Walsall Housing Group Limited (202008533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008533

Walsall Housing Group Limited

31 March 2022

Amended 6 December 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s housing transfer.
2. void repairs it carried out to the resident’s property.
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident initially had an assured tenancy for a property which she was moved out of due to concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) towards her and her family. The tenancy of her new property commenced on 8 March 2021.
On 27 October 2020, the landlord completed a special case approval report. The report noted that:
1. The resident had some learning difficulties and both she and her son were autistic.
2. The resident had reported ASB to the Police, which the Police had investigated and had not taken any formal action.
3. Despite extensive investigations the ASB could not be resolved and continued to impact the resident and her son.
4. The resident had stated that her son was frightened to go outside into the garden, and the landlord was ‘‘greatly concerned’’ as the resident had mentioned taking her own life due to the serious impact this was having on her family.
5. This should be viewed as a critical case and the family be re-housed in a like for like move.
On 27 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord saying that the lettings manager kept telling her they did not know what area she wanted to move to when they clearly did, and that as a result they had missed the opportunity to view several properties that would have been perfect for them.
The landlord responded to resident on 2 December 2020 saying that it had arranged for her area of choice to be extended as she had described. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to ask that her complaint be investigated more thoroughly, that every property they chose they were told they could not have and that the most recent property they had visited was too small and in a state of disrepair.
The landlord issued an Investigation Stage complaint response on 4 January 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had by then been successful in securing another property and that:
1. The property would be available for her to move into once the void works had been completed.
2. The landlord estimated that the property would be available from some point in February 2021.
3. It understood from its discussions with the resident that she was happy to wait for the works to be completed but would still like to view the property as soon as possible.
4. A named Housing Advisor would support the resident through the void process and it would consider ways to help given it recognised that the move would be challenging.
5. It had discussed the situation with the resident’s social prescribing link worker who was supporting her and confirmed that it would ensure that it communicated clearly around the process, timings and next steps as the moving date got closer.
The landlord acknowledged that getting to this point had been stressful for both the resident and her family and identified several areas which could have been improved throughout the process:
1. That its internal communication had been below expected standards which had led to missed opportunities to identify suitable properties and it had not cross-referenced the information it held on its choice based letting scheme with the detail in the critical rehousing application so an inappropriate property had been identified as suitable in November 2020.
2. That its communication with the resident, in terms of how the critical rehousing and choice based lettings processes worked, had not been consistent and had therefore added to the resident’s uncertainty and anxiety.
There was extensive communication between the landlord and the resident between 12 January 2021 and 15 January 2021 (when the resident viewed the new property). During this time, the resident said that the lettings manager was blocking her from viewing the property, that she was supposed to view it on 4 and 11 January 2021 but had not been able to, that it felt like the landlord wanted to make the move as traumatic as possible and that moving house was distressing for everyone but especially so for them because of their disabilities. The resident also asked whether someone else could help her, preferably someone with disability awareness training, and reported that the landlord had failed to co-operate with her link worker. She added that her son was suicidal and the landlord’s approach had caused them to question whether a move was going to happen.
In response, the landlord said that the lettings manager was not blocking the resident from viewing but was seeking to establish the full extent of void works required to ensure the property met lettable standards and ensuring that viewings were conducted in accordance with the current lockdown rules which meant that the landlord needed to minimise viewings.
On 18 January 2021, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. The resident complained about the behaviour of the managers who attended the viewing with her on 15 January 2021 (she said they had made the viewing dangerous and traumatic) and raised issues with the boundary fence, asked for keys and said that the landlord had suddenly decided to do repairs.
On 21 January 2021, the Housing Manager contacted the resident to advise that they had tried to call her but she was unavailable, they were not trying to cause her anxiety, they would try to call her again shortly to put her mind at rest and provided the resident with the mobile number they would be calling from.
The Void Pre-Inspection Survey of the property was carried out on 27 January 2021, following which the Housing Manager emailed the resident the same day to advise that they had an estimated completion date for the repairs of 18 February 2021 and that, assuming all the works were completed by that day, the resident’s new tenancy would start on 1 March 2021.
On 2 February 2021, the Housing Manager emailed the resident to confirm that the downstairs toilet would be retained and the kitchen and bathroom would not be replaced. A summary of the voids works was provided and the resident was advised that the Housing Manager would contact her again on or before 12 February 2021 with an update.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 February 2021, stating that she felt bullied and discriminated against and that the landlord had upheld her complaint on 4 January 2021 but nothing had changed. The resident said that this was particularly upsetting for her and her family because of their autism and that the landlord’s staff should be supporting her rather than causing her family trauma and anxiety.
