Clarion Housing Association Limited (202004140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004140

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 July 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 resident complained about the landlord’s handling of :

a. her reports of rats at the property.

b. her request for repairs to her property’s fencing.

c. her request for repairs to her kitchen and windows.

d. planned works to her driveway.

e. her Subject Access Request (SAR).

f. her enquiries about a rent-free period.

g. her associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Complaint 1(e): SAR: One aspect of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman concerned the landlord’s response to her SAR for a copy of her personal data. She is unhappy with the time it took to respond to her request and is unhappy with the nature of some of the landlord’s communication in relation to her case which it disclosed in response to her SAR.
However, complaints about a landlord’s response to a SAR do not come within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. It is the Information Commissioner’s Office that has responsibility for investigating complaints concerning a landlord’s response to a SAR, not this Service, the Ombudsman has not investigated this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Time limitations: Although in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said that her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to some of the repair issues she raised dated back a number of years, there are limits to how far back an Ombudsman investigation can appropriately go. This is because in order to reach a definitive determination on an issue the Ombudsman must necessarily rely on supporting documentary evidence and a clear record/account of events. As substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address the issues. Accordingly, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has therefore necessarily limited itself to consideration of events six months prior to the resident raising her complaint in June 2020.
Similarly, while there is some indication that in 2018 the resident raised with the landlord a complaint about kitchen repairs, the garden fencing and repairs to the driveway, the evidence indicates the landlord responded in May 2018 and closed the complaint. The resident did not refer her complaint to the Ombudsman at that time and, for the same reasons regarding the difficulty of investigating historic complaints, paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Complaint 1(f): Rent-free period – The Ombudsman has very little information with regard to this aspect of the resident’s complaint other than it appears to relate to a previous annual two week rent free period that was operated by the landlord but which it ceased to offer from 2015. The resident considers this was done without notification and that she accrued arrears as a result which have impacted her rent account to date.
The evidence the Ombudsman has seen indicates the resident raised this issue with the landlord as a complaint in 2018 and has raised it again now. In addressing it now, the landlord has identified a failure to explain its position clearly both in relation to her earlier complaint and in the course of this current complaint, for which it offered her £100 compensation. However, as the resident did not refer this aspect of her complaint to the Ombudsman at that time (in 2018), as with the complaints detailed above, it falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman’s investigation has not therefore addressed this aspect of her complaint.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on the events which arose after the resident’s previous complaints and which gave rise to the resident’s complaint to the landlord in June 2020, about which she then complained to the Ombudsman. Where reference is made in this report to the above matters it is simply to explain the chronology of events and so place in context the landlord’s response.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has lived at the property – a three bedroom house – with her family since 2008. In 2018 the resident complained to the landlord that her garden fence was being damaged as a result of her neighbour’s overgrown ivy (the issue appears to have dated back to 2016); that some repairs to her kitchen remained outstanding; and a planned driveway refurbishment had not materialised. The evidence indicates the landlord removed the ivy, repaired the fence and completed some repairs in the kitchen. In 2018 the landlord inspected the driveway to determine if it needed repair, and found it did not but records confirm the property remained on the landlord’s list for a planned driveway refurbishment.
Stage 1 complaint: Between 4 – 16 June 2020 the resident formally complained to the landlord about a number of issues which can be summarised as follows:
1. Driveway repair – she had reported cracking of the paving and it being too narrow to park on when she had moved in; she was told by the landlord a new driveway would be provided by 2009; then told it would be completed in 2015; and had now been told it was not for the landlord to repair.
2. Garden fencing – she had paid to repair the fence in 2012 but since then neighbouring tenants had allowed ivy and brambles to overgrow and damage it. The landlord had carried out a temporary repair in 2019 and despite saying it would return when contractors were available it had not done so.
3. Rat infestation – she had reported a rat problem three years ago, at that time the landlord had arranged for a pest control inspection, which identified rats were coming from the drains, undertook some temporary blocking work but told her they would report back to the landlord to address it further. She said the problem was now getting worse but the landlord had directed her to the council which had directed her back to the landlord to deal. She said the rat infestation was posing a health risk to her children and damaging her property.
