Aster Group Limited (201915243)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915243

Aster Group Limited

28 February 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. the signup process.
2. the condition of the flooring at the start of the tenancy.
3. the heating.
4. the door entry system.
5. electrics comprising the oven and hob, external lights, and extractor fans.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat with front and rear entrances that has been adapted for tenants with wheelchairs. The resident is over 80, has physical disabilities, uses a wheelchair and is ‘acutely sensitive’ to chemicals. This was included in the resident’s housing application information.
The resident’s age and health conditions mean she may become exhausted and overwhelmed, which her and others’ accounts say can be exacerbated by the stress of trying to resolve maintenance issues at her property. Her personal assistant notes that at visits the resident was constantly stressed and struggled to do other daily tasks after trying to get maintenance issues resolved, as she was only able to function for short periods of time before issues ‘flared up.’ The resident’s account has noted that in some circumstances she may “completely shut down,” and avoid letters and contractors, and avoid and hang up on phone calls, including if she feels these are “going nowhere.”
The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the floors, doors, and installations for heating. The landlord’s lettings policy says that it aims to make sure every property is let in a safe, clean condition. Its lettable standard says that all flooring will be free from trip hazards; it will leave carpet down where this is in a good condition, which customers will be expected to maintain; non-slip vinyl will be provided in kitchens and bathrooms; and it will provide customers with vouchers to purchase paint if decoration is required. Its lettings procedure provides for circumstances where a tenant views and accepts accommodation, and signs the tenancy agreement at the same time.
The evidence shows, at the time of the initial complaint, the landlord responded within 10 working days, after which a complaint could be escalated for a response from a manager, and then a review by a regional director. The landlord also only investigated complaints made within six months of the issue complained about; ceased its complaints process if any litigation claim or legal proceedings were brought against it; and accepted complaints from third parties if it was supplied relevant permission.

Summary of events

The signup process

The resident applied for housing assistance from her local authority after she was served a Section 21 notice that asked her to move out of her previous property by 10 December 2019. The resident says the local authority subsequently informed her that she was able to stay in her previous property until 17 January 2020, but it is understood she wanted to move out. On 27 November 2019, the resident says the landlord informed her of the potential suitability of her current property. She was informed that she could not view the property, as work was still ongoing, but that it may be ready around 15 December 2019. On 2 December 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and offered her the tenancy. It stated that it would contact her to view the property, and would arrange a further meeting to sign the paperwork and collect the keys. It stated that she should only accept the property if it met her needs. On 10 December 2019, the resident viewed the property for the first time and signed the tenancy agreement and collected the keys on the same day.
The resident subsequently complained that she was not given the opportunity to view the property before the sign-up, which the landlord disagreed with. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident provided witness statements to support her position. The landlord, in its response, disregarded this evidence because it said the people who supplied the statements did not witness the discussions that took place.

The flooring

In November 2019, void works were raised to clean and clear the property of items including carpets. The same month, there were some emails from the landlord’s contractor to a member of staff. The landlord’s contractors said that “all that is left is an exit clean,” but that the vinyl flooring was “extremely sticky” from where the previous tenant had stuck carpet on top. The contactors said cleaners had been asked to quote if they were able to clean this up, which would be “far more cheaper” than replacing. The contractors followed up that cleaning the floor would cost £266.50 plus VAT, and queried if the landlord was happy to proceed. It is not evident this was confirmed, but void records show an item for this amount, although this pre-dates the emails. The landlord informs us these emails only recently came to light after our request for some further information, and were not made available and considered during the original investigation of the complaint.
In December 2019, the resident viewed the property and says she was told she needed to provide flooring, but that the landlord would lay new flooring in the kitchen and bathroom (which is unsubstantiated). The resident subsequently reported within two days of moving in that the flooring was sticky, which affected her mobility and the moving in of her possessions from a storage facility. The information and photos supplied show the floor issue resulted in the elderly resident’s footwear sticking to the floor, causing her to stumble on multiple occasions; her wheelchair wheels sticking and causing black tyre treads everywhere; her wheelchair reportedly sticking to the floors of buses and shops; her black wheelchair wheels having to be changed to grey ones, which reportedly continued to pick up glue from the floor; and her being reluctant for a long period to move all her possessions from storage, including her bed, until the flooring was no longer sticky.
The landlord responded by arranging for a cleaner to attend eight days after the report, which followed the resident’s chasing. When this did not resolve matters for the resident, the landlord offered to either remove or re-clean the flooring, and a further clean of the flooring was carried out. This was not before the resident suffered a foot injury, for which she supplies photos that show a swollen foot, and for which she says she experienced significant pain and suffered the effects of for months afterwards. The resident explains the injury arose when she was mopping the sticky floor from her wheelchair and her foot slipped between the footplates and got sprained.
It is evident that the further clean did not resolve the sticky flooring and in January 2020, following contact from the resident, the local authority’s environmental health team asked the landlord to resolve the issue due to an identified hazard of a risk of falls from the sticky flooring. The landlord highlighted its lack of responsibility for floor coverings in the tenancy agreement around this time, but it agreed to fit flooring purchased by the resident, and arranged two appointments in February 2020 for this.
In February 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the first appointment for an inspection but then did not attend an appointment the following day. The resident was informed that the works had been cancelled as she had been rude to the contractor and said she did not want the works, which she disputes.
The resident wrote to the landlord with independent help (missing an arranged post signup visit from the landlord to do so), asking it to honour its promise to fit the flooring to help resolve the issues in her home which were making her life unbearable. The landlord responded that it had agreed to fit floor coverings out of goodwill, but was now unwilling to do so, as she had failed to engage with the process and refused access for visits and works; terminated calls; and been rude to staff and contractors and asked them to leave the premises. It said that if her behaviour continued it would take enforcement action. In further correspondence, the landlord noted its receipt of post the resident had forwarded related to the property’s previous tenants, and noted she hung up when it called to tell her to return this to the sender. It restated it would look at taking enforcement action if her behaviour continued.
In March 2020, the landlord again agreed to fit the flooring, but when visiting the resident to discuss the details it served a Section 21 notice, saying she had to move out of the property by June 2020. The reasons it gave were that she had failed to turn up to appointments or inform them that she would not be available; been rude and aggressive to staff and contractors; and repeatedly sent post to the landlord which did not relate to it. The resident was subsequently reluctant to lay her purchased flooring if she had to leave the property, and she put this up for sale, selling one roll. She also obtained legal representation, and after her solicitors appealed against the Section 21 (as the landlord served it before it was legally entitled to do so) she agreed for the works to fit the flooring to proceed – although she had to purchase additional flooring to replace the roll she had sold. The same month, the landlord’s contractors laid flooring in a bedroom and an ensuite but then had to cease the works due to the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, leaving the works incomplete and the hall and a bathroom covered in just a screed base.
In June 2020, the landlord’s contractors laid vinyl in the wetroom, and glued flooring and laid new carpet in a bedroom, for which the resident arranged items to be moved out of the property and into storage. However, remaining works were not completed, as the glues being used affected the resident’s chemical sensitivities and she asked for the works to stop. The same month, the landlord’s insurer wrote to the resident’s solicitor and repudiated an injury claim, stating that it was denied a glue like substance was all over the flooring. They raised concern about the causation for the claim; inconsistencies in accounts of the incident; and whether any injury had occurred at all. The resident’s solicitors did not pursue her personal injury claim any further.
In July 2020, the local authority inspected again and identified there were hazards in respect to hygiene and falling. There was a thin layer of screed in the hall; unsealed flooring in the bathroom; and sticky adhesive in the living room and kitchen. The flooring condition prevented it from being kept in a clean and hygienic condition. The screed in the hall could break-up and create an uneven surface, and loose and un-level threshold created a trip hazard.
In September 2020, the landlord arranged for the resident to be decanted into a hotel, and it completed remaining flooring works including for the living room, bathroom and hall. Following this, the resident confirmed that the floor works had been completed satisfactorily, and the local authority confirmed hazards were mitigated to an acceptable level.
The landlord’s initial response in July 2020, and its stage one response in April 2021, said that the property was not covered in sticky glue when the resident viewed it; the issue was not raised by her, its staff and contractors; and the property would not have been let if the floor was covered with glue as alleged. Its April 2021 response noted that the injury claim was rejected and that she had not provided sufficient information about how the flooring caused the injury and why she had sought some private treatment she had requested reimbursement for.
The landlord’s final response in August 2021 reiterated its previous one. It said the property had been signed off and the flooring was not covered in sticky glue. It denied that neither it nor previous tenants lifted any floor covering exposing any adhesive, a fundamental allegation but untrue. It said none of its staff and contractors ever witnessed any glue on the floors or raised any concerns about the floor and its safety. It said what happened when the property was in the resident’s possession, giving rise to the complaint and compensation claim, was not in any way its responsibility. It said its safety first culture meant that its staff and contractors would not allow a property which presented a risk to people’s safety to be let. It said it had devoted significant resource to help the resident overcome her perceived problem with the floor; taken account of her vulnerability; and acted beyond its responsibilities to clean the floor and lay the flooring she chose to purchase over the existing, satisfactory flooring.

