Cambridge City Council (202010811)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010811

Cambridge City Council

4 August 2021

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:
1. repairs at the resident’s property.
2. the resident’s request for an adaptation to the bath.
3. the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in his loft; and
4. the resident’s concerns of potential asbestos in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant, in respect of the property, since 1 June 2020.
The property is a two-bedroom house, occupied by the resident, his wife and his son.
The resident’s wife has several vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of, such as Fibromyalgia, Asthma, learning disabilities and global delay. The resident also suffers with Ulcerative Colitis and his son with bronchitis.
A void inspection was undertaken of the resident’s property on 2 February 2020.
On 6 February 2020 the property was inspected for asbestos while vacant. It was found that there could be low traces of asbestos in the textured decorative coating found on the ceilings in the property. This was considered to be low risk and therefore would be managed and monitored. This was also noted following a further inspection on 15 August 2020.
The Ombudsman notes that on 19 February 2018 an Occupational Therapist assessed the resident’s wife’s needs and concluded that, amongst several other requirements, an over-bath shower with rails was needed to support her.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as well as placing an obligation on the landlord to keep up the standard of repair throughout the tenancy, there is also a requirement for the landlord to put the premises in repair if it is not in good repair at the start of the tenancy.
Moreover, once a landlord has been informed of the need for repair, it should take steps to address the matter within a reasonable amount of time and liability only arises once a reasonable length of time has elapsed from the date the notice of repair was served.

Repairs

The landlord’s repair responsibilities are outlined within its rechargeable works policy. Here, it is explained that for routine repairs, the landlord will seek to resolve the matter within 20 working days.

Void policy

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its void policy. This offers guidance on the minimum standard required before properties are re-let and advises that:
1. Internal and external doors are to be sound and functional in terms of operation. Door furniture (e.g. handles and hinges) are to be inspected and repaired as required.
2. Locks are to be changed to the general dwelling.
3. Windows (and window furniture) should be functional in terms of safety and operation.
4. Floors should be sound and maintainable with no irregularities.
5. Kitchen units are to be fully serviceable, and all drawers and units should be properly fitted.
The Ombudsman notes from the appendix that, once the landlord is satisfied that all void works have been completed, a Voids Completion Certificate should be held on file. This confirms that the void works have been completed to the landlord’s satisfaction and outlines any outstanding works that need to be carried out.

Adaptations policy

The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its policy on adaptations for disabled tenants. This offers guidance to enable the landlord to provide housing which best suits its tenants’ assessed needs. Of particular relevance to this investigation, the Ombudsman notes from the policy that the landlord may not adapt a property where it is considered likely that another suitable property will become available within 12 months of the request being made.

Scope

The Ombudsman notes that since the landlord’s final response to the complaint, the resident has raised his dissatisfaction with mould and condensation at his property, an alleged faulty roof, an outstanding window repair, and a potential leak. While the Ombudsman has made note of this, these issues did not form part of the resident’s original complaint and the Ombudsman cannot see that they have been considered under the landlord’s complaints process.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are brought to this Service prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Therefore, if the resident wishes for these issues to be investigated by the Ombudsman, he will need to ensure that the landlord’s complaints process has been exhausted in the first instance.