4. Repairs – she was unhappy with the telephone response from the landlord’s staff to her repair requests the past year, and being repeatedly asked whether anyone in the household had Covid symptoms. [It appears this was responded to by the landlord under a separate complaint.]
5. Kitchen damp/mould – there was permanent damp which had taken the landlord six months to repair but had not prevented the return of mould on the kitchen wall.
6. Windows/back door – the seals had gone causing a rise in her heating costs.
7. Rent-free period – she said she had not been asked to sign a new contract excluding a rent free period and so considered she was owed the money.
8. Rent arrears – she complained of being threatened with possession when she was not in arrears but that her rent payments kept getting refused because her debit card was in her other name (which she had changed by deed poll and notified the landlord).
9. SAR request – she complained of delay and was still awaiting the landlord’s response.
The landlord replied on 19 June 2020 to say it had referred her repairs issues to its repairs team who would contact her directly, and that it had started a tenancy breach process against her neighbours. [This was with respect to the garden fence but the landlord has confirmed that no tenancy action was ultimately taken.] On 30 June 2020 the repairs team checked with the resident which repairs remained outstanding to which she replied that they all did. The landlord’s records indicate it then ascertained that the driveway had been due to be addressed in previous planned driveway replacement programmes and that although it had exhausted its budget for 2020 it would look to try and now accommodate the refurbishment.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her property was to be included in its 2020/21 planned driveway refurbishment works and contractors would be in touch to arrange a date.
On 16 July 2020 the repairs team reiterated this and also said that it had raised a repair request for the mould; for the window/door seals to be fixed or replaced (and also a leaking tap the resident had mentioned). With regard to the fence repair it asked her to confirm which fence required fixing. And with respect to the rat infestation it advised her to speak to the council’s pest control team and that once they had responded and eliminated any rats from inside the property it would seal up any access holes.
In August 2020 the landlord continued to seek clarification from the resident as to which fence she required repairing. The resident contacted the Ombudsman for help and the Ombudsman undertook in September 2020 to ask the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint [although the Ombudsman did not do so until 18 November 2020]. Meanwhile, the landlord’s repair records indicate appointments were made in September, October and December 2020 with respect to the damaged fencing. It appears an assessment was made of the damage to the fencing at the front, back and side of the house and the landlord has said it also asked the resident for photos of the damage.
With respect to the driveway, on 24 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to say works would start on 1 December 2020 but on 26 November 2020 the resident explained she had Christmas decorations in the garden and was reluctant to remove them to enable the works and so chose to delay the works until after Christmas 2020.
Stage 1 response: On 11 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint which it said it received on 20 November 2020 and apologised for the delay (this would appear to relate to the approach from the Ombudsman). [The landlord operates a two stage complaints process through which it aims to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and a Stage 2 review within 20 working days should the resident remain dissatisfied.] In summary it found:
1. Planned repair works to driveway – It acknowledged the works remained outstanding but would now be addressed. It noted the resident had asked for this to be delayed until early January 2020 and would keep her updated.
2. Rats – It said residents had responsibility for managing pest control within the home.
3. Repairs – It had inspected the property on 23 – 27 November 2020 and made appointments to address the mould in the kitchen, the fencing works, and the glazing and seals issues for windows/door. [Repair records indicate works to windows were completed on 14 December 2020 and in the same month mould wash was applied to the kitchen wall.]
4. It could identify no service failure with respect to the other repair issues.
5. Fencing – It acknowledged a three month delay in addressing the fence repair (between December 2019 – February 2020) for which it would pay £50 compensation.
6. SAR – It had no record of a request and asked for details.
7. Rent-free period – Its scheme allowing one week rent free was stopped two years previously and all residents had been notified. It apologised if she had not received notification.
8. It asked that she let it know if she wished to escalate her complaint to the next stage.
On 11 January 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman about her complaint. She complained of delay by the landlord in addressing the rat problem; the fence repair; the driveway repair – which had stopped on 4 January 2021 due to bad weather; the damp issue; and her SAR. She said the landlord had changed her tenancy agreement regarding the rent free period without consulting her and as a result she should not be in arrears. By way of outcome she sought eradication of rats in her attic and living room; completion of the fence repair; completion of the driveway repair; the landlord to arrange a damp inspection; to provide evidence of her having agreed to the new terms of tenancy and rent; explain the SAR delay; and to review the compensation. On 15 January 2021 the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint details to the landlord to address directly with the resident. [The Ombudsman notes the driveway refurbishment was completed later that month.]
