she would report to her bank and the Police.
Also, in September 2022, there continued to be communication between the resident and the landlords housing team. The resident:
1. Reported repairs to which the landlord responded with details on how to report a repair by both phone and email.
On 14 September 2022, the landlord wrote its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint regarding theft, damage, and access to property. The landlord explained the chain of events that had taken place during the move:
1. It explained it had met with the resident at the bungalow on 1 July 2022 to go through the new tenancy agreement and it had provided her multiple sets of keys for the new bungalow.
2. Removals had taken place over 3 dates and the resident had been asked to be present for the loading and unloading of her belongings so that she could observe where items were placed. To help facilitate this, a taxi was organised to take the resident from her current property to the bungalow however the resident decided not to get in the taxi.
3. Keys were returned to the resident on the same day for each of these moves. A housing officer had kept 1 front door key so to provide access to a plumber to plumb in the washing machine on the 25 July 2022 and when this was cancelled on the 24 July 202 the key was returned immediately to her.
4. The final move of possessions took place on 26 July 2022 at the insistence of the resident’s daughter and as it had not been possible to book a removals firm at such sort of notice 4 of the landlord’s officers supported by a contractor agreed to move the residents remaining possessions using their own vehicles.
5. The landlord had then arranged for the resident and her daughter to be driven to the new bungalow and the keys for her property to be returned. It was agreed that any items remaining at the property would be disposed of.
6. The landlord had spoken with all the officers involved in the move and the removals firm who denied taking any of the resident’s possessions. They had also double checked their vehicles in case anything had been accidently left behind. It explained that all officers work in pairs and undergo strict pre-employment checks. Also, the resident and her daughter had been present with the members of staff during the moving of the last items making it highly unlikely that any items would be stolen.
7. The landlord said that it would cooperate with any Police enquiry.
In addition, the landlord discussed issues that had been reported by the resident since her move to the new bungalow. It said:
1. It had reported repair issues for the resident and the contractor would make contact to organise for the repairs to take place. Information on how to report a repair was provided.
2. Replacement bins had been organised.
3. An appointment on 19 August 2022 for a free sat dish to be fitted to the building had been cancelled by the resident.
4. The signed tenancy for the bungalow was provided to the resident again along with a signed form authorising the landlord to dispose of any remaining items at the previous address.
On 30 September 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed. The reason for the review was that the resident did not believe the landlord had adequately investigated her concerns or resolved any of the issues.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord received an email from the resident which said.
1. There had been an issue with the TV aerial contractor with them not having been able to resolve the aerial issue. The resident said that she believed the landlord had no intention of letting her watch TV.
2. She had a serious concern regarding misuse of documents to obtain her money or her assets.
3. Keys had gone missing from the property and the 1 that was returned to her was bent and had not been replaced.
4. She believed staff had taken her items including linen, mobile phones, clothes, and personal documents.
5. In regard to the new property, she felt that there was:
  1. Less hot water.
  2. Less space in the kitchen.
  3. The front door viewer was too high.
On 5 October 2022, this Service wrote to the resident and advised that new issues relating to the property would no longer be investigated as the landlord had not had a chance to respond through its complaints process.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord sent its review of the resident’s complaint. It said that it had reviewed the stage 1 response sent on 14 September 2022 and found this to be a full response and that all relevant points had been properly addressed.

Assessment and findings

Estate and building management.