Summary of events

On 17 June 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint. He explained:
1. He and his family had viewed the property in February 2020 and had identified several issues for repair. At this time, he was advised by the Voids and Lettings Officer (VLO) that void works would be undertaken, however this could take approximately five weeks, delaying his move.
2. His tenancy began on 1 June 2020. Upon returning to the property however, he was disappointed as there was no kitchen or bathroom flooring, no shower as required for his wife’s disability, and no kitchen cupboards.
3. When he contacted the landlord, he was informed that he would need to undertake this work himself.
4. He was informed that some repairs had not been done as the landlord did not have the resources due to COVID-19, but would be attended to over time. He stated that this worried him as his wife was vulnerable and would be put at risk if people were in and out of the property.
5. It was raised that there could be asbestos in the kitchen and that someone would be in contact once this was confirmed.
6. His old landlord had confirmed that he could remain at his old property until the works were completed, providing he was able to confirm the timeframe. He stated that he had sought to contact the landlord to establish this and what it was doing, but it had only commenced works to the kitchen floor.
7. He believed that when he spoke to the landlord, it considered him to be a problem because of his accent. He did not feel he could call for help. He had also been told to stop pestering its services.
On 3 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one response. It explained that due to the “exceptional circumstances”, repairs had been put on hold. All outstanding repairs would therefore be completed once it recommenced its routine repairs in August 2020. The resident was assured that while the landlord did not consider the outstanding repairs to be emergency repairs, the repairs would be organised in due course. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not set out which repairs it considered to be outstanding and no details were provided advising the resident on how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord noted that the garden gate was in need of repair. The landlord’s records suggest that it was inspected, however no further action was taken.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord completed a risk assessment on 28 July 2020 to ensure control measures during the pandemic and to maintain the safety of the resident and its officers.
The landlord’s internal emails show that on 3 August 2020 the resident reported rodent activity in the loft. It was explained that some of the electrical cables had been chewed through. The Ombudsman notes that an electrician subsequently attended to this on 17 August 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails on 17 August 2020 also highlight that it noted a number of outstanding repairs required at the resident’s property, including the supply of an extra cupboard in the kitchen, and resolving a problem with the window (reported on 31 July 2020).
On 18 August 2020 the landlord’s pest control contractors undertook an inspection of the resident’s property. Rodent activity was confirmed within the loft area and evidence of chewed material and an unpleasant smell was found. The contractors subsequently deployed bait blocks throughout the loft.
On 23 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He reiterated several of his earlier points and explained that he had been advised that all the repairs had been completed and that the property was ready to move into. The resident stated that upon picking up the keys from a safety box (due to COVID-19), he and his wife learned that no works had been completed. He reported:
1. The flooring in the kitchen and bathroom had not been done.
2. There were no kitchen units.
3. The front door was broken and did not shut properly.
4. They had been advised that the previous tenant had been burgled. Since, he stated that his wife had felt unsafe. He had questioned the front door during his viewing however no comment was made. He had since made requests to replace the front door and garden gate however had only received empty promises and delays which were blamed on COVID-19.
5. There was a high level of rat activity in the loft. His wife did not feel at home in the property and was very scared. He stated that he had a baby and was fearful that his son could be bitten.
On 25 August 2020 the pest control contractors returned to the resident’s property finding that almost all of the bait had been taken. It subsequently deployed more. A loft cleanse was also recommended to remove the droppings and rodent smell. A third inspection was undertaken on 1 September 2020 which identified less activity. The operative therefore identified no need to replenish the bait.
The landlord’s internal emails from 2 and 3 September 2020 suggest that a job was raised to address the resident’s kitchen units and front door on 3 September 2020. It was noted that there was further outstanding work from the void period, however the Ombudsman is unclear what these works were as they are not noted. The resident’s door was inspected on 11 September 2020.
It was noted by the landlord, still within its internal emails (on 15 September 2020) that several adjustments needed to be made to the front door. As the resident’s wife was worried that her child could break the glass at the bottom of the door, the landlord suggested replacing this with ply panel too. The landlord also noted that the stair risers and hole around the pipes to the kitchen ceiling remained outstanding. In a separate email, the landlord noted that the kitchen units were now in stock and ready to be installed.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord attended the resident’s property to investigate rubbish accumulation outside his property and the rat infestation issue. The resident has explained to this service that while it was advised that the rubbish needed to be removed to prevent attracting rodents, no update was ever provided by the landlord with regards to the rubbish, following this inspection.
In respect of the rat issue, the landlord’s pest control contractors undertook two further visits on 11 September and 23 September 2020 identifying that sufficient bait had already been placed. It was highlighted that the roof void additionally required boarding to allow safe access and a gap in the wall cavity needed to be sealed with robust material.
As the resident continued to report rodent activity however, the landlord engaged Environmental Health (EH) to arrange further pest control services. The Ombudsman notes that while the landlord was not providing this service previously, it was agreed that this would be classed as a special case.
An initial assessment was undertaken by EH on 1 October 2020 of the loft space. Bait was laid and ivy, which was believed to have provided an entry route for the rats, had been removed from the outside of the property. It was noted that there was still some Ivy that needed to be removed.
On 14 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated:
1. On viewing the property, he was assured by the landlord that all repairs needed would be done before moving into the property. It was advised that it would take approximately five weeks to undertake the repairs.
2. The walls were cracked, the wall pipes in the kitchen undone, the front door and the garden gate were rotten, and the front door also had signs of a break in. He had enquired about the door and the VLO only apologised, stating that she did not know why the door was in such a state.
3. He was told that he was not allowed to enter the loft during the viewing. He and his wife were suspicious of this and had since learned that this was because it was infested with rats.
4. The start of his tenancy was initially delayed by COVID-19. Once the restrictions had been lifted in May 2020 however, a call was received to say that it was OK to move, and that the tenancy would begin on 1 June 2020. He was required to sign the tenancy agreement via email and to collect the keys from a safe box. The resident stated that he had asked if the repairs had been completed and it was confirmed that they had been.
5. He and his family were fearful that they would be bitten by the rats. He stated it was not healthy living in such an environment.
A second inspection was undertaken by EH on 8 October 2020. Its records show that as the bait had been taken by the rats, more had been laid. It undertook a third visit on 15 October 2020 noting no further activity. A follow up visit was scheduled nonetheless to ensure the problem had been eradicated.
The resident suggested on 15 October 2020 that his wife no longer felt safe in the home with the rat issue and with knowledge that there had been a previous burglary. He requested a safer home that met his family’s needs. He stated in a separate email that the infestation had caused his family stress and anxiety.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it required more time to respond to his complaint. It was agreed that a response would be provided by 6 November 2020.
