Ipswich Borough Council (202118420)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118420

Ipswich Borough Council

22 November 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 resident complains about the condition of the property upon assignment by mutual exchange.
  2. This resident has also complaint about the landlord’s subsequent handling of repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is owned by the landlord, a local authority.
  2. Covid arrangements meant that the assignment to him by mutual exchange took place at the property, rather than in an office. On the day of the exchange the resident attended the property as did the Housing Officer. In making his complaint about the condition of the property, the resident has stated that he felt pressured to complete the exchange. He asserts that the housing officer did not enter the property until asked to view the condition of the bathroom.
  3. The resident’s husband suffers from a severe skin condition and was unable to stay at the property due to fears for his health, given the ongoing building works and use of cleaning products. There were also concerns about the security of the property, and the outgoing tenant. He further stated that it was not possible to see the true condition of the property at the time of the viewing as the house was extremely cluttered and untidy.
  4. The landlord stated in its complaints decision that it was unable to identify all issues with the property during the viewing due to the previous tenant being in residence, but it carried out an inspection as soon as the resident raised issues when he moved in. It undertook to complete essential repairs, but had to prioritise due to high demands by its residents. It provided dates for works and the kitchen renewal was to be undertaken in the following year. In addition to the decorations voucher of £150 earlier offered to the resident, it offered him £200 in compensation for the inconvenience and distress.
  5. The resident is seeking financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the issues have had on his health.  However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of her complaint.
  2. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme which provides 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”. Any mention of the health issues raised by the resident in the paragraphs below is for contextual purposes only but it will not form part of our assessment of this case.