Stage 2 review response: On 26 February 2021 the landlord reported the outcome of its review of her complaint, and in summary found as follows:
1. Planned driveway repairs – The landlord confirmed the driveway repairs were completed in late January 2021 following initial delays as a result of Covid and the weather. Its contractors attended as soon as their availability and the weather permitted. It said the only remaining work was to reseed grass but needed to wait for the weather to improve before doing so.
2. Pest control – The resident had complained that this was a historic issue, that the pest control company previously sent by the landlord had failed to resolve the issue and was unhappy she had since been told it was her responsibility. The landlord said it was normally the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement, but it would ask its pest control contractors to attend and make the property as pest proof as possible. [It has told the Ombudsman that it has no record of it previously instructing pest control and the name of the company given by the resident is not one of its approved contractors.]
3. Fence repair – The resident had explained that despite repairs to two fence panels the landlord’s surveyor had agreed to works to address bowing to the fence as a result of the overgrown ivy but that this had yet to be done. The landlord said its contractors had been unable to complete the work because of the ivy but that they would visit again, establish if it had been cleared and repair the fence. If the ivy had not been cleared it would work with her and her neighbour to ensure it was cleared so the fencing could be repaired.
4. Repairs to kitchen and windows –The landlord confirmed it had arranged for a damp survey and would address any recommendations. With regard to a failure of the draught seal applied to her back door it would ask its contractors to review if further action could be taken. If not, it would request a door replacement.
5. Rent free period –The landlord said rent free weeks were no longer used, having been changed in December 2015 following consultation with residents. It apologised for a lack of clarity in its response to this aspect of her complaint and in response to her previous complaint about it in 2018 for which it offered her £100 compensation for any resulting distress.
6. SAR –The landlord said it had not previously received a request but would now action it.
7. Compensation – The resident had considered its offer of £50 insufficient for the delayed repair works. The landlord considered its previous offer plus the above £100 for miscommunication around the rent free weeks was appropriate recognition of the issues and services failures it had identified.
In April 2021 the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and said the issues remained unresolved.
Post complaint action: On 20 April 2021 the pest control company reported a severe rat infestation, and that it had carried out some temporary proofing but work was required to the drains and to proof the kitchen and ground floors of the property. It noted the resident’s distress at the situation during its visit.
The landlord’s officer then visited the property on 23 April 2021 and noted “evidence of rats being present most notably in the kitchen area as this room had an overpowering smell of possible rats urine – you cannot stand in the kitchen for more than a minute due to this and the property cannot be lived in until a thorough investigation throughout the entire property including the loft area is carried out”. He noted “the resident was very distressed with the situation.”
On 30 April 2021 the landlord decanted the resident and her family to temporary accommodation – two apartments in the same building – to enable work to eradicate the rat problem and rat-proof the property. The landlord’s records indicate its head of operations wanted to ensure the decant was long enough “to make sure all the repairs and treatments are completed and effective”. On 3 May 2021 the landlord’s officer checked in with the resident and she confirmed the apartment was suitable for her family’s needs but did not take pets and she was worried how long a friend could look after their dog. The landlord advised an option would be to decant to a local hotel where pets were allowed, and the resident agreed to this as a back up if needed. The officer offered to be the resident’s direct contact moving forward and agreed to contact the family once a week during the decant. On 7 May 2021 the officer updated the resident to say the decant would be extended by a further four weeks (making six in total).
On 11 May 2021 the officer attended the property with the landlord’s surveyor and pest control and agreed the following action, updating the resident the same day as follows:
1. To review the results of the drain survey to establish if a permanent blocker had previously been installed to stop the rats accessing the property. If so, works to make good and permanently proof the property could be undertaken.
2. Kitchen units would need to be removed, proofed and the kitchen deep cleaned prior to fitting with new units.
3. To re-lay poison in kitchen and revisit to check position.
The resident and her family moved back into the property on 18 June 2021. By this time it appears repairs had been completed to make good the property and the property cleaned by pest control (other than in the attic owing to the resident’s belongings, although they confirmed no presence of rats there).