In the meantime, EH undertook a final inspection of the resident’s loft on 22 October 2020. It advised the resident that the rodent issue appeared to have been eradicated.
On 30 October 2020, within the landlord’s internal correspondence, it advised that its team had returned to the resident’s property to add the additional kitchen units, and to adjust others. Other outstanding repairs had also been undertaken. In further internal correspondence on 2 November 2020, the landlord noted that it undertook adjustments to the resident’s front door including replacing the glass with ply, renewed the plinths and the sink unit handle, painted the wall behind the unit, checked and repaired stair risers and tread, fitted a bathroom cabinet and shelves, and touched up the walls in the bedroom.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord provided its final response. It noted that:
1. The resident viewed the property on 18 February 2020 at which time, concerns were voiced about the front door having two panels of glass, the loft hatch being open, and the bathroom having no shower.
2. The resident was advised that the two glass panels offered additional safety; that the loft space could not be viewed at that time (as no ladder was available) and could not be used for personal storage; and that the addition of a shower would not be installed as a repair, however the resident could complete a Tenant Alteration form and install one himself.
3. At the time of viewing the resident was advised that void works were likely to take longer than four weeks. The resident was advised not to give notice to his landlord for the time being and would be updated when the time was right.
4. As the resident had already given notice at his previous property, the VLO contacted his former landlord to inform it of the situation. The former landlord subsequently agreed that the resident could stay in his home until the new agreement had been signed.
5. A virtual signup was arranged due to COVID-19. The tenancy agreement was shared with the resident on 21 May 2020 and accepted on the same day. The resident was also given a £75 B&Q card to contribute to any decorating required. The tenancy commenced on 1 June 2020.
The landlord concluded:
1. Works had been undertaken before the resident moved in to rectify the window frames, curtain battens, holes in the wall, floor coverings, front door lock, back kitchen doorframe, washing machine wastepipe, kitchen units and plinths, staircase and rails, bedroom doors, toilet seat, bath and hand basin, bathroom cabinet, and garden/shed.
1. Since the resident’s tenancy had commenced, a substantial amount of further work had been undertaken, some of which it was not responsible for and would not normally be undertaken. This included several adjustments to the front door, renewed plinths on the kitchen unit, three new kitchen units to add more storage space, a renewed base unit as the previous one was reportedly stiff, a new kitchen cupboard handle, an adjustment to the corner unit door, bathroom cabinets and shelves, repair to the stair risers and tread, and some painting.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s wife’s stress since residing at the new property and hoped that the repairs undertaken had relieved this. It explained that its efforts were delayed by the pandemic/government restrictions between March and May 2020 however as this eased in June 2020, works recommenced.
3. The tiles had not been removed from the kitchen or bathroom floor to ensure that the floor had a waterproof covering. Once the resident raised his dissatisfaction with this after moving in, the floors were re-inspected and it was agreed that the flooring needed to be removed. Arrangements were subsequently made for the replacement vinyl flooring to be installed.
4. The property was surveyed as soon as it became empty, and no asbestos was identified.
5. It was explained that adding a shower on top of the bath would be an alteration which could be made once permission was given. The landlord recognised however that an OT report had been produced by the resident’s previous landlord which indicated the need for an over–bath shower. It stated that as this report was over two years old, arrangements had been made for a new assessment. Any recommendations made would be considered. The landlord noted that the resident had submitted a new housing application and explained that once this had been assessed, it would consider how to proceed.
6. It accepted that there had been a rat problem in the loft. Following several visits and treatments from EH however, on 22 October 2020 the resident was advised that the issue had been eradicated. A loft cleanse to remove the smell and droppings had now been arranged and the insulation would be reinspected to ensure there was no damage. All operatives wore the appropriate PPE during this time.
7. The landlord noted that an email had been sent on 27 October 2020 in which the resident suggested that a member of the Customer Service Team did not want to assist him. While the resident had been contacted the following day by the Housing Services Manager, in the absence of the Customer Services Manager (CSM), he advised that he wished to wait for the CSM to return from annual leave. His complaint was subsequently forwarded to the CSM and would be reviewed upon her return. The resident was reassured that the landlord did not discriminate.
The landlord therefore concluded that while it was satisfied that the necessary works did take place before the resident moved in, the kitchen and bathroom flooring should have been replaced at that time. It apologised for this. It is also acknowledged that it could have picked up the OT report sooner and arranged for an OT to be present during the resident’s viewing, given that the report was two years old. Finally, the landlord apologised for the handling of the resident’s complaint at stage one, noting that the resident’s concerns were not addressed in full. It advised that in order to remedy the matter, it would:
1. Ensure that staff received the appropriate training in relation to complaint handling.
1. Arrange for an OT inspection to take place which would also support the resident’s recent housing application.
2. Arrange cleansing of the loft and then for the insulation to be assessed.
On 30 November 2020 the OT undertook an assessment of the resident’s wife via telephone (due to COVID-19 restrictions). It was concluded that the property was not suitable for his wife’s physical or mental health needs and that she and her family would benefit from a move to a different neighbourhood.
Internal emails show that the OT advised the landlord that the resident’s wife would benefit from the supply and installation of a mixer tap to the kitchen sink due to her reduced hand function. This would enable her to use the kitchen sink with greater ease.
The OT also advised, following an internal conversation in which it was thought that an adaptation would not be necessary due to the resident’s intention to move, that the over-bath shower still needed to be supplied. The OT explained that the resident’s banding for his housing application was low.
On 8 December 2020 the resident attempted to establish when the over-bath shower would be installed. He was informed that there was a delay due to COVID-19 and that the resident may have moved before this work was completed.
On 16 December 2020 the landlord removed the insulation in the resident’s loft and undertook a cleanse. It advised that an assessment of the requirement for new insulation would take place after Christmas.
On 17 December 2020 the resident questioned whether there was any asbestos in the loft. He explained that he had not been updated or written to on where in the house it might be. He stated that he wished to know in case any works or decorations were to take place.
This was responded to by the landlord on 21 December 2020. It explained it had already confirmed that there was no asbestos in the roof space. It stated that there was an extremely low level of asbestos in the Artex coating on the ceiling, however. This was not to be sanded down when decorating. The resident was advised that this would be reassessed if the resident wished to undertake any alterations to his home involving the ceiling. The Ombudsman notes that the resident subsequently requested a copy of the asbestos report however this was declined.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that the loft installation company would attend later in the day to measure the loft space. The installation would subsequently take place later in the month. The Ombudsman notes that this was completed on 28 January 2020.
The landlord’s records suggest that the over-bath shower was installed in early March 2021, at the same time as a full bathroom replacement.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.

