Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202422353)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422353

Yorkshire Housing Limited

21 August 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs.
    2. temporary accommodation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in June 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident of a physical disability. The resident confirmed to us that he has fibromyalgia.
  2. The landlord raised a subsidence claim with its insurer in November 2022 following the failure of previous repairs to cracks. Its previous investigations identified a nearby tree as the cause of the cracks. The loss adjuster confirmed the landlord could commence with the repair work to the cracks in June 2024. This was following the removal of the tree in January 2024 and the completion of required monitoring periods.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 16 July 2024. This was about staff conduct during a visit by the landlord that day, support while repairs took place, and the scope of the repair work not including bedroom 2. He said the landlord failed to complete repairs over the previous 6 years.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 August 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident and apologised that he was left upset following a visit to his property. It provisionally confirmed repairs would start on 2 September 2024. It said it would arrange removals and storage for the resident’s belongings and provide temporary accommodation. The landlord confirmed it was not able to help pack items. It offered the resident £100 compensation for upset caused during its visit.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 August 2024. He said he was not able to pack due to his health, the landlord had not offered support regarding housing his cats during the repairs, and he did not agree with the scope of works for bedroom 2.
  6. On 30 August 202, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It said it had found no evidence of service failure in its stage 1 response. The landlord said a tenancy coach had visited the resident. It said it provided boxes, removals, and storage, and had confirmed it would reimburse the cost of a cattery for the resident’s cats while he was in temporary accommodation. It said the repairs in bedroom 2 were based on the loss adjuster’s report and it would provide a £150 decoration voucher for this room. In response to the resident’s reports on 27 August 2024 about further cracks found in bedroom 2, it said it would assess the extent of these during the repairs and take appropriate action.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the landlord refused to provide help with packing and this had impacted his health. He said the landlord had not redecorated bedroom 2 during the repairs and he had to replace damaged flooring in this room.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the cracks had been present since 2018. The resident raised previous complaints with the landlord. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. While the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint raised on 16 July 2024 addressed in the landlord’s final complaint response on 30 August 2024.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This includes the landlord’s decision not to decorate or provide flooring in the second bedroom. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 16 July 2024, to which the landlord sent its final response on 30 August 2024. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with the Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. In his complaint the resident raised concerns that the scope of works did not include the second bedroom. In its final response, the landlord confirmed the schedule of works was based on the loss adjustor’s report and its visit to the property on 13 June 2024. The scope of works also included filling and making good a crack in bedroom 2 and filling and making good hairline cracks. The evidence shows the work raised was in line with the loss adjuster’s report and its findings during the later visit. These reported the main cracks were to the front of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to act on the advice and information of an expert report and its own most recent inspection.
  2. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for decorating all internal parts of the property. In its final response the landlord said it would provide the resident with a decoration voucher of £150 for the second bedroom for use after it repaired any cracks. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy, which said the landlord could offer vouchers as a goodwill gesture.
  3. On 27 August 2024, the resident reported additional cracking in bedroom 2. The landlord responded and advised that it would assess this during the works and take appropriate action, including plaster patching. It confirmed this in its final response. This was reasonable given that this was a new report and the landlord was attending the property the following week. It is noted the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequent decision on repairs made to bedroom 2 after the end of the complaints process.
  4. In summary, the landlord’s scope of works was in accordance with both the loss adjuster’s report and its inspection on 13 June 2024. The landlord offered the resident a decoration voucher of £150 in line with its compensation policy. This was appropriate in consideration of the minor repairs to bedroom 2 it had identified at that time. It also proposed a reasonable action plan to assess the resident’s further reports of cracks. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation

  1. On 16 July 2024, the resident complained about the landlord’s response to his request for support with storage when it arranged temporary accommodation while the landlord completed repairs. The resident asked the landlord for support with packing and storage for furniture and belongings. During a call from the landlord to the resident on 22 July 2024, the landlord noted that the resident had confirmed he was unable to move his belongings due to his disability.
  2. The landlord was arranging temporary accommodation as a result of repair work. Its decant procedure does not refer to how it supports residents with vulnerabilities. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time states it will take the needs of each individual resident into consideration when arranging and providing services. The landlord did refer the resident to its tenancy coaching service which its website states offers help if a resident is struggling with physical health. A tenancy coach visited the resident on 31 July 2024. The notes from the visit confirm the landlord discussed the resident’s health conditions and stated the resident said he was not able to pack his belongings without help.
  3. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it would arrange for the storage, removals, and boxes, but it could not help with packing residents’ belongings or pay for packing where repairs needed to be completed as they were personal items. There was no evidence of the landlord considering any further support it could offer to assist the resident with his packing. The landlord’s decant policy provides details of disturbance payment allowances for the packing and unpacking of goods. However, it states this is only applicable if the resident is being decanted into one of its own properties. The policy does not refer to this type of payment for temporary hotel accommodation.
  4. The resident told us he has fibromyalgia and his wife has anxiety. Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord must have ‘due regard’, or proper consideration, to its obligations towards residents who may be disabled. Landlords should make reasonable adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a substantial disadvantage due to their disability. The resident explained to the landlord multiple times that he was unable to pack his belongings due to his disability. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
  5. The resident had also raised concerns about staff conduct during a visit on 16 July 2024 to discuss the repairs and temporary accommodation arrangements. The evidence shows the landlord investigated this internally. It also contacted the resident on 22 July 2024 to apologise and discuss his concerns. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the upset caused during the visit. The compensation was in line with its compensation policy. This allows amounts of up to £100 for failures resulting in a mild impact. This compensation was proportionate to recognise this specific failure.
  6. In its final response, the landlord agreed to reimburse the cost of the cattery stay. This was also confirmed in a call and letter to the resident on 16 August 2024. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  7. The letter the landlord provided on 16 August 2024 set out the level of support it would provide during the repairs. This included hotel accommodation, and a £280 subsistence payment each week. This was inline with its decant procedure. This states the landlord will cover the cost of the temporary accommodation and will pay subsistence payments of £20 per day for each adult.
  8. Overall, the landlord took steps to offer support to the resident when arranging temporary accommodation while the repairs were competed. It arranged and paid for storage, boxes and removals, and confirmed it would pay for the cost of a cattery for the resident’s cats while the repairs took place. It offered appropriate compensation for the staff conduct part of the complaint. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it appropriately took the resident’s disability into consideration in his request for support with packing. As such, we have ordered further compensation of £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord’s offer of compensation is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the further failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident further compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience likely caused by its handling of temporary accommodation. This is in addition to the £100 it offered during the complaints process.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review its decant procedure and consider if it needs to add information about how it can support residents with vulnerabilities.