The resident told the Ombudsman that she incurred additional expenses while decanted as she had to buy duplicate items for the two apartments; pay for parking costs; and incurred additional petrol costs for a school run. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it has paid the resident certain costs associated with her decant and is reviewing other costs submitted. It has explained that as the decant was to an apartment it considered costs to be minimal as the resident would have been able to cook and clean as if the family were in their own home. It has confirmed that with respect to school run costs it would pay only the difference between the previous cost involved and the cost while decanted.
With respect to the fence repair the landlord has told the Ombudsman that there is still some ivy to be removed by the neighbour round the front gate and that once done it will be able to inspect to see if further works are required.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman understands and acknowledges that the resident is unhappy with the service she says she has experienced over many years from the landlord and its predecessor. [The landlord is an organisation which resulted from the merger in 2016 of two existing landlord organisations.]
However, for the reasons explained at the outset of this report, the Ombudsman’s investigation and determination has focused on the issues that were brought to the landlord’s attention and then pursued as a formal complaint by the resident from June 2020. The Ombudsman will therefore address in turn each of the issues raised by the resident in her complaint:
Reports of rats at the property –The resident explained in her complaint how the rat problem first occurred three years previously on which occasion the landlord arranged for pest control works. For the reasons previously outlined, the Ombudsman is not considering the earlier rat problem or what may or may not have been done by the landlord on that occasion. Nor has the Ombudsman been provided with evidence from either party of any contact on the issue in the interim before the resident raised it in her June 2020 complaint. The Ombudsman notes the resident did not mention it during that intervening period when she was raising other concerns with the landlord, and so if the problem had persisted during that time, the extent or nature of it and whether the landlord had any resulting obligation cannot be evidenced from the available information.
The Ombudsman has necessarily therefore considered the landlord’s response from when the resident raised it in the course of her June 2020 complaint, and it is from that point on that the parties have provided evidence. In her complaint the resident reported the severity and impact of the rat infestation, referenced the earlier action taken by the landlord and the fact that the local authority had referred her back to the landlord about it.
The Ombudsman notes that in cases involving vermin such as rats the landlord, resident and local authority have shared responsibility for addressing the issue, depending on why and how rats are accessing the property and the impact of the problem. A local authority can advise on infestation prevention and can also ensure action is taken if the infestation is causing a risk to health and safety sufficient to constitute a statutory nuisance.
As for the resident’s responsibilities, the landlord’s conditions of tenancy, its ‘pest control and wildlife procedure’ and tenancy management policy together explain a resident’s responsibility to keep their home, garden and communal area clean and tidy and that the resident has the initial responsibility to report a problem and instruct their own pest controller. Under the terms of the tenancy, where action or inaction of the resident has caused the infestation they will be responsible for arranging and paying for its eradication.
For its part, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the drains, and – provided the resident has complied with its tenancy obligations to look after the property – it would also be responsible for ensuring the property was safe and fit for human habitation. Specifically, under its tenancy management policy (section 5.2.4) the landlord is responsible for identifying and blocking potential access points; repair any damage to the structure including pipe work; eradication of pests traced to infestation of a communal area; or eradication of infestation caused by its own actions or lack of action.
In light of those responsibilities the Ombudsman considers that if it had been the first time the resident had reported the issue (and she was explaining in her complaint that it was not) or that the resident’s actions/inactions had caused or contributed to the problem (for which there is no suggestion it had), it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell her it was her responsibility to address the infestation and suggest she contact the council for help in doing so.
But in view of the fact that the resident had explained in her complaint the background to her report – namely the landlord’s previous involvement, the identification of a possible drain issue, the extent and impact of the infestation, and the fact that the council had already directed her back to the landlord – this ought to have alerted the landlord to the need to investigate further and at least provide a more considered response to the issue.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman it has no record of previously having instructed pest control nor does it recognise the company used on the earlier occasion. It is unclear whether this is down to a record-keeping failure (noting the 2016 merger of landlords) but in light of the detailed account from the resident, and the fact that a lack of a record is not necessarily in itself evidence of something not having happened, the Ombudsman considers it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated further, both in terms of visiting the property and maybe even making enquiries of the local authority as to the nature of its involvement and contact with the resident.