Once the land transfer had taken place to enable to developer to begin construction work, the resident still had a tenancy agreement with the landlord. It continued to be the primary liaison for the resident in matters related to her property, her surrounding environment, and her move.
When it became apparent that the resident would be the last remaining occupant of the yellow phase of regeneration work the landlord did not provide sufficient information and updates about the work, such as site liaison / site manager’s details. By doing this it did not communicate effectively about the circumstances the resident found herself in and make clear lines of support available. This lack of formal communication will have increased the resident’s distress when faced with the disruption and environmental changes taking place as part of the construction work.
Following safety concerns being raised to the health and safety executive by a relative of the resident, the landlord inspected the area with the developer on 9 February 2022. The inspection appropriately identified and sought to resolve several issues such as repairing communal lights, reintroducing communal cleaning, improving the communal area security, and making changes to the development sites hoarding and fencing which had enclosed the front of the building, obstructing street lighting.
It was necessary and appropriate for the landlord to respond to these concerns and liaise with the developer and contractors to organise for repairs to be completed and services to be reintroduced. However, this responsive nature to these reported issues does not show that the landlord had in place a suitable, proactive plan to ensure the resident’s services, security, and general safety during the period she remained in residence on the regeneration site.
The circumstances of the resident were that as an elderly lady, living alone in a property, with no surrounding neighbours and in a construction site. This isolated position exposed the resident to additional risks. The landlord’s inspection on 9 February 2022 also noted forced entry at a neighbouring vacated property needing to be boarded up. Despite there being signs of ASB in the building, the building security was not resolved until 8 April 2022 when a lock was placed on the door. This delay in both forward planning and acting with suitable urgency is unacceptable and increased risk to the resident from vandalism or other crime. It is fair to consider these factors as causing the resident anxiety and distress.
The landlord acted appropriately by acting urgently on notice of the developer screwing a fire door shut at the property. On receipt of the information via this Service its officers attended the property within 24 hours, resolved the issue and updated the resident on its actions.
In addition, once notified by this Service of the resident’s complaint, the landlord visited the site within 24 hours and found that fencing and hoarding were yet to be moved satisfactorily following the 9 February 2022 inspection. The landlord acted to liaise with the site developer to make the promised adjustments.
However, these circumstances were not indicative of a proactive approach being taken by the landlord to consider the resident’s ongoing needs. Safety actions were only carried out by the landlord in a reactive rather than a proactive way. Despite meeting monthly to discuss the regeneration, no evidence has been provided of engagement between the developer and the landlord during 2021 and February 2022 about the resident’s situation in the form of a risk assessment or regular checks on the block. The landlord’s officers had to remind the developer that the resident was still in occupation and that no work should be done on the building. As the only resident left on a regeneration scheme where the surrounding community had been moved out, there were issues around safety, security, and the withdrawal of services such as communal cleaning and refuse collection, which required the resident to complain for appropriate actions to take place. This demonstrates that the landlord had not taken due care and consideration for the resident’s needs by ensuring a proactive approach to this with the developer whilst it sought to resolve the residents rehousing need. It is therefore understandable that the estates slowly deteriorating conditions caused distress and concern for the resident.
In her complaint to the landlord dated 10 March 2022, the resident said that she went with a total loss of power between 4 and 7 March 2022. There is no evidence that the resident reported this repair to enable the landlord to enable it to respond using its repairs service. The resident brought this issue to the landlord via this Service on the 8 March 2022 as part of her complaint. The landlord failed to investigate any potential reason or to offer any formal response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, it did not act appropriately to provide explanation or reassurance to the resident.
Also, on 8 March 2022 the resident queried electrical safety certification for her property. During its investigation, the landlord identified a missing certificate from an inspection in June 2021 and it appropriately completed an electrical safety check at the property on 25 March 2022 which confirmed there were no issues. This response to the resident’s query was reasonable and as it occurred shortly after the resident’s report of loss of power it was an appropriate action to take to reassure her of the property’s electrical safety.
On 18 March 2022, in the stage 1 response, the landlord gave explanations for the issues that had arisen regarding the estate maintenance and safety. It appropriately refunded service charges for the periods where services had not been received. It also instated a weekly check on the area to ensure building safety and services were delivered satisfactory and this was a suitable approach for it to take. Whilst the landlord’s complaint response put things right, it did not offer reasonable redress by acknowledging and considering lessons learnt about events leading up to the residents’ complaints.

How the landlord supported the resident during her move.

It is accepted that the resident’s experienced stress during this process of moving. She had lived in her property for 19 years and the built environment around her was being demolished. The resident herself stated that she had ‘more possessions than the average person’. As such the compulsory move would have caused considerable distress whatever actions the landlord took. As per the landlord’s regeneration charter, it did recognise this and sought to provide the resident with additional support in accordance with her circumstances and vulnerability.
The landlord had been appropriately seeking to prepare the resident for a move for a considerable period leading up to the move itself. It had kept the bungalow available for 9 months prior to the move taking place and during this time it offered her access to view it and offered to meet with the resident to discuss a move. Opportunities which were declined by the resident. It is only after legal proceedings commenced in June 2022 that the resident did agree to view the bungalow and have further discussions about the organisation of the move.
The landlord had to ensure its relationship with the resident did not break down to the point where the resident would not accept support. This had to be balanced with the ever-increasing need for the resident to move due to the regeneration projects timescales. The landlord did this by having a supporting, communicative approach from its lead officers who responded quickly to try and accommodate new requests from the resident as they arose. It did this by:
1. Organising removals and offering a packing service as per its regeneration commitments.
2. Providing 3 weeks for packing between signing up for the bungalow and the property’s key return.
3. Quickly responding to emails to answer queries and provide reassurance whilst the resident was packing during July 2022.
4. Paid and arranged for taxis for the resident.
The landlord took all appropriate efforts to provide opportunities for all of the resident’s possession’s to be moved:
1. It organised removals with a specialist firm which took place on 3 separate occasions.
2. It provided the resident access to the bungalow for 3 weeks to allow for the moving of items.
3. On 26 July 2022 its officers used their own vehicles to move items.
4. It returned to the vacated property to do a final check for items after the last move date on 26 July 2022, returning a further bag of items to the resident.
The resident had expressed concerns about a front door key to the bungalow being retained by the landlord. The landlord explained in its second stage 1 reply dated 18 September 2022 that this was the case so that its officers could ensure the washing machine and dishwasher were plumbed in at the bungalow. When the resident expressed that she did not want this appointment to take place without her being present the landlord cancelled the appointment as appropriate. There is no evidence to demonstrate that this arrangement was confirmed with the resident prior to being organised. Whilst this step was taken proactively with the intention of ensuring the new property’s appliances were in place to make her new home welcoming, the step caused the resident anxiety and exposed the landlord to complaints about unauthorised access. Despite this, the landlord’s proactive intentions were reasonable, and it did not progress the job when the resident expressed her concern, therefore this did not amount to a failure in service.
After the move, the landlord provided ongoing support as it had offered and committed to in its regeneration commitments. Post the move, the landlord responded quickly to:
1. Organise plumbing for the washing machine.
2. Provided the resident with an air bed to sleep on temporarily.
3. Organised for a TV aerial specialist to resolve the lack of TV signal.
4. Undertook additional trips between the new bungalow and the vacated property to find items that the resident believed were left behind or stolen.
5. Booked repairs when they were raised.
For any property move there can be unexpected issues arising before, during or after the move and the landlord responded to each new enquiry from the resident as would be expected. In providing this responsive and problem-solving focussed approach it kept to its regeneration commitments to support the resident during her move.