The resident has suggested that the landlord assured him that several of his concerns raised during the viewing of the property (in February 2020), would be addressed prior to the commencement of his tenancy. It is not disputed by the landlord that there were void works to be undertaken at this time.
Where the property may have been left in a poor condition by the previous occupants, the landlord’s void policy offers guidance on the minimum standard required before the property is re-let. This is also supported by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which requires the landlord to bring the property up to a good standard prior to the start of a tenancy.
As the Ombudsman is unable to identify the specific concerns raised during the viewing in February 2020, as the Ombudsman was not present and the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous notes from this time, the Ombudsman has been unable to establish whether the landlord acted as expected and undertook all of the agreed work by the time the tenancy begun. The Ombudsman also has not seen a list of the void works which were due to be undertaken. While the landlord has offered, within its final response, a list of the works that it had completed prior to the start of the tenancy, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this was all that was required/allegedly agreed and whether any repairs were missed. The landlord’s void report, completed on 4 February 2020, also offers little insight into the works that were required.
There was therefore no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord completed the void works, or that the property met its minimum standard before it was let. Furthermore, in the absence of a list of the required repairs, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord was able to ensure for itself that all of the necessary works were completed.
While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reinspected the resident’s property upon resuming its routine repairs to establish what works remained outstanding, by which time he had moved in, and clarifying when the resident could expect this to be completed, this was not done.
This is supported by the landlord’s acknowledgement that the flooring works should have been addressed but was not, and the absence of a Void Completion Certificate, indicating that the landlord had not satisfied for itself that all void works had been completed.
The Ombudsman appreciates that between March and May 2020, the impact of COVID-19 would have reduced the landlord’s services to emergency repairs only. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this was later explained to the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged that all works had not been completed as expected, and to have communicated with the resident throughout this period on its intention to follow-up on any outstanding works. The Ombudsman notes that it was not until the resident raised a complaint, that the landlord advised that the remaining repairs (which it was not specific about) would be addressed. The landlord also made no attempt to recognise the resident’s concern that operatives would now be in and out of his home increasing his family’s risk of catching the COIVD-19 virus.
As the landlord had advised the resident in February 2020 that the works could take more than four weeks but that he would be invited to sign the tenancy once the “time was right”, the resident would have been of the belief that the works had been completed, upon receiving the tenancy agreement from the landlord via email. The resident has suggested within his complaints (and which the landlord did not challenge) that he had been informed that the repairs had been completed.
Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have been more transparent with the resident (prior to the start of his tenancy). In doing so, the resident would not have been surprised by the state of the property, and this would have helped to maintain the credibility of the landlord / tenant relationship. The Ombudsman does recognise that the resident did also have a responsibility to re-view the property and to ensure that he was happy with the condition before accepting the tenancy agreement. It is unclear, however, whether the resident was offered the opportunity to do so.
The Ombudsman has noted that several repairs took place following the commencement of the resident’s tenancy, as the landlord advised it would. This was fair. In respect of the resident’s bathroom and kitchen floor, the landlord acknowledged that this should have been undertaken prior to the commencement of the resident’s tenancy. As per the void policy, as a minimum standard, the floors should have been sound and maintainable without irregularities. The Ombudsman notes that this was subsequently inspected, and new flooring arranged soon after the resident’s complaint.
It is unclear whether the landlord had agreed to install additional kitchen cupboards as part of the void repairs, however this was raised as part of the resident’s complaint in June 2020. As the landlord subsequently confirmed that this would be undertaken once works recommenced in August 2020, the delay in installing this should have been communicated to the resident. The Ombudsman can see that within the landlord’s internal correspondence on 17 August 2020 it noted that this work remained outstanding. It was not until 3 September 2020 that the landlord raised a job to address this, despite receiving a further complaint about this on 23 August 2020. Furthermore, the Ombudsman cannot see any evidence that this work was completed before 30 October 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the length of time that passed was excessive.
In respect of the resident’s door, while the resident has explained that he raised several concerns about the state of this, the Ombudsman has been unable to locate or corroborate any concerns raised prior to August 2020, other than in relation to the two glass panels. There was also no mention of this within the resident’s stage one complaint. The Ombudsman does note, however, that within the resident’s further complaint on 23 August 2020, he raised that his front door would not shut properly. Internal emails suggest that this was subsequently inspected on 11 September 2020 and several works were completed to the door, including replacing the glass panel in the front door with a ply panel. This was reasonable. While the Ombudsman has been unable to confirm the date in which this work took place, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was before 2 November 2020.
The Ombudsman recognises that during this time, the resident expressed that his wife felt unsafe upon learning that the property had been burgled previously. He asserted that he had also made requests to replace the front door (however the Ombudsman has not seen these). While the landlord did not offer the resident a replacement, the Ombudsman notes that it did undertake several repairs to the door. As a landlord will always seek to undertake repairs where practical, before agreeing a replacement, this was reasonable. The resident was also given reassurance that the door was safe, the locks had been changed, and the resident’s wife’s concerns were taken on board during the OT inspection to support her need for a move.
Finally, the resident has explained that upon chasing repairs, he had been treated unfavourably due to his accent. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident may feel this way, however is unable to determine that any failures in service were directly connected to the resident’s accent, and there is no evidence of him being treated differently on this basis. The Ombudsman is satisfied nonetheless, that the landlord agreed to take the appropriate steps to review previous conversations that the resident had had with a member of staff, and assured the resident that it did not discriminate. This was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an adaptation to the bath.

