South Tyneside Council (202011890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011890

South Tyneside Homes

3 May 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s housing register application.
   2. Handling of the recovery of the resident’s former tenancy arrears.
   3. Handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside the ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The recovery of the resident’s former tenancy arrears

4. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were 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.
5. The resident was first made aware that she had former tenant arrears on 20 September 2019. However, she did not raise a complaint about this until 19 October 2020. Because of that, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e), this investigation will not investigate the complaint about tenancy arrears.

The resident’s housing register application

6. Under Paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.
7. The landlord isa local authority. The local authority has many roles and functions. The Housing Ombudsman investigates complaints relating to a local authority’s activities as a landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints relating to applications to the local authority’s rehousing service. Therefore, this Service cannot investigate the part of the complaint that concerns the resident’s housing register application.  We can, however, investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange request.
8. Any mention in this report of either the rent arrears or the housing register application is only to provide background and context.

Background

9. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three bedroomed house. The landlord is a local authority. The local authority has many roles and functions, however only its landlord functions are in the Housing Ombudsman’s remit. In this report reference will be made to the ‘landlord’ and the ‘local authority’ in respect of their different functions and remit.
10. On 13 March 2020 the resident called the landlord to ask for help using its mutual exchange website. There is a record of the resident starting an online application on 16 March 2020, but it is unclear whether the application was completed. On 23 March 2020 the UK went into a national lockdown due to the Covid pandemic.
11. On 21 July 2020, the landlord received a call from another tenant regarding a mutual exchange. The tenant said they had agreed a mutual exchange with the resident several months previously. The landlord advised the tenant that it had no record of a mutual exchange being agreed, and that if it was a private arrangement both residents should register on the mutual exchange website and advise the landlord once they had been matched.
12. The landlord was informed of the match on 28 July 2020. The following day it made an appointment for the resident’s property to be inspected on 5 August 2020. It also arranged an electrical inspection for 17 August 2020. The property inspection report conducted on 5 August noted that there were “non-standard/unpermitted alterations”. The landlord had no record of giving permission for any alterations prior to the inspection. The inspection report noted that the resident was responsible for any repairs/rectification of the alterations. It is not clear when, but the landlord’s later stage one complaint response confirmed that, after a further visit to the property it had agreed to carry out the rectification work at its own cost, as it accepted the alterations had been made by a previous tenant, before the resident moved into the property.
13. In a letter to the resident, dated 16 September 2020 the landlord gave conditional consent for the mutual exchange to go ahead, as long as the following alterations were rectified first. The resident called the landlord on 5 October 2020 as she was unhappy that the work would delay the mutual exchange. The landlord said it would arrange to inspect the property to compile a schedule for the work that needed to be done.
14. On 19 October 2020 the resident informed the landlord that the other tenant was not prepared to wait for the alterations to be rectified so had withdrawn from the mutual exchange. The resident also raised a complaint that day, saying she had applied for the mutual exchange earlier in the year and after originally being delayed due to Covid restrictions, it was now delayed due to safety issues with alterations that had been present when she moved into the property.
15. On 21 October 2020, the landlord’s stage one complaint response confirmed that Covid regulations had meant no home visits could take place earlier in the year, but once they could take place again an initial inspection of the resident’s property had found unauthorised alterations. However, a subsequent visit had confirmed that the alterations had been in situ when the resident moved in and so it had agreed to rectify the alterations. It said the rectification work had been logged and a property inspection had been booked for 22 October 2020. It did not give details of how to escalate the complaint to stage two.
16. We do not have the record of the 22 October 2020 property inspection, however during December 2020and January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord several times as the work had not been finished. The landlord made a home visit during December, and in January 2021 said it had brought forward some of the works following that visit. On 14 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that the bathroom work had been finished on the 6 January 2021 but that other works were unfinished. She said that work she had been told would take days were taking months. The landlord said it would speak to the surveyor.
17. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 February 2021 asking for somebody to contact her about her housing situation, as she now needed a two-bedroom property, due to her daughter leaving home. There is no record of the landlord contacting the resident. On 20 February 2021 the resident emailed to advise the landlord that some works were still outstanding (to stair handrail and the bathroom doorway). Though there is a record of the landlord speaking to the resident about rent arrears on 22 February 2021 there is no record of it discussing the outstanding work.
18. On 18 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking to speak to the manager who had issued the stage one complaint response and was informed that they no longer worked in that area. There is no record of anybody else contacting the resident in response.
19. On 7 April 2021 the landlord passed on to its surveyor an enquiry from the resident about when the handrail would be fitted. It also emailed internally requesting that the resident be contacted with an update. There is no record of the surveyor’s reply or of the resident being contacted with an update. Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 15 April 2021 to request that it contact the resident. The landlord contacted the resident the same day, and on 21 April 2021 it escalated the resident’s original complaint (from 19 October 2020) to stage two of its complaint process. It contacted the resident during its complaint investigation, to discuss her concerns. She confirmed that the landlord had now completed the bathroom and kitchen work, but other work remained outstanding.
20. In a letter dated 26 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. With reference to the outstanding work, it said it believed that only the handrail was outstanding, which was booked for 1 July 2021. It said that the resident’s mutual exchange had been delayed for several reasons including the Covid pandemic. It confirmed it had taken responsibility for rectifying the property alterations due to being unable to confirm the date the alterations were made. It said it was sorry that the other tenant had withdrew from the mutual exchange during the time when it was making arrangements to undertake the work. It said it hoped the resident appreciated that it had to undertake certain rectifications. It said due to its lapse in service it had decided to offer the resident a “direct let”, which meant it would allocate her a suitable property when one was available. It said it would be a one-off offer and no further offers would be made, but that it would ensure that the property met her needs and was in an area of her choice. It explained how to refer the complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Mutual Exchange Procedure

21. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure states that mutual exchange applications must be made online. Once the landlord is aware of a match it will confirm whether the residents are eligible for a mutual exchange and if so will proceed with the application. An exchange can only be refused by the landlord within a maximum period of 42 days from the day the application is received. If the 42-day period expires without the exchange being refused then the standard grounds for refusal…can no longer be relied upon and consent will have to be granted
22. The procedure sets out that if the tenant is eligible for a mutual exchange then the landlord should arrange an electrical inspection and a property inspection, during which any non-standard items and rechargeable repairs should be logged. As part of the pre-checks before the inspection the landlord should check if permission has been granted for any adaptations or alterations, and if the resident has any tenancy breaches or rent arrears. If any non-standard items are identified during the inspection, it is the role of the surveyor to deem whether the items are safe and satisfactory. If the item is deemed to be unsafe or unsatisfactory then the tenant will be made aware that this is a breach of their tenancy and they will be required to rectify the breach before they are allowed to move, and a re-inspection date will need to be agreed.
23. “Where it is revealed that a non-standard item was installed by a previous tenant these will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis… It is at the discretion of the surveyor as to whether the item should be allowed stay, be repaired or removed.”

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange request

24. The resident started an online mutual exchange application in March 2020 although it is not clear if this was completed. This was also the month that the UK went into a national lockdown due to the Covid pandemic. There is no record of the resident, or the other tenant contacting the landlord about the mutual exchange until 21 July 2020 when the other tenant contacted the landlord to say he had agreed the mutual exchange “months ago”. As it had received no contact before that date it is reasonable that the landlord had not taken any action until then. Although we have not been advised of the date that the landlord resumed home visits, at this point it was conducting home visits again. It advised the other resident that it had no record of a mutual exchange on its system, and acted appropriately and in line with its mutual exchange procedure by advising that both parties should register on the website and match with each other, and then advise it that they had matched.
25. The landlord was notified of the mutual exchange match on 28 July 2020.It acted in line with its mutual exchange procedure by promptly arranging a property inspection. When the alterations were identified the surveyor acted reasonably by following the landlord’s mutual exchange procedure, and assessing whether the items were safe and satisfactory. The surveyor deemed that the alterations were not satisfactory or safe, and the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its mutual exchange procedure when it issued its letter on 16 September 2020, giving consent for the mutual exchange on condition that that the alterations were rectified first. Although the landlord’s mutual exchange policy states a 42 day timeframe for refusing a mutual exchange application, it gives no timeframe for approving a mutual exchange. However, as the landlord gave conditional consent for the mutual exchange 50 days after it was notified of it, its response timeframe was not unreasonable.
26. The impact of the delay on the mutual exchange the resident had arranged was unfortunate, but, it was for the landlord to decide whether the alterations were satisfactory, and the advice it had received from its surveyor was that they were not. It acted reasonably and in line with its mutual exchange policy by delaying the mutual exchange until the work was completed and acted fairly by taking responsibility for the work once it was aware that the resident had not made the alterations.
27. Based on the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, work started in December 2020. The resident confirmed that the bathroom had been completed on 6 January but that the other work was were still not completed. She said work that she had been told would take days were taking months.
28. It is important with any repairs, and especially with large scale works over a longer period, that a landlord manages a resident’s expectations by giving clear timeframes for when work will be completed and keeping the resident updated about progress or delays. The resident continued to report that the work had not been completed in February and March 2021. No evidence of updates to the resident by the landlord has been provided, and the records show that the resident, or her family, initiated contact to get updates.
29. Following contact from this Service on 14 April 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and escalated the original complaint to stage two. In its stage two complaint response it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained why the work had not been completed, as the delay was directly affecting the resident’s ability to participate in any other mutual exchange. The landlord did not address that point, but made a more generalised comment that there were a number of reasons why the mutual exchange was delayed, and confirmed that the only work still outstanding was the handrail, which was due to be replaced on 1 July 2021. As the landlord accepted responsibility for replacing the handrail in its stage one complaint response on 21 October 2020, the fact that it would not be completed until 1 July 2021, with no clear explanation for the delay, was unreasonable by any standards. and the landlord should have acknowledged that in its response. The landlord did acknowledge that there had been a lapse in service and to acknowledge that it offered the resident an alternative for her home situation by directly offering her a property when one became available. However, given that such an option significantly reduced the options and choice available to the resident through the mutual exchange process, the landlord’s offer, while positive, did not fully remedy the impact of its delays.
30. Overall, there were unexplained delays by the landlord in completing the work needed to allow the resident to mutually exchange her property. The landlord also failed to reasonably update or manage the resident’s expectations about the time the work would take. The landlord partly acknowledged and remedied its failings, but not to a sufficient level proportionate to the scale of the impact on the resident’s plans to move via mutual exchange.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.

Orders

32. In light of the frustration and delay caused, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £275 within four weeks of the date of this report. Evidence of this payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks.