Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202118911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118911

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

19 May 2022

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 delay in providing the resident with a move-in date to the property and its communication around this.
2. The complaint is also about the associated handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident was an applicant for the property, until 22 February 2022, at which point she became a tenant. The property is a new build.
4. The resident complained to the landlord, on 10 May 2021, about its delay in providing her with a move-in date to the property she had been allocated as a tenant.  The original expectation was that the property would be ready to move into by November 2020.  Six months later, at the point of making the complaint, the resident was still waiting to move in, with no date or expectation of a timeframe given.
5. The resident felt frustrated with the delay and lack of communication and information provided by the landlord, which she felt did not sufficiently explain the reasons for the delay. In her complaint, the resident explained the impact of the delay on her, including inconvenience and detriment to her mental health and ability to access services.
6. The landlord’s final response to the complaint on 29 June 2021, upheld the complaint, apologising for the delay in providing a response to the complaint and for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation, comprised of £250 for service failure in respect of the delay and £250 for the resident’s time and trouble. It explained that the delay to moving into the property was due to works that became apparent following a Fire Risk Assessment and that it anticipated a move in date of the first two weeks of July 2021.
7. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered, feeling this does not sufficiently reflect the impact of the situation on her, namely, the stress and inconvenience caused, as well as the detriment to her mental health and ability to access services.

Assessment and findings

Delay in providing a move-in date and associated communication

8. Having successfully applied to be a tenant of the landlord at the property in October 2020, this gave rise to an expectation from the resident, that she would be moving into the property within a reasonable period of time and that time was estimated by the landlord to be November 2020.
9. The resident did not move into the property in November 2020, nor in the months or year that followed, with her eventually moving into it in February 2022, 15 months after she was expected to do so and 16 months following her initial application to rent it.
10. Sometimes delays do occur in the process of letting a property, including unavoidable ones and ones which are unforeseen until closer to the time.  Particularly with new-build properties, delays can sometimes be expected with snagging and associated works being required before being tenanted.  In this case, a safety flaw was found with the property shortly after the tenancy had been agreed and when there was expectation of an imminent move-in date.  This flaw was identified following a Fire Safety Assessment, which rendered the property unsafe to be tenanted and it was therefore appropriate that the resident was not able to move into the property until the remedial works to ensure fire safety, had been completed.
11. The remedial works took over a year to carry out, however, which was excessively lengthy. The delay was extensive and inappropriately lengthy by any reasonable standard. The situation undoubtedly caused the resident, who spent a lengthy duration living with uncertainty around her new home, considerable inconvenience and distress.  Indeed, the resident conveyed the impact of the situation on her, to the landlord on a number of occasions, explaining the fact that she was sofa surfing and had a mental health diagnosis, for which she could not access treatment without a fixed address.  
12. The scope of this investigation and the remit of the Ombudsman’s role does not permit damage to health to be considered and compensation awarded for any finding of detriment in the same way as a Court would. However, this Service can consider all of the actions the landlord took and its responses to what it was made aware of in respect of the impact on the resident and her mental health. 
13. It was appropriate that the landlord, having heard the impact on the resident, took steps to support her, which included an offer of speaking to the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) on her behalf and offer with tenancy support once she had moved in, as well as providing advice as to how she could access support in case of emergency and otherwise. It was appropriate because it was clear that the situation was having a negative impact on the resident and having conveyed this, she was also reaching out for help.  The landlord provided this support, thereby also recognising its duty of care, given her particular vulnerabilities.
14. Documentation provided to this Service explains the reason for delay being attributable to the developer who was having to remedy the problem pertaining to fire safety.  The contractor that was being used to resolve the safety issues took an excessively lengthy time to do this and there was a need for return visits, due to issues with the quality of workmanship. It was clearly a frustrating situation for the landlord also, as it was being provided with very little information as to what was going on, as well as being given expected moving in dates which never came to fruition. This information was passed onto the resident, who was in turn, left feeling frustrated and let down.
15. Whilst the landlord itself did not cause the delay, it did not sufficiently and clearly convey the situation to the resident, who chased the landlord on numerous occasions for an update.  On almost all occasions, the landlord responded on the same day or within a reasonable timeframe of a few days, however, it was the resident who was chasing the landlord seeking an update, rather than an update automatically being provided. There was a lack of expectation management, even in the circumstances of the confines of the situation, where the landlord was limited as to what it could control in respect of the speed of the works. 
16. The landlord missed an opportunity to set expectations and boundaries, by advising the resident of when she could expect regular updates, such as once per week, or once per fortnight, for instance.  The need for this became particularly apparent as time went on and the resident’s communication became more frequent and exasperated.   
17. Further, while the landlord explained that there was a delay to the remedial works in respect of fire safety, it did not go far enough at each stage, in explaining what exactly the hold-up was with this and what it was doing to expedite the situation as far as it could itself.  The landlord did explain there were some meetings going ahead and some timescales issued but did not specify the outcome of these meetings or provide anything more tangible for the resident to go on. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate matters itself and push for answers, given the impact on the resident and extensive and insufficiently explained delays and missed deadlines.
18. The landlord did not consider alternatives for the resident, when it became clear that the situation was starting to become untenable, after many months of delay, with no end date in site.  Although the landlord was not obliged to do this, given the length of the delay and the impact on the resident, given her situation of sofa surfing, alongside her mental health issues, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what else it could do in the interim, such as consideration of other available properties.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord offered £250 compensation in recognition of the delay, however, this did not go far enough to redress the situation, which had gone on for some considerable time and not without impact.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s response to the complaint was delayed at stage two, being outside of its target timeframe of 20 days, however, it was issued within its extended target timeframe of 30 days, where a complaint requires additional time, in accordance with its complaints policy.  The landlord had not conveyed the need for more time to the resident, however and so appropriately apologised for the delay in its response.
21. The complaint was upheld insofar as there was an inappropriately lengthy delay to the resident being given a move-in date and being able to move into the property, although it explained that it had kept the resident up-to-date as to the situation as best it could in the circumstances. 
22. It was appropriate that the landlord responded with empathy and understanding, recognising the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused, as well as the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the matter up and pursuing her complaint.  The apology for the delayed complaint response and £250 offer of compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble was in accordance with its compensation guidance.  The landlord’s compensation guidance states that where there is a high volume of contact needed from the customer to resolve the issue and a ‘high impact’ on them, then an award of £151-£350 compensation is an appropriate amount to offer.  As the landlord’s offer fell within this bracket and was proportionate in recognising the resident’s experience, this Service has determined that it was satisfactory in resolving this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s delay in providing a move-in date to the property and its communication around this.
24. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to this investigation which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Order and recommendation

Order

25. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Increase its award, in relation to its delay in providing a move-in date for the property and its communication around this, from £250 to £500.
    2. Provide this Service with evidence that it has complied with this order.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should also ensure that it awards the resident the £250 previously promised for its handling of the resident’s complaint. The above finding of reasonable redress has been made on this basis. A total of £750 should subsequently be paid.
27. The landlord should carry out a lessons-learned exercise, to establish what went wrong and why, with the view to identifying steps it can take to help prevent a future occurrence.