Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202113474)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113474

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

25 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

The complaint concerns the condition of the property when the resident moved in, following a mutual exchange.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident took on the tenancy of the property via a mutual exchange in January 2021. The property is a house.
The resident experienced ongoing issues with repairs and the condition of the property since she moved in.
On 16 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. She said the proper safety checks were not carried out to the property prior to her moving in and the property was uninhabitable in its current state, She advised this was affecting her health and that of her daughter, who is partially sighted. There were numerous outstanding repairs in the property that should have been resolved by the landlord before she moved in and she had received poor customer service from the landlord when she reported these issues. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that all the outstanding issues repairs were completed and that she received compensation.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 March 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. An electrical check was carried out in the property on 20 November 2020 and a gas check on 18 January 2021.
2. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was not possible for it to undertake a visual inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange.
3. The handrails had been replaced and a rent credit had been arranged in order to allow the resident to install a bedroom door which she had reported as missing when she moved in.
4. An inspection was carried out on 3 March 2021 and a further inspection had been arranged to identify all outstanding repair work that was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve.
A stage two complaint response was sent by the landlord on 21 May 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. Following the second inspection held on 24 March 2021, work was raised to plaster areas in various rooms. This had been completed and the resident issued with decoration vouchers for the affected rooms.
2. Concerns were raised at the inspection as to the support lintel in the lounge. A structural engineer visited the property on 14 April 2021. Their report found minor distortion but was not considered to be excessive and is unlikely to progress further.
3. The landlord agreed to inspect the garden retaining wall and the pointing on the outhouse building.
4. The grab handles were attached to the side of the door as due to the type of external insulation used on the wall, it is not possible for the grab handles to be attached to the wall.
5. It was satisfied that its staff acted appropriately during the mutual exchange process and that it followed its policies and procedures, and the Covid-19 guidance that was in operation at the time.
6. It would continue to work with the resident in order to replace the remaining handrails and add a security light.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 September 2021. She described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the poor communication she received from the landlord when reporting the issues, that a structural engineer who visited the property indicated that it was not fit for purpose, and that the landlord never apologised for the condition of the property when she moved in.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that all outstanding repairs were completed and that she received compensation in addition to the decorating vouchers already issued.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it responds to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 15 working days. Emergency repairs are defined as “repairs which are needed to avoid serious health and safety problems or prevent serious structural damage to the home”.
During the time period of this complaint, the landlord’s services were restricted as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Between November 2020 and January 2021, when the mutual exchange application was in progress, the landlord only attended emergency repairs. Once the resident had moved in, non-emergency repair were able to be arranged, but delays were likely due to the backlog of outstanding repairs. The landlord kept its residents updated on the status of its services via its website.
As part of the mutual exchange application form, the resident is asked to sign an acknowledgement that, in part, states as follows:
1. I/we must accept the property in its present condition. I/we understand that no decoration or alteration will be carried out by [the landlord] as a result of the exchange taking place.
2. I/we will be made aware before I/we exchange properties of any fixtures and fittings installed by the current tenant that I/we will be responsible for repairing/maintaining/replacing and which will not be repaired/maintained/replaced by [the landlord]). I/we am prepared to repair/maintain/replace these at my/our own expense.
The landlord’s void repairs standard policy describes what legal obligations it has relating to the condition of the property prior to a new tenant moving in. In relation to safety, the void policy states that an electric test must be carried out if an electrical testing report is not available from within the last five years from when the property became vacant. It also states that a gas safety test must also be undertaken, and gas appliances should either be isolated or serviced prior to the property being made available for let.
As to the general repair of the property, the policy states that “all handrails, grab rails, stairs and balustrades must be secure and fit for their intended purpose. The property must be in a good state of repair, with no dangerous or obvious defects”. The policy goes on to state that all emergency or urgent works should be completed prior to the new tenancy commencing.
In describing the cleanliness of the property, the policy states that it should be “free from litter, debris, excessive dust and dirt, discarded or stored materials and equipment, including within gardens, garden sheds and outbuildings unless otherwise agreed with the incoming tenant”.
The section of the policy relating to decoration states as follows:
1. Rooms should be in reasonable decorative order. Where the decorations are in particularly poor condition, the following options will be considered on a room-by-room basis and in consultation with the incoming tenant if known;
  1. Walls may to be stripped to bare plaster where necessary.
  2. Ceilings and/or walls where necessary to have one wash coat and two coats of emulsion on new plaster and two coats of emulsion on existing surfaces.
  3. Woodwork to be painted where necessary (Undercoat and Gloss)
  4. Provision of a decoration grant (in the form of vouchers)
  5. Redecoration under the landlord’s social decorations programme where the tenant qualifies and they can be completed within an acceptable timescale
2. Each property may include any combination of the above options on a room-by-room basis.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within 20 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with both this Service and the landlord, the resident had described the adverse effect on her health and that of her family caused by the condition of the property.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her household, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer(if it has one).
This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded to her concerns.