The failure by the landlord to engage in June 2020 with the substance of this aspect of the resident’s complaint meant it was not until it reviewed her complaint in late February 2021, following the resident’s escalation to the Ombudsman and by which time the problem had clearly become an even more pressing one that the landlord agreed to arrange a pest control inspection. As the Ombudsman sees it, that delay was a serious service failure by the landlord which contributed considerably to the resident’s distress and inconvenience; an impact for which the landlord has yet to provide the resident with tangible recognition.
From that point on, however, the Ombudsman notes matters appeared to progress relatively quickly with inspections of the property, preliminary pest control measures and arrangements made by the end of April 2021 to decant the resident and her family to enable eradication work to be undertaken, to rat proof the property and make good the damage done. Although the resident was clearly frustrated at the time being taken at that stage the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of undue delay on the part of the landlord from that point on.
As the Ombudsman sees it, while the landlord had a responsibility to act on the resident’s report in June 2020 and had it acted sooner the resident and her family would have likely been spared the distress of living with the problem for a considerable time, there is no evidence the landlord was responsible for the fact of the infestation itself or that had it acted sooner the severity of the problem or the action necessary to address it would have been minimised. Consequently, the Ombudsman can only reasonably conclude from the available evidence that regardless of the landlord’s delay in responding to her reports, a decant was always going to be necessary in order to effectively address the problem and so the fact of the inconvenience of the decant itself is not something for which the landlord can reasonably be asked to compensate.
In addition, the Ombudsman considers the neighbourhood response officer’s offer to step in as the single point of contact for the resident – even while the case was being managed by a separate team – and his provision of regular updates from thereon was an appropriately customer focused approach that was duly sensitive to the distressing situation in which the resident and her family found themselves. The Ombudsman notes in particular his offer to decant the family to a local hotel that permitted pets, if they were unable to source longer term care for their dog, indicates the landlord was at that point seeking to do what it reasonably could to minimise the disruption and distress for the family.
In coming to the Ombudsman the resident has raised the issue of expenses she says she has additionally incurred while being decanted, including car parking and fuel costs for a school run. In needing to be decanted through no fault on her part, the Ombudsman considers the resident ought not to be out of pocket for having to live somewhere other than her home. It was therefore reasonable and appropriate that the landlord reimburse her any costs it considered were reasonably incurred for the duration of the decant. The Ombudsman takes the landlord’s point that costs associated with a decant to an apartment are generally less than might be expected had the family been decanted to a hotel. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to reasonably consider any additional costs associated with the fact that the family were decanted to two, rather than one, apartments.
Repairs: fencing – Evidently the resident has had problems with her neighbour’s overgrown ivy and brambles going back many years and the landlord has, in the past, taken action to remove the overgrowth and repair the damage to her fence. [The Ombudsman notes the landlord does not dispute its obligation to repair the fence.] While it appears the extent of the landlord’s response has not always been to the resident’s satisfaction, those past events are not the subject of this investigation. For the reasons already explained, the Ombudsman must necessarily focus on the more recent events and has taken a view based on the evidence that has been provided.
The evidence indicates that by the time of her complaint in June 2020, the resident was reporting the ivy had become a problem once again. In reviewing its response, the landlord offered compensation for a three month delay up to February 2020, which was in accordance with its compensation policy to offer up to £50 for a delayed repair. The landlord’s attempts to resolve the fence repair appears to have then become further delayed as it attempted to clarify with the resident which aspect of the fence required fixing and then in engaging with the neighbour concerned to get the ivy removed to enable it to carry out the repair.
It was appropriate that it do so as it appears the neighbours were also tenants of the landlord and as such had a tenant obligation to maintain their garden so as not to cause problems for other tenants. Correspondingly, under its tenancy management policy (Section 5.1 ‘Untidy Gardens’) the landlord undertakes on receipt of a complaint of an overgrown or untidy garden to encourage residents to try and resolve the problem themselves first but says it will take action to make sure the garden is improved. This action refers to various enforcement measures open to the landlord under its tenancy management policy (Section 4) ranging from offering support, issuing warnings and ultimately to legal action.