While the landlord’s adaptations policy offers guidance to ensure that the landlord offers housing which best suits a tenant’s assessed needs, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord applied its policy at commencement of the resident’s tenancy.
As well as the resident bringing to the landlord’s attention that an over-bath shower was required to support his wife’s needs (in February 2020), it is likely that the landlord would have had access to the resident’s wife’s previous OT report at sign up. This therefore should have been taken into consideration and any required adjustments considered.
Failing this, the landlord could have arranged for an OT assessment following the commencement of the resident’s tenancy and/or following the resident’s stage one complaint in which he brought this to the landlord’s attention again. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this, however.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord advised the resident during the viewing that he could apply to make an alteration on his own accord, once he requested permission. While this was not unreasonable, as the landlord’s policy does offer this option for tenants wishing to make their own alterations, the Ombudsman cannot see that there was any suggestion that the resident could instead seek support from the landlord to accommodate his wife’s need, via an OT assessment. Where a resident suffers with a disability, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make reasonable adjustments to support the resident’s vulnerability and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made no attempt to do so in this case.
Furthermore, despite raising this within the stage one complaint, no response or acknowledgement was received. It was not until the landlord’s stage two response, several months later, that the resident’s concerns were addressed. The resident was subsequently unaware of the landlord’s position for a period of 5 months and whether he would need to cover the cost of this himself, in order to support his wife’s needs.
Despite this, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did acknowledge, in its final response, that it could have arranged for an OT to be present during the resident’s viewing. The landlord also acknowledged that it could have reviewed the OT report, despite it being two years old. While no apology was offered for this, it was reasonable that the landlord subsequently arranged for a new OT assessment to take place in November 2020, to ensure that an up-to-date picture could be obtained of the resident’s support needs. This was fair.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that even with an up-to-date OT recommendation for the landlord to install an over-bath shower in December 2020, this was not picked up by the landlord within a reasonable amount of time. Rather, this was not completed until March 2021 (according to the landlord).
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may have been hesitant to undertake the adjustment to the resident’s bath as it became aware that the resident was seeking to leave the property. The Ombudsman notes that in line with its adaptations policy, the landlord may not adapt a property where it is considered likely that a more suitable property will become available within 12 months of the request. The Ombudsman can see, however, that the landlord was advised by the OT in December 2020 that, as the resident’s banding was low, therefore impacting the speed with which he and his family was likely to secure a move, the adaptation still needed to be completed. The landlord therefore should have taken steps to do so at this point.
The Ombudsman has also seen that in January 2021, the resident was advised that due to the backlog of repairs created by COVID-19, this work would be delayed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the landlord should have prioritised this, given that it should have reasonably made this adjustment at the start of the tenancy. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was offered any indication on when the adaption would take place.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in his loft.