On 12 February 2021, the Housing Manager emailed the resident to say that they were still working towards completing the repairs to her new property by 18 February 2021 and that, assuming all works are completed by that date, they were still looking for the resident’s new tenancy to commence on 1 March 2021.
The resident was given the keys to the new property on 23 February 2021 and on 24 February 2021, a Void Post-Inspection Survey was carried out which noted that all areas of the property met the lettable standard.
On 25 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the state of repair of the property, including chemicals on the floors, the kitchen cupboards being ‘‘a disgrace’’ and the floor lifting which meant it was a trip hazard. She added that there was no handrail on the stairs and the treads had been boarded, the bathroom was dated and slippery and the grab rails that she had asked to be left had been removed, the shower above the bath was in the wrong location, the oak doors had been replaced with plywood doors, all the plugs had been removed from the garage, the electric heater in the downstairs toilet had not been replaced with a radiator, there was a leak from the downstairs toilet and the landlord had fitted an electric fire but this was not installed correctly.
On 3 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to repeat her concerns about the stair treads being boarded over and that the electrician could not fit her hall light because it had been moved from the hall and put in front of the stairs where people could hit their heads.
The resident’s new tenancy commenced on 8 March 2021.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord issued an Investigation Stage complaint response in which it referred to its previous Investigation Stage response on 4 January 2021. The landlord said that it understood that the resident was happy with that response and that her request for escalation was the result of additional things that had happened after that. The landlord said that as that was the case its response would focus on the issues the resident had reported about her move since 4 January 2021. The landlord said that:
1. It was satisfied with the actions of the lettings and housing managers.
2. It agreed that the standard of its communication with the resident throughout the process had not been good and had added to her uncertainty and pressures of moving home. It noted that its response of 4 January 2021 had concluded that there was the need for improvement and that it was disappointed that the resident had not experienced any improvement, for which it apologised and said that it was committed to working with all its colleagues to improve its communication. For this failure the landlord offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture.
3. In relation to the schedule of works that were to be completed before her move, the landlord confirmed that:
  1. The conifer was still in place, there was a satisfactory boundary and if the resident wished to change this, she would need to do so at her own cost.
  2. The kitchen cupboard fronts had been replaced and a heater fitted in the downstairs toilet.
4. It had noted the resident’s correspondence of 25 February 2021 and 3 March 2021 in which she had outlined her dissatisfaction with the condition of the property. The landlord said that the schedule of works had been shared with the resident on 2 February 2021, they had personally viewed the resident’s property and that they were satisfied that it met the required standards.
5. A surveyor would visit and inspect the flooring (that the resident had described as a potential trip hazard) and the handrail on the stairs and a repair would be arranged for the leak the resident had reported to the downstairs toilet.
6. Whilst the resident was settling into her new home, it had asked a named housing advisor to act as the resident’s single point of contact for six weeks so that no further errors were made due to miscommunication and to avoid any upset or confusion that the resident had previously experienced due to multiple contacts.
7. It offered its sincere apologies and said that it understood that moving to a new house can be a stressful time for anyone, and its failures in communication had added to the upset and confusion that the resident and her sons had experienced.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 March 2021. The resident asked whether it was acceptable for the lettings manager to shout at her in front of her sons or for the housing manager to be rude and sarcastic to her. She advised that she had not said anything about removing the conifers but had only asked if it was securely fenced behind as they had previously been broken into and they had a dog.
On 1 April 2021, the resident’s named housing advisor emailed her to introduce themselves and arrange a suitable time to visit the resident in her new home, advise that a senior surveyor had been asked to arrange a suitable appointment to complete an inspection of the items the resident had raised in her complaint and request that the resident provide further information about what adaptations she might be interested in.
The welcome visit was arranged for 6 April 2021, following which the resident emailed her named housing advisor to express her concerns that the six weeks she had been allocated were nearly up. The resident noted that the stairs needed repair, the kitchen was in poor condition and interiors of the fitted wardrobes had been removed. The resident also said that her son’s bookcase would fit if a fireplace was removed and that she was shocked when it was still there when she was given the keys on 23 February 2021, that no one had visited to remove the gel in all the corners of the property and that her own gas man had repaired the leaking toilet when they fitted her cooker.
The landlord completed a post-void works schedule on 9 April 2021 that included a need to:
1. secure the new feature fire to the surround;
2. prepare and apply white primer to the lounge/hall and kitchen/hall doors;
3. install a new plinth to a kitchen base unit;
4. install correct dado railing at rear of the bathroom door;
5. install a blockboard shelf to a built–in wardrobe and a hanging rail;
6. replace a PVCu profile to the rear door;
7. remove an electric radiator from the downstairs toilet and install a panel radiator;
8. install switch sockets to the garage.

i. It noted that works to the bottom of the stairs, kitchen vinyl tiles, kitchen plinths, rear lobby and rear bedroom doors were needed due to poor workmanship.

On 22 April 2021, landlord issued its Review Stage complaint response following the inspection that led to the 9 April 2021 schedule. The landlord said that:
1. The surveyor had confirmed that the resident’s property met the required standards, including the landlord’s Void standard, but did identify that some of the work undertaken could have been completed to a higher standard.
2. The surveyor had provided a list of works which it would arrange to be carried out and provided the resident with a copy.
3. It would not be looking to complete any further improvement works at that time.
4. The resident had completed its complaints process and it referred her to its response to another complaint in which it said it had explained what the next steps were (this Service has had sight of the response referred to by the landlord which provides the resident with information about contacting the Housing Ombudsman).

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures and agreements.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an absolute and non-excludable obligation upon landlords to carry out basic repairs. It also requires the landlord to put the premises into repair if it was not in good repair at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord operates a choice based letting scheme with applicants allocated to one of three bands within the scheme – bronze, silver and gold. A critical priority is awarded when a tenant of the landlord has a critical and exceptional need to move. It states that in most cases a direct match will be the appropriate housing route but applicants will be placed in Gold Band so that they can also bid using its choice based letting scheme.
Section 1.9 of the landlord’s allocation policy and Section 1.7 of the landlord’s complaints policy acknowledge that the Equality Act 2010 requires the landlord to safeguard those with a protected characteristic from direct and indirect discrimination and make reasonable adjustments to ensure an equality of access to all.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a three–stage complaints process – Investigation, Review and Panel Review. Complaints are supposed to be acknowledged within two working days with Investigation responses completed within 10 working days, Review responses completed within 15 working days and Panel Reviews completed within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet these timescales, it says that it will ensure it agrees when the response will be provided.

Assessment

Housing transfer

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, relevant legislation and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Following the special case approval report on 27 October 2020, the resident was successful in securing another property by 4 January 2021, just over two months later. Whilst it is understandable that the resident would have wanted to move as quickly as possible, given the limited availability of suitable alternative social housing, this was not an unreasonable amount of time for a new property to be sourced and offered.
However, as the landlord acknowledged in its response of 4 January 2021, its poor internal communication and its failure to cross reference the information held on its choice based letting scheme with the resident’s critical rehousing application had resulted in missed opportunities for the resident to secure appropriate alternative accommodation earlier. The landlord also acknowledged that its poor communication had added to the resident’s uncertainty and anxiety.
To redress this, the landlord said that it would appoint a named housing advisor to support the resident through the process, advised that it had discussed the situation with her social prescribing link worker (who was supporting her) and confirmed that it would ensure that it communicated clearly around the process, timings and next steps as the moving date got closer. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take and evidenced that it had considered what additional support, consideration or variation in usual service provision might be appropriate for the resident given her known vulnerability.
Whilst the resident had secured the new property on 4 January 2021, she was not able to view it until 15 January 2021. During this time, the resident raised concerns that the lettings managing was blocking her from viewing the property and that it had failed to accommodate two planned earlier in January 2021. The resident also asked whether someone else could help her, preferably someone with disability awareness training.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for someone to help her was that the lettings manager was responsible for ensuring that viewings were conducted in accordance with its internal policies. It is evident from this response that the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities or to appropriately consider her request for an alternative officer to assist. Further, it failed to provide her with a named housing advisor as its 4 January 2021 response promised and there is no evidence of any further liaison between it and the resident’s social prescribing link worker during January-February 2021. This overall response was unreasonable as the landlord did not offer the additional support to the resident that it had promised. This led to the resident raising concerns during January 2021 that she should re-commence bidding and that her children lost faith that the move would happen which caused inevitable distress.
The landlord again said in its March 2021 complaint response that it would arrange for a named housing advisor to be the resident’s single point of contact. However, there is no evidence that the named housing advisor contacted the resident until 1 April 2021, some three weeks later. This was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait and showed a lack of urgency which was particularly significant given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, the distress she had mentioned her family had already experienced and the upset she reported as a result of her interaction with staff on 15 January 2021.
The landlord did apologise for its communications failings in its complaint responses of January and March 2021. In the latter response, it also awarded compensation of £50 which it said was a gesture of goodwill. However, given the communications failings extended over a period of more than two months, the landlord was aware of the potential impact of poor communication on the resident given her and her family’s vulnerabilities and there were further failings after the March 2021 compensation award, this did not offer sufficient redress.
In summary, the landlord offered the resident a housing transfer within a reasonable timescale after the special case approval report in late October 2020. However, the landlord did not effectively follow up on its promises to arrange a single point of contact and liaise with the resident’s link worker during January-April 2021. Although the landlord apologised and paid the resident £50 compensation, this did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Void repairs