Having engaged with both the resident and the neighbour, however, by the time of its Stage 2 review response the repair was still not resolved. The Ombudsman notes the landlord had not been inactive on the issue, as it had conducted a number of visits to assess the damage, carried out some repairs (between September and December 2020), and engaged with the neighbour concerned. But a year on from first taking action (in February 2020) to resolve the outstanding 2019 fence issue the repair remain unresolved. Under its repairs policy the landlord undertakes to respond to a (non-emergency) repair within 28 calendar days and, if this was not possible because of the neighbour’s overgrown ivy, under its tenancy management policy the landlord undertakes to take action necessary to ensure this was improved. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s delay in resolving the fencing repairs constituted a service failure.
Although the landlord’s Stage 2 response compensated for its earlier period of delay (December 2019 – February 2020) it provided no further tangible recognition of the inconvenience and upset the ongoing delay was having on the resident.
Repairs: kitchen and windows – Aside from the fencing issues and driveway replacement (see below), the resident’s complaint included her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her repair requests, and in particular her request that mould in her kitchen and ineffective seals on windows and her back door be addressed.
The Ombudsman’s assessment of this aspect of the resident’s complaint has necessarily focused on the action taken by the landlord once the resident raised a number of repair requests in her complaint. This is because prior to this the Ombudsman has seen no evidence from the landlord’s repair records of any outstanding repairs it had failed to address.
Following the resident’s complaint, however, it is unclear why it then took nearly six months (December 2020) for the landlord to address the repairs she had raised about the mould, door seal and windows which, again was some way outside its 28 calendar day service standard. That delay was inevitably disappointing and inconvenient for the resident. This was a service failure that was not explained by the landlord in its review of the complaint or for which it offered the resident tangible recognition by way of compensation as it had for the fencing repair.
Having taken action, however, by the time of the landlord’s review in February 2021, the resident had reported the return of the mould and that the problem of the backdoor seal had yet to be resolved. With respect to the mould, the landlord then undertook to carry out a damp inspection of the property which was an appropriate response knowing then that its attempts to treat the mould had not resolved the problem. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence on the basis of the information it has seen that the landlord ought to have arranged for the inspection to be carried out at an earlier stage, nor that the landlord’s initial attempt to treat it was not a reasonable and proportionate one.
With respect to the backdoor seal, the Ombudsman notes that work undertaken by the landlord to provide an additional seal to the backdoor had not resolved for the resident the draught issue. The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to attempt to address the problem initially in the way that it did, but then equally reasonable for it to undertake a further inspection and to replace the door if necessary once it was told its initial measure had not worked. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds an initial delay in responding to the repair requests, but thereafter no evidence of service failure in the initial measures taken by the landlord in response to the mould and back door repair.
Planned works: driveway – It is clear that the resident, having been aware for some years that her property was on a waiting list for a programme of driveway refurbishment, was understandably disappointed when the years passed and her driveway had still not been replaced. The landlord has explained this was because the year-on-year demand for properties awaiting driveway refurbishment outstripped available resources. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord was not obliged to undertake the refurbishment within a specified period of time and so its delay in undertaking the refurbishment was not a service failure but an unfortunate fact for the resident that the landlord’s funds for the refurbishments had repeatedly been exhausted before her property was reached.
Nevertheless, the resident’s complaint (and its reference to a previous driveway repair request (not the subject of this investigation)) made clear she had an expectation of a refurbishment that when it failed to materialise year-on-year had left her frustrated and disappointed, not to mention confused as to the distinction between a refurbishment and repair.
As the Ombudsman sees it, the resident’s complaint quite reasonably prompted the landlord to review the position regarding the refurbishment to ascertain if it could be brought forward; which it ultimately was. That was an appropriately customer focused response from the landlord in recognition of the resident’s increasing frustration with the situation and the extent of the delay. Although it was still then over five months before arrangements were made in December 2020 to fix a start date for the works, noting a further month (December) was at the resident’s request, as this was a refurbishment and not a repair, the landlord was not obliged to start the work within a specific time frame.
The Ombudsman notes that once commenced the resident was unhappy with the time being taken to complete the works. From a review of the available evidence the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of undue delay by the landlord in completing the works. Having commenced them in January 2021 they were completed by the end of that month, and this was despite problems of contractor availability (due to Covid) and the weather, both matters outside the landlord’s control.