The condition of the property when the resident moved in. .

The landlord’s notes of a telephone call between it and the resident on 4 January 2021 state that it was informed by the resident that she would contact Occupational Therapy (OT) about handrails for her daughter in the property. The notes also stated that the landlord informed the resident that due to the Covid-19 pandemic it had been unable to arrange an inspection of the property, that she would be accepting the property in its current condition, that it could not guarantee that a new bathroom would be fitted and explained that she would be responsible for the shower and floor tiles in the bathroom as these were installed by the previous tenant.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately during the mutual exchange process and followed its published policies. Prior to the resident accepting the property, she was informed by the landlord that due to Covid-19 it had been unable to undertake an inspection and that she would be accepting the property in its current condition. This advice was also in line with the mutual exchange application form signed by the resident.
The landlord would have normally been expected to have replaced the handrails in the property during the void period. However, this issue was not identified until the landlord was informed by the resident due to the lack of an inspection which would normally have happened as part of the mutual exchange process. The landlord has explained that the inspection could not take place due to restrictions on the landlord’s service during the Covid19 pandemic. The work to replace the handrails was completed in 16 working days, one day outside of the landlord’s published timescales for routine repairs. The landlord had informed its residents to expect delays to routine repairs as a result of a backlog of repairs caused by the restrictions it operated under during the national lockdowns. In this context, the delay was reasonable and unavoidable.
When the landlord was in a position to arrange an inspection, further work was raised and appointments booked. These repairs (replacement of a door, replastering sections of various walls, sealing the bath and replacement of guardrails and the stair rail) would not be considered emergency repairs as per the landlord’s definition, nor would they be deemed essential repairs to be completed during the void period before the resident moved in. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to complete the work after the resident had moved into the property, in line with its void policy.
The resident has stated that she did not believe that the property was safe to live in. In response, the landlord has provided copies of the gas and electrical safety certificates to the resident during the complaints process. When the resident raised additional concerns about structural issues with the property (which were also raised by the operative who undertook the 24 March 2021 inspection), the landlord arranged for a structural engineer to inspect the properties of the resident and her next-door neighbour. The report found no immediate issues that required attention and concluded that the property was not suffering from subsidence, but did make recommendations on what work the landlord should consider if issues relating to the lounge wall worsened.
While there were clearly outstanding repairs when the resident took on the tenancy, it is considered acceptable for landlords to let properties with some repairs outstanding, provided the repairs would not make the property unsafe to live in. This is due to the extremely high demand for social housing meaning landlords are encouraged to provide tenancies as soon as reasonably possible without any avoidable delays. Although it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to wait for rails to be fitted as well as for the replastering and other work to be completed, this would not in itself mean that the property was unsafe to live in.
While there were clearly delays caused by the landlord not being able to inspect the property during the void period and complete repairs within its 15 working day timescale, this was initially as a result as restrictions placed on its services during the national lockdowns and the backlog of non-emergency repairs caused by these restrictions. The resident was made aware of these issues during the mutual exchange application process and the resident also signed the application form stating she would accept the property in its current condition.
The resident was advised as part of the mutual exchange process that she would be responsible for clearing any rubbish from the garden left by the previous tenant as well as for clearing and maintaining the garden. This advice was in line with the landlord’s mutual exchange process which sets out that the property is accepted as seen by the new tenant and the new tenant takes on responsibility for maintaining the garden.
While the delays in completing the repairs was understandably frustrating to the resident, a landlord would not be expected to offer compensation for issues that were outside of its control.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property when the resident moved in following a mutual exchange.