The heating

In November 2019, an inspection was carried out for the landlord gas safety record, which found the boiler and heating to be working. A review of repairs records shows no reported issues with the heating in the previous 12 months.
On 10 December 2019, when the resident viewed the property and signed the tenancy, she says that she was shown the heating, but did not realise that it was controlled by two separate programmers in a bedroom and the kitchen.
On 10 and 11 December 2019, the resident moved into the property and noticed the heating was not working. On 12 December 2019, her personal assistant visited, observed it was cold and adjusted the heating using instructions without success. They contacted the landlord and its records show that on 13 December 2019 a repair was raised for: “please see to the boiler as the tenant has no heating, boiler is switched on, everything turned to max, no back ups, all rads effected.” Following this, on 16 December 2019, the landlord’s records show a contractor attended and “Topped up pressure and told lady how to work system worked as new tenant.”
On 23 December 2019, the resident was still in hospital, and her brother gave access to a contractor for a heating report for “Please see to the boiler as the tenant has no heating, boiler is switched on, everything turned to max, no back ups, all rads effected…tenant reports that this has stopped working Sunday night.” The contractor noted “Set times up to tenant’s requirements Tested for correct operation of valves all on 2 ports opening boiler firing correctly.”
The resident says that the heating was not fully functional and it was very cold on her return from hospital, and on 2 January 2020 a further repair was raised after she reported the issue. On 3 January 2020, an operative attended and noted that they reset clocks and left two heaters (the resident says she was only left one). They noted it was reported that every time the clocks were reset they defaulted back to 15 degrees (the resident separately says that the heating would run up to an hour or less, then cut out, and it was suspected the timer was faulty). Following this, a further heating repair was raised on 7 January 2020 for “Supply and fit 2 x new clocks as they keep on defaulting back to 15 degrees.”
On 16 January 2020, the local authority’s environmental health visited the property. Their notes said that there were two separate controls for the heating, one by the boiler in the kitchen, and one in a bedroom. They could not get the heating working and the controls did not appear to activate the boiler. They noted that the weather was mild but even with good insulation the property was likely to fall below 15 degrees. They noted that they spoke to the landlord the same day to report the heating deficiency, since it presented a serious risk of harm to the resident.
On 17 January 2020, the local authority wrote to the landlord. They said that they had had identified two housing hazards, including excess cold due to defective central heating (the other was the flooring as discussed above), and the landlord had an obligation to take action. The same day, the local authority’s notes show the landlord said the heating was investigated and confirmed to be in proper working order. The landlord’s records confirm that an operative attended around this time and noted that they replaced programmers in the kitchen and bedroom; removed a hallway thermostat; and carried out tests, noting “heating now on and working.” They noted however that an operative needed to attend to wire a wireless thermostat to the programmer in the kitchen. The resident’s account confirms the heating was repaired but a thermostat was going to be installed in the hallway, and on 4 February 2020, a repair was raised “to supply and fit new rf rooms stat.”
On 24 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised concern about a number of issues including her heating. She said this was not resolved after many visits, and she was left over Christmas and the New Year shivering with cold.
On 28 February or 3 March 2020, the information provided indicates that the repair “to supply and fit new rf rooms stat” was completed.
On 12 March 2020, the resident’s solicitor’s appeal of the Section 21 notice issued by the landlord noted that when she moved in, the heating did not work for several weeks.