When a property is let, the landlord must ensure it is free from certain risks and that the facilities are of a decent standard. The landlord would be expected to carry out a void inspection to determine whether any works are needed to bring the property up to its lettable standard. The landlord would then be expected to provide the new resident with details of any outstanding works, how and when it proposes to complete them and to carry out any necessary repairs within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord carried out a Void Pre-Inspection on 27 January 2021 and wrote to the resident the same day to provided her with an estimated completion date. Following this, on 2 February 2021, it provided the resident with a summary of the works required, updated her on 12 February 2021 and provided keys to the property on 23 February 2021, prior to the tenancy commencing on 8 March 2021. This demonstrated that the landlord made reasonable attempts to inform the resident what works it intended to complete and when.
The landlord completed a Void Post-Inspection Survey on 24 February 2021 but the resident raised concerns about the quality and extent of works on 25 February 2021 and 3 March 2021. In response, the landlord noted that the schedule of works had been shared with the resident on 2 February 2021, it had personally viewed the resident’s property and it was satisfied that it met the required standards. The landlord also said that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the flooring and the handrail on the stairs and that a repair would be arranged for the leak to the downstairs toilet. This demonstrated that, although the landlord had carried out a post-inspection survey that did not identify any concerns, it remained willing to view the items the resident was concerned about. This was a reasonable approach on the part of the landlord to investigate the resident’s continued property condition concerns.
However, the landlord failed to draw up a new schedule of works until 9 April 2021. This established that additional works were needed and that some of these were minor or cosmetic in nature but others were required due to poor workmanship on the part of the landlord. It was unreasonable that it took more than a month for the landlord to inspect the resident’s concerns, some of which were related to health and safety, and that some of these were found to be due to the landlord’s failure to complete repairs right first time.
In summary, the landlord completed void property repairs within a reasonable timescale and kept the resident updated while it did so. However, it delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s repairs concerns during March-April 2021 and it identified that some of the works it had completed had not been of sufficient quality.

Complaint handling

The landlord issued an initial complaint response to the resident on 4 January 2021, but the resident asked to escalate her concerns on 18 January 2021 and 3 February 2021. The landlord failed to issue a response to this escalation request until 10 March 2021 – this was considerably longer than the 10 working days stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy and therefore inappropriate. The landlord asserts that this delay was the result of the resident raising additional points while investigating, however, given it asked the resident to review the new schedule of works and respond with any additional points, it would have been reasonable for it to manage resident expectations around this foreseeable delay.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint again on 14 March 2021 but the landlord failed to offer a final complaint response until 22 April 2021. This was again in excess of the 15 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and therefore inappropriate.
Further, the escalation request of 18 January 2021 referred to the behaviour of members of the landlord’s staff during a property viewing a few days earlier and the escalation request of 14 March 2021 mentioned that members of staff had shouted at her. Although the landlord acknowledged in its 10 March 2021 response that there was a disagreement during the property viewing (but that it felt its staff were professional), there is no evidence as to how the landlord investigated these concerns and reached its conclusions.
It is noted that the resident had previously raised concerns about both the lettings and housing manager that the landlord addressed in its Investigation response. However, in response to further allegations, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to take some steps to investigate those allegations, address them and explain what action it had taken in its complaint response. In this case, there is no evidence of the landlord investigating the allegations nor is there any mention of them in its final response.
In summary, the landlord delayed in answering the resident’s complaint at both its investigation and review stages and failed to demonstrate that it had investigated the resident’s staff behaviour allegations.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s housing transfer.
2. void repairs it carried out to the resident’s property.
3. the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed between January-April 2021 in following through on its offer to provide the resident with a named housing advisor and failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about liaison with her link worker. This led to the resident questioning whether she was going to be able to secure a move and the landlord failed to offer sufficient redress for its failings.
The landlord did not complete some void works to a sufficient quality and delayed in assessing the resident’s property condition concerns during March-April 2021.
There were delays in the landlord issuing complaint responses to the resident during January-April 2021 and there is no evidence of it investigating the allegations made against its lettings and housing manager nor any mention of this in the landlord’s final response.
Throughout this case, it has become apparent that the landlord failed to manage the additional support offered to the resident effectively or efficiently, which unfortunately undermined reasonable attempts to support the resident and her family.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £350, made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of her housing transfer;
2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failure in its handling of void repairs it carried out to her property;
3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the service failure in its handling of the related complaint.

The landlord to arrange to meet with the resident to identify the outstanding repairs and to differentiate issues of disrepair from cyclical works and maintenance.
The landlord to set out precisely what cyclical works are due and when and advise the resident when she should expect works to be carried out.
The landlord should write to the resident to set out all repairs that have been completed to date at the property and clearly differentiate between standard and non-standard repairs.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It if has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 that it offered in its March 2021 complaint response.

The landlord should reply to this Service, confirming its intentions in regard to this recommendation, within four weeks of the date of this report.