Yorkshire Housing Limited (202405884)

Background

1. The resident moved into a 2-bedroom house owned by the landlord in June 2017 (the previous property). She left the previous property in October 2023 due to repairs being necessary. She moved to a 3-bedroom house also owned by the landlord (the current property).

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs in the previous property.
   2. Repairs in the current property.
   3. The managed move.
   4. The associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of:
   1. Repairs in the previous property.
   2. Repairs in the current property.
   3. The managed move.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. There were failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the previous and current properties. It apologised for this and paid reasonable compensation.
6. Miscommunication was evident regarding the managed move. The landlord offered appropriate compensation for this.
7. The landlord’s complaint responses were detailed and given in reasonable timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident said she suffered damp and mould since 2019. The landlord responded to numerous reports but the problem persisted. This caused damage to the resident’s belongings, for which she made an insurance claim in 2020.
9. Given the time passed from the first report to the complaint being made in December 2023, we cannot reasonably assess all of the landlord’s actions during this period. We can, however, determine whether the landlord has responded appropriately to the overall issue and offered fair resolution.
10. In the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the insurance claim was taking too long and offered direct payment for the damaged belongings. It itemised these in line with the resident’s report, which amounted to £1,000. This was a positive decision and ensured the resident received reimbursement quicker than the insurance process would have allowed. The landlord also offered a total of £1,500 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its repairs service in both the previous and current properties.
11. It was unacceptable that the damp and mould reached such a level that it caused this damage. It went on for a significant period, from 2019 until the resident moved out in 2023. There were failures in service as the resident had to make a number of reports and the issue continued. The landlord has openly acknowledged these failings in its complaint responses and sought to remedy them by compensating for the damage caused and the impact on the resident.
12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
13. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the £1,000 for damaged belongings is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of repairs at the previous property. As this payment has already been made to the resident, no recommendation is made in that regard.

14. When the resident moved to the current property there were repairs needed. This was unfair given the circumstances at the previous property. The landlord failed to check the current property’s electrics, heating and plumbing before the resident moved in, which was unsatisfactory. The resident had unreliable heating and hot water, which caused particular detriment as it was winter and she had a young family. It was unreasonable for this not to have been in full working order when she was offered the property.
15. The landlord acknowledged this and completed the necessary repairs, including fitting a new boiler and bathroom works. It visited to discuss outstanding repairs, which was appropriate. It gave the resident a named member of staff to report issues to directly. This was positive, given the resident’s previous dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication.
16. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delay in repairs. While it responded within target timescales to the reports of no heating/hot water, the issue should have been addressed before the resident moved in. We can also attribute a portion of the £1,500 offered for stress and inconvenience to the issues experienced in the current property. This was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for a series of significant failings that caused the resident detriment over time.
17. The resident said she had taken time off work to facilitate contractor visits. The landlord has offered to reimburse her for any wages lost, which was a fair and positive response. Considering the steps taken to resolve the substantive issues and to recognise the impact on the resident, we find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs at the current property. Again, it has already paid the compensation to the resident, so no recommendation is made in that regard.

18. Due to the repairs needed in the previous property, the resident wanted to move. A recording of a phone call on 14 September 2023 showed the landlord suggested the resident allow the works to be completed and then seek a mutual exchange. This would allow her to look for a suitable property in her preferred area.
19. The resident did not want to remain in the previous property during the works. The landlord offered her a temporary move while the work was done. This was a reasonable offer and it would also have covered costs incurred for removals, food and inconvenience. The resident declined this and said she wanted to move out permanently.
20. The landlord therefore offered a managed move. These are usually reserved for emergency situations such as when there is a risk of harm. Under the process the landlord should offer one alternative property as a permanent move. It did this by offering the resident the current property, which she accepted.
21. The resident has complained that she was not given much option but to move to the current property. She said it was either this or endure major works. She was unhappy that the current property was in a different area and required a change of school/nursery for her children and a loss of her support network. However, the landlord met its obligation by offering temporary accommodation while works were completed and then one alternative property as a permanent move. It also advised the resident about the possibility of a mutual exchange.
22. The resident was unhappy she did not receive a home loss payment. She believed she was entitled to this as the landlord’s repairs resulted in her decision to move. The landlord appropriately sought advice on this and explained to the resident why she was not eligible. A home loss payment is applicable where the landlord requires a resident to permanently move out of a property as it plans on disposing of it. Here the landlord’s intention was to complete the repairs and re-let it.
23. As the resident retained her keys for the previous property for 9 days after receiving keys for the current property, there was an overlap on the rent account. The resident was charged for both properties for 9 days. At stage 2 the landlord refunded the additional rent charge. This was fair and appropriate given it was the landlord’s repair responsibilities that prompted the move.
24. The landlord offered the resident £1,480 for removal costs and damage to some of her belongings during the move. This was fair and reasonable. The resident also complained that, as a result of moving her child to a new nursery, she now had to pay a lunch charge. The landlord offered £400 towards this, which was positive.
25. Communication could have been clearer regarding the difference between a managed move and a permanent decant. The resident’s confusion was understandable. The landlord acknowledged this and offered £200 compensation. This was fair.
26. Overall, the landlord has appropriately recognised elements of service failure and awarded considerable compensation to cover the various heads of loss raised by the resident. Therefore, we find that it has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the managed move, and we note the compensation has already been paid.

27. In the stage 1 acknowledgement letter the landlord explained its Christmas shut down would impact the timescale for a response. This was appropriate to manage expectations. The landlord wrote an extension letter to the resident on 21 December 2023. It said it needed more time to gather information and provide a response. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
28. There were 25 working days between the complaint being made and the formal response. This is more than the landlord’s 10 working day timescale. However, this was not unreasonable given the Christmas break and the fact the landlord wrote to the resident twice during this period.
29. The stage 2 response was issued 41 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord’s policy says it should be provided within 20 working days but an extension can be made if the resident is informed. The landlord sent an extension letter on 28 February 2024, explaining more time was needed. This is was in line with policy. From that point until the response was given there was internal communication where the landlord was clarifying the details of the case. This showed the extension was appropriate to provide the most accurate information.
30. The complaint responses were detailed and empathetic. As well as the compensation covered in previous sections the landlord made many apologies and showed awareness of the effect on the resident. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.