On 23 July 2020, the local authority inspected again, to follow up their previous visit, and identified there was still a hazard of excess cold. The programmable controls in the hall, kitchen and bedroom appeared defective and made the system complicated and inconvenient to use. There were no thermostatic valves on the radiators. Further investigation was required to determine whether the system was operable and easily controllable. The suitability of the controls for the resident could be assessed by an occupational therapy assessment.
On 3 August 2020, the local authority wrote to the landlord about the hazards it had identified. The same day, the landlord’s records show a repair was raised for “check operation of the boiler and report any findings.”
On 7 August 2020, the evidence shows:
1. an operative attended for the heating to carry out a “full operational check on system controls” and found these worked correctly. The resident confirms that contractors attended.
2. the local authority contacted the resident about visiting to check whether the heating was defective and if they could take further action against the landlord to get it fixed, however further correspondence is not evident.
Six months later, in February 2021, the resident reported issues with lounge radiators not warming up properly. The same day, an operative attended and note they showed her how to use the heating, and told her not to shut the door where the thermostat was located, as it would turn off the heating when up to temperature. In March 2021, the resident notes that the heating made the flat warm, but there were instances where it was cold and she felt she could not control it. In April 2021, a repair was raised and completed to move the thermostat from the hallway to the lounge; provide an operating manual; and provide guidance on how to use the controls.
The resident complained in May 2020 via her solicitor that she had no heating at the property from 10 December 2019. There were multiple visits by operatives that left her without heating, after which the local authority environmental health department attended on 16 January 2020 and became involved.
The landlord responded in July 2020 that it “could not find any reference” from the local authority about central heating. It summarised the repairs history and noted that after January 2020, the contractors tried on several occasions to wire a new thermostat, but the resident did not respond until March 2020. The resident contacted the contractors after the thermostat was wired to report that it was not working, however, when they reattended nothing was found to be wrong. Its contractor said they replaced the controls as she was abusive and did not want to be told nothing was wrong, and its gas team’s view was there was never a problem and she did not understand the controls. This indicated it had attended the property multiple times leaving the heating working on each occasion. It acknowledged this was different to the resident’s version of events, but it stated “there has not been a problem with the heating.”
The resident detailed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response via her solicitor in November 2020. The landlord’s heating records were disputed, and there was an ongoing heating issue which was not satisfactorily resolved until 7 August 2020. It was noted that the resident’s lack of heating was from 10 December 2019 and included the Christmas period. It was noted that the resident’s brother’s statement referred to a fault with the programmer, and that correspondence from the local authority in January and July 2020 referred to hazards from defective heating and complicated and inconvenient controls.
The landlord’s stage one response in April 2021 said that the boiler was inspected before the resident moved in; its staff showed her how to use the system when she viewed the property; and the heating worked at that point. It had attended the property on multiple occasions, leaving the heating working on each occasion. It had changed the boiler controls to make it easier for her to understand and also agreed to move the thermostat.
The landlord’s final response in August 2021 said that the history showed the heating was always working satisfactorily; it had allocated considerable resource in multiple callouts; and it had tried to make it easier for the resident to manage the controls without the need for an occupational therapist’s assessment. It was unable to agree that there had been a service failure.