The resident has stated that in February 2020, he was advised that he was not allowed to view the loft and became suspicious of this. He has stated that he and his wife had since concluded that this was because the loft was infested with rats. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether this was indeed the reason he was not allowed to view the loft or whether there was a rat problem at the time of viewing. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord’s assertion that it had declined access in the absence of a ladder. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the matter following the resident’s initial report on 3 August 2020, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue.
Upon confirming the infestation, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord arranged for its contractors to undertake a series of treatments within the resident’s loft (after arranging an electrician to repair the chewed cables). The contractor’s notes show that several visits were undertaken, and bait was deployed as necessary. Its records suggest that improvements were made and that there was less rodent activity.
Following continued complaints, the landlord acquired the assistance of EH. As the landlord explained within its final response, EH attended the resident’s property on four occasions, undertaking steps to remove entry routes and again deploying bait as necessary. EH’s records show that following its third visit on 15 October 2020, no further activity was found. EH subsequently undertook a final visit on 22 October 2020 to confirm this and on this day, was able to advise the resident that the issue had been eradicated. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman accepts that it may sometimes take several attempted to fully eradicate a pest issue.
Given that the resident had expressed concerns that he and his family feared being bitten by the rats, and that this was adding to his/his wife’s stress, it was reasonable that the landlord engaged EH, despite this service being unavailable at this time. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord considered this to be a special circumstance, and this was reasonable.
The Ombudsman also acknowledges that as recommended by the pest control contractor, the landlord undertook a cleanse of the resident’s loft to remove the rat droppings and smell, as it said it would within its final response. The resident’s loft was inspected soon after and the loft insulation was renewed. This was appropriate.
It is unclear how much work was done to remove the entry points providing access to the resident’s loft. The Ombudsman also notes that despite inspecting the rubbish accumulation outside the resident’s property, the resident was never updated on the landlord’s plan of action. Still, the Ombudsman is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to eradicate the issue. The Ombudsman has, nonetheless, made a recommendation for the landlord to advise the resident on how the rubbish accumulation outside of his property will be managed, if it has not already been addressed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of potential asbestos in the property.