Complaint handling: The Ombudsman has commented in this report on various aspects of the landlord’s complaint responses but for completeness it has reviewed more generally the landlord’s complaint handling. In doing so it has found the landlord’s Stage 1 response was provided significantly outside its 10 working day service standard, taking approximately six months, and this was despite prompting by the Ombudsman which ought to have been unnecessary. That was a service failure which caused the resident obvious inconvenience which was not recognised by the landlord in its response.
There was no undue delay by the landlord in providing its Stage 2 response, responding just over a month after having received the resident’s escalation request on 15 January 2021. The Ombudsman considers that any delay for the resident was the result of her having escalated her complaint directly to the Ombudsman, rather than with the landlord as it had asked at the end of its Stage 1 response. The Ombudsman also recognises that during this time the landlord was considering a further complaint from the resident (not the subject of this investigation) to which it had responded in the interim.
Finally, on the issue of complaint handling, the Ombudsman notes the resident raised in her complaint, ostensibly for the first time with the landlord, her concern that arrears had intermittently arisen on her account, albeit short term, as a result of her debit card being refused. She was concerned this was as a result of having changed her name and the landlord not updating its records. The Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence of this from either party but the landlord has since told the Ombudsman that it is its practice to refuse a payment from a bank card in a different name to that held on its system but that this would not have resulted in arrears as the resident would been able to make payment by alternative methods. It has further confirmed that it has no inactive card payments or notes on its system to suggest payment was refused due to the resident’s name, that the resident pays by standing order and that her account is in credit.
On this point the landlord has explained the resident could change the payment name on account on proof from her of the name change and that payment could then be made over the phone. The Ombudsman notes the resident applied in 2013 to change her name on her tenancy agreement, but in light of the landlord’s response above it is not clear whether sufficient proof of name change for payment purposes was provided on that occasion.
As the Ombudsman sees it, it would have been helpful if that explanation from the landlord had been forthcoming during the course of its response to the resident’s complaint. Had it done so it would have enabled the issue and any potential confusion to have been resolved. Not doing so was an oversight which will have contributed to the resident’s concern that her complaint had not been fully considered by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of rats at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for repairs to her fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for repairs to her kitchen and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the planned works to the resident’s driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her Subject Access Request is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her enquiries about a rent-free period is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was slow to effectively respond to the resident’s report in June 2020 of the rat problem at the property which enabled the very stressful situation for the resident and her family to persist for a further eight months before it took decisive action to address the issue. Once it did so, it took necessary action without undue delay and sought to minimise the disruption and the upset for the resident and her family.
The landlord was slow to take effective action to enable the completion of the fencing repairs, resulting in the repair remaining unresolved over a year later, causing the resident ongoing inconvenience and frustration.
While the action taken by the landlord to address the kitchen and window repairs was reasonable and proportionate, the landlord was slow initially to respond to the resident’s repair requests resulting in a six month delay before repairs were carried out.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her SAR would fall more appropriately to the Information Commissioner’s Office, not the Ombudsman, to determine.
The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her complaint about the rent-free period has not been investigated by the Ombudsman as the events it concerned occurred some time ago, and thereafter was not referred to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period of time.
There was a six month delay in the landlord provided its Stage 1 response, which was significantly outside its 10 working day service standard.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered:
1. To pay the resident £700 compensation for its delayed response to the resident’s report of rats at the property.
2. To pay the resident an additional £350 compensation for its delayed response to the resident’s fencing repair request.
3. If not already done so, to agree with the resident in writing the action it will now take to resolve the fence repair, including a timescale for completion, and agree with the resident the steps it will take going forward to help prevent further damage from overgrowth of the neighbour’s garden.
4. To pay the resident £250 compensation for its six month delay in addressing the resident’s repair requests for her kitchen and window/back door.
5. If not already done so, update the resident in writing on action being taken with respect to the damp inspection and door seal repair, and provide timescales for completion of any recommended works.
6. To pay the resident £150 compensation for its delayed Stage 1 complaint response.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. The landlord write to the resident and explain what proof of name change it requires in order to update its payment system with her current name to enable card payments to be taken under that name should she wish to do so.
2. The landlord consider reimbursing the resident any reasonably incurred, evidenced expenses associated with her family’s decant to two apartments and provide the resident with written explanations of its decision in relation to this.