Reports of staff misconduct.

The resident expressed concern about the landlord’s staff causing damage or stealing her possessions. In the summary of events above, the resident initially refers to being prevented from accessing her items in a shed. This element of her complaint was historic having occurred in 2019. This subject is brought to the fore in the resident’s complaints prior to her move and the landlord does use the opportunity to reiterate its position that the complaint had received an earlier response and the resident had keys to the shed and had not been prevented access. Despite the age of that complaint, the landlord responded to the resident reiterating its earlier complaint response, which was a suitable approach to take in ensuring that all of the resident’s concerns were answered.
Prior to the move, the landlord sought to mitigate risks which could occur from confusion and differing versions of events by having its staff operate in pairs. In addition, during the move it requested the resident to visit the bungalow whilst items were unpacked. This was a sensible suggestion for the landlord to make. It sought to make this option easy for the resident by offering to arrange a taxi for her, as was appropriate and in keeping with its regenerations charter commitment to support vulnerable residents.
A primary concern of the resident was that of access to the bungalow and theft of possessions during the moving process. These items were reported to have been kept by the landlord’s staff or removals firm whilst in transit or removed from the bungalow.
When the complaint arose, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It spoke to its staff about the allegations. It asked its staff and the removals firm to check their vehicles for left behind items. It also returned to the vacated property and collected more items that had been left behind. Whilst this took place it communicated regularly with the resident, responding to her concerns quickly, an example providing explanation about where a suitcase had been left. It also confirmed appropriately confirmed that it would cooperate with any Police investigation.
The landlord also explained in its stage 2 response the location of keys and as would be expected, that they had all been returned to the resident on the day of the removals or, when the resident expressed, she did not want the landlord accessing the property without her to plumb in the washing machine and dishwasher. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
After the move to the bungalow the resident said that items remained at the vacated property that she wanted, and that the landlord had prevented her from having access to them and disposed them. As discussed above, the landlord provided reasonable opportunity for the resident to move of her belongings. The landlord’s staff still sought to ensure the resident had additional opportunity to collect items by doing a final check of the vacated property, demonstrating that it was prepared to continue to support the resident after the move.
The resident also said the landlord’s staff had forged her signature on the disposal of items form. The landlord responded in its stage 2 response by providing the resident with a copy of this document and a full explanation of events that occurred during the move, which included the signing of the document during the move when the resident’s daughter and other staff members were present. This is a reasonable response to the resident’s concern.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of estate and building management.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of how the landlord supported the resident during her move.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of landlord’s handling of reports of misconduct by its staff.

Reasons

The landlord did not risk assess or put in place appropriate measures to ensure the residents ongoing services and safety whilst she remained at the property with regeneration work commencing around the building. The resident had to make complaints for issues relating to service provision and security to be identified and resolved.
The landlord supported the resident in line with its regeneration commitments charter. It offered and/or provided a packing and moving service. It facilitated the moving of possessions over several different trips and ensured the resident had access to a taxi to the new property when needed. When removals firms were not available at short notice, its staff took steps themselves to assist moving the last of the resident’s possessions at the resident’s family member’s request. Once in the bungalow, the landlord quickly responded to address new issues as they were reported, such as organising repairs and asking a contractor to resolve issues with the TV signal.
The landlord sought to mitigate issues by enabling the resident to visit the bungalow with offers of a prepaid taxi so she could oversee the move. It also provided a good level of communication with the resident, explaining where her possessions had been placed and its position on the resident having possession of all of the keys. When misconduct reports were received, it spoke to all relevant staff and contractors and expressed its willingness to cooperate with a Police investigation. It also took reasonable efforts to check the vehicles used in the move and revisited the vacated property searching for missing items.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pays the resident £350 directly to her within 28 days of receipt of this report. For the failures identified in the landlord’s estate and building management and the impact on the resident.