For completeness, the Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s management of the resident’s asbestos concerns. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although considered to be low risk, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have alerted the resident to the potential presence of asbestos in his ceiling at the start of his tenancy, when he had asked about this. The Ombudsman can see that this was noted following an inspection in February 2020, yet upon questioning whether there was any asbestos within the property, the landlord advised the resident (within its final response) that there was no asbestos in his home. This was inappropriate because it was not reflective of the findings of the inspection in February.
The Ombudsman accepts that the resident was later advised of the potential presence of asbestos within his textured ceilings, however as this was a key concern for the resident and was raised early on, at minimum, the landlord should have apologised for its misinformation. The Ombudsman cannot see that this was done, however.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an adaptation to the bath.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in his loft.
4. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of potential asbestos in the property.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
1. The Ombudsman accepts, as the landlord explained, that its service would have been impacted between March and May 2020. It therefore may not have been able to complete all void repairs, within the anticipated time. It would have been reasonable, however, for the landlord to have communicated this to the resident prior to him moving into the property and raising a complaint, especially as he was advised that his tenancy would commence when the “time was right”. The landlord also could have acknowledged this within its stage one response.

Moreover, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken an inspection to establish what works remained outstanding (which it was responsible for) and when these would likely be undertaken. Instead, it appears that there was a disjointed approach to tackling these repairs and the Ombudsman has been unable to confirm whether all of the outstanding repairs were addressed.

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, had the landlord kept better records, it may have been able to evidence that any repairs discussed during the resident’s visit in February 2020, and those identified during the void period, were either completed prior to the start of the tenancy or soon after. The landlord has been unable to do so, however.

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord also delayed in installing the resident’s kitchen cupboards, resulting in an excessive wait for the resident.

While the landlord did issue the resident with a £75 voucher to assist in decorating his property, this was prior to the resident’s complaint. No efforts were made, upon identifying failings in its service in the final response, to put things right.

While the landlord took the appropriate steps to obtain an up-to-date OT report to understand the resident’s needs, it still delayed in implementing the recommendation given. In the Ombudsman’s view, as this adjustment should have been considered in June 2020 (or potentially earlier), the landlord’s delay was unreasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord may have been dealing with some delays as a result of COVID-19, however is aware that routine repairs had resumed at this time. The Ombudsman also accepts that the landlord was not obligated to install the over-bath shower based on the OT’s recommendation solely. It would have been reasonable though, where the landlord accepted that this was needed, for the landlord to have undertaken this within good time given the amount of time that the resident had gone without the provision. The resident’s wife went without the required adaptation for nine months until the landlord undertook this work.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s rodent issue. The landlord engaged both its contracted services and EH in response to the resident’s reports of rat activity, and the Ombudsman can see that the resident was advised once this had been eradicated. This was appropriate. It was also reasonable that the landlord took steps to address the loft insulation, where it had sustained damage.
Noting the resident’s concerns with asbestos, the landlord should have ensured that he was provided with the correct information. Its later update was contradictory to what he had been told within the landlord’s final response. This may have been avoided had the asbestos report been shared.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs and the delay in adding an over-bath shower, despite receiving the OT’s recommendation several months before, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £200. This has been calculated as £100 per service failure.
The landlord should also offer the resident an apology for its miscommunication with regards to the presence of asbestos within his property and should share the most recent asbestos report with him.
The landlord should comply with the above orders within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord acknowledged, within its final response, that its stage one response was not up to standard. This was appropriate. Moving forward however, the landlord should ensure that a resident’s complaint is responded to in full and that the appropriate information is provided to enable them to escalate their complaint, should they wish to.
The landlord should update the resident on how it plans to approach the rubbish accumulation outside his property, as it does not appear that this was done.