Condition of property

  1. Prior to the exchange the landlord had inspected the property on 27 March 2021. The report of the inspection confirmed that the property was in good condition, although it did note that internal doors were missing and a socket in the hallway needed to be replaced.  An electrical check was also undertaken in April 2021 which confirmed the condition was satisfactory. When the resident completed an online form requesting the mutual exchange, on 31 May 2021, consent was given for the exchange on condition that some works were undertaken by the resident, including replacing internal doors.
  2. The assignment took place, and the resident became the tenant of the property on 19 July 2021. The deed of assignment lists several items that were left at the property that the resident took responsibility for. This included the laminate flooring, the carpets, the cooker, and fridge.
  3. As the resident began to clear the property the full extent of the condition of the property became clear. The resident reported that the house was not fit for human habitation and required complete refurbishment.
  4. The resident’s husband suffers from a severe skin condition and was unable to stay at the property due to fears for his health, given the ongoing building works and use of cleaning products. There were also concerns about the security of the property, and the outgoing tenant. The resident has also explained that the stress of dealing with the situation caused him chest problems. The resident has confirmed that it was not possible to see the true condition of the property at the time of the viewing as the house was extremely cluttered and untidy.
  5. Mutual exchange is a right available to most secure and assured tenants. It allows a tenant to swap their home with that of another tenant. All tenancy rights and responsibilities pass from the original tenant to the new tenant. The incoming resident effectively steps into the shoes of the outgoing tenant.
  6. It is generally expected that each resident will view the home that they are interested in and will decide as to whether they wish to proceed. Consent must then be sought from the respective landlords and can only be withheld on the grounds set out in law (Schedule 3 Housing Act 1985).  The landlord confirmed that there were no ongoing proceedings regarding anti-social behaviour and no open cases relating to the previous tenant.  There is no evidence that the landlord would have had grounds to withhold its consent.
  7. As stated on the landlord’s website: “Mutual exchanges are a voluntary arrangement between tenants, each accepting the property that they are moving into in the condition that it is left by the outgoing tenants. This includes accepting responsibility for tenant improvements, alterations and any damage or rubbish left behind.’  
  8. Similar information was provided by the resident’s previous landlord, as follows:
    1. ‘Please note — You will be accepting the property you are moving into in its current condition.
    2. For example, we will not accept responsibility for any damage caused in the process of moving, or for removing any rubbish left by the outgoing tenant. You should also be careful to note any poor DIY work. It will be your responsibility to correct this work, not [the landlords]. We will treat all DIY work as though you have done it yourself.’
    3. We will of course carry out any essential repairs to your new home. But we will not carry out non-essential repairs needed because of damage by previous tenants or you, such as broken kitchen cupboard doors at the time of inspection.”
  9. It was therefore a matter for the resident to satisfy himself that the property he sought to exchange to, was in a condition that was acceptable to him and his family.
  10. The Ombudsman notes that the mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate the voids inspection which is used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to relet following the end of a tenancy by notice rather than exchange. The landlord’s void standard is not therefore applicable to this complaint.
  11. However, the purpose of its pre mutual exchange inspections was to identify any outstanding issues and any works that the outgoing tenant should put right before they assign. The living conditions of the previous resident meant that many of the repairs needed were not identified until after the exchange had taken place, albeit that some works were undertaken following the electrical inspection and the resident was asked to replace missing doors. It is not known whether the items of repair existed at the time of the inspection or whether these were caused by the outgoing tenant after the inspection took place (a period of approximately 7 weeks).Given that both the kitchen and bathroom were in need of replacement it would seem likely that there were some failings in the scope of the initial inspection. 
  12. The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation and free from serious and immediate risks to health and safety, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions. To meet its responsibilities, the landlord operates a reactive repairs service for day-to-day repairs and carries out major works under improvement and cyclical works programmes.
  13. A landlord does not, however, become liable for a repair until it is aware of it, usually by a resident reporting a repair is needed.  Notice was given by the resident as he became aware of the issues. Once notice is given the legislation allows a reasonable period for a landlord to rectify the repair or any unfitness. It is also noted that the landlord may not be liable if any unfitness was caused by the failure of the tenant to use the premises in a tenant-like manner.
  14. The resident confirmed that emergency repairs had been undertaken by 21 July 2021 to repair a smoke alarm and secure the back door. The resident, his councillor and the housing officer all raised concerns regarding the condition of the property and an inspection was arranged on 2 August 2021. This identified several issues which were categorized by the landlord as both repairs and improvements. The landlord’s website states that it aims to complete most repairs within 4 weeks. Improvements will take longer and often involve preplanning in cyclical works.   The repairs to be undertaken were:
    1. Bathroom: upgrade requested
      1. Hole in bottom of bath (repair or replace)
      2. Pan cracked around fixing points so unstable
      3. Basin cracked on underside of neck
    2. Kitchen: upgrade requested
      1. Sink base needs replacing
      2. Plinths missing for base unit
      3. Plaster work repairs to ceiling and cupboard
      4. Cupboard handle broken
      5. Cable conduit needs extending
    3. Living room
      1. Ease door as not closing
      2. Renew/repair 2 double sockets
    4. Hall/stairs/landing
      1. Light bayonet fitting cracked
      2. Light switch face plate loose
      3. Removal of polystyrene tiles
      4. Renew smoke alarm
    5. Bed 1 – renew/repair door handle
    6. Bed 3- renew double socket and conduit
  15. The landlord confirmed that it would replace the kitchen and bathroom but that this would not happen until the following financial year.  It undertook to complete a schedule of repairs following inspection and remained in contact with the resident and his councillor as works were completed and new items raised. 
  16. During the course of the complaint the landlord has taken the following action:
    1. Arranged for the carpets to be professional cleaned
    2. Fitted new locks to front and back doors
    3. Replaced door handles
    4. Removed polystyrene ceiling tiles and made good plasterwork
    5. Inspected and assessed the condition of electrics at property
    6. Bathroom – repaired leak and renewed bath panel, fixed toilet plinth to floor, replaced radiator
    7. Back door – temporary repair to secure, followed by new cassette, and full replacement
    8. Replaced/repaired smoke alarm in hallway
    9. Replaced electrical sockets
    10. Tightened window handles
    11. Renewed missing trim over front door
    12. Plaster work to hallway and kitchen
    13. Added the kitchen and bathroom to its planned maintenance programme for replacement in next financial year ahead of schedule (kitchen was due replacement in 2033 and bathroom in 2043).
  17. It is noted that the first three items on this list would usually be the responsibility of the resident, along with internal decorations. This is set out at 4.7 of the tenant handbook.  Given the position the resident was in, and the health concerns of his husband, it was appropriate that the landlord took this action to help resolve the situation. It also took steps to check the safety of the property, arranging for the electrics to be checked on 22 July 2021, 3 days after the assignment took place. This found the electrics to be in a satisfactory condition. This was appropriate action by the landlord to ensure that the property was safe for the resident and his family.
  18. It is difficult to ascertain precisely when each item of repair was complete. The repair log notes completion dates throughout July, August, September, November, and December; however, some jobs are listed more than once, raising questions about the accuracy of the completion dates recorded. The backdoor was eventually replaced in January 2022, approximately 5 months after the repair was reported. This was a lengthy period and would have caused some anxiety for the resident. It is however noted that all works, except for the kitchen/bathroom replacement, had been completed by 26 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged that there had been some failings in its handling of the repairs.
  19. There is no doubt that the resident found himself in a difficult situation with the previous resident leaving the property in such poor condition, and this was disguised by the scale of the mess left at the home. However, it was a matter for the resident to decide on, as to whether to exchange his tenancy. He decided to proceed following two viewings, and there is no evidence to support the claim of any pressure from the landlord. Covid arrangements meant that the assignment occurred at the property, and the housing officer remained outside as part of the landlord’s Covid safety measures. As set out above, the landlord could only have prevented the mutual exchange if it was able to refuse consent on one of the grounds set out in the legislation.  It was not therefore possible for the landlord to withhold its consent.
  20. The landlord has acknowledged the situation and taken appropriate steps to put things right.  It has acknowledged that some repairs took longer than expected, apologized, and offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £200. In addition, it offered £150 decoration voucher, and undertook some works outside of its usual repairing obligations (professional clean, key and door handle replacement) and outside of its usual process timeline (removal of ceiling tiles).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. That within the next 4 weeks the landlord pay compensation of £200 previously offered to the resident (unless already paid) and reoffer the £150 decoration vouchers as this recognised the impact of the situation on the resident.