The door entry system

On 28 November 2019, the landlord’s records show works were completed to “carry out servicing and confirm correct operation of safety features for automatic door.” A review of the repairs records shows that repairs reports for the automatic door were previously infrequent.
On 10 and 11 December 2019, the resident moved into the property and noticed there were issues with the door entry system. The resident says that this resulted in difficulty opening and shutting the automatic door, which included an occasion when it was dark and rainy and she struggled to open the front door with a key while standing out of her wheelchair and holding an umbrella. She notes she had not been given a key fob at that point, and had no idea this was a way the property could be accessed.
On 12 December 2019, the resident’s personal assistant contacted the landlord and its records show that on 13 December 2019 a repair was raised for: “please see to the push pad of the property, this is not working and the tenant is struggling to open the door from the outside, it is working fine from the inside.” On 20 December 2019, a contractor attended for the door entry and noted: “found external safety device dirty so cleaned. customer had no fob to open door from outside so supplied and programmed 1x CDVI fob, tested found intercom not opening door, investigated found broken cable in front panel, re terminated, tested left operational.”
On 24 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised concern about a number of issues, including faults with the front automated door.
On 5 March 2020, the resident says that when landlord staff visited her, she reported issues with the door, following which repairs were raised on 9 March 2020 for:
1. the front access door not closing and the resident not being able to secure it (which staff noted was securing when they were present);
2. the code for the automatic door being incorrect (staff noted the resident was still able to gain access to the property via a ‘clicker’).
On 12 March 2020, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to appeal the Section 21 notice, and in this noted that the automatic door did not work.
On 20 March 2020, contractors attended to carry out the repair to secure the automatic door. The landlord’s account shows the resident came out shouting at contractors and went to a supermarket, after which the contractors waited for her to return in order to complete the repair. The resident disputes she shouted, but says that she did go out to the supermarket to make an OAP shopping slot after an operative had already waited in their vehicle for 30 minutes for a colleague to arrive. The operatives noted “the door is working fine, opens well on the electric code as well as the push button but the tenant wants the code for the outside of the door (telecom) which doesn’t not [sic] connect to the door as tenant has a different door because of wheelchair user and needs the key code.”
On 14 April 2020, the information provided by the landlord shows that, after delays due to Covid-19, a contractor attended for what seems to be for the repair to change the door code. The contractor noted that the key code worked but this did not activate the automatic door, and after an input was ‘re-terminated’ into a different ‘terminal,’ the door was tested and left operational.
In June 2020, the landlord raised and completed repairs to put a rain cover on the automatic door sensor, confirming afterward that the door opened and closed fine.
In August 2021, a repair was raised for “please attend to auto front door that is jammed shut and wont open, customers fob wont work and customer is unable to exit the property with her wheelchair, customer can get out of the back door if needed but needs to move an armchair to do so…”. The same day, an operative attended whose notes indicate the door was not working because the power to the door had been turned off (the operative noted that the power to the door was a ‘switched spur’ next to the light switches).
The resident complained via her solicitor in May 2020. The door entry was defective when she moved in, and as a wheelchair user she was unable to access the property correctly. The landlord was aware of this as its staff had issues accessing the door when she viewed and signed the tenancy. The door was reset in April 2020 and was currently working, but it was not satisfactory that the issue took three months to be resolved.
The landlord responded in July 2020. It summarised the repairs history for the door entry and said there was no problem with the door entry when she viewed the property. It expressed puzzlement and queried if it was suggested that the resident had been trapped in the property for three months. It noted that contractors who attended in March 2020 waited for her to return when she left the property, and it noted she had no difficulty accessing the property when she returned. It also noted that its staff attended on 21 February 2020 when the resident had gone out, which suggested that the door entry was working at this point. It concluded that the history indicated that it had responded appropriately and in a timely manner to issues reported to it, and no detriment had been caused.
The resident’s solicitor detailed dissatisfaction with this response in November 2020. They detailed events which they said confirmed the door was faulty, and referred to statements which they said confirmed it was difficult to open.
In April 2021, the landlord’s stage one response restated its July 2020 letter that it had responded appropriately and in a timely manner to issues reported to it, and the resident had suffered no detriment. In August 2021, its final response said that its staff and engineers had failed to find any fault with the door entry system and this had been fully operational on every visit. It had spent significant time checking and explaining how to use it effectively and it was vital that the door was given sufficient clearance. It apologised if the resident had found the system difficult to operate, but it was unable to agree that there had been a service failure.

The oven and hob, external lights, and extractor fans

On 4 November 2019, a void survey of the resident’s current property was carried out, and works were raised to carry out a ‘void electrical test.’ On 15 November 2019, an inspection was carried out for the electrical installation condition report. This included electrics for the cooker and identified no requirement for remedial works. A review of the repairs records shows that in the previous twelve months, no issues were reported with the electrics.
The resident says that at signup on 10 December 2019 she reported to landlord staff that outside lights were not working. On 13 December 2019, a repair was raised for an outside light, which the landlord’s records show was completed on 9 January 2020.
On 24 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised concern about a number of issues, including that there was no outside lighting and that the oven and hob were dirty. In March 2020, the resident says that she mentioned to landlord staff that the oven and hob were filthy and outside lights were not working. The information provided shows that the resident was informed that she should get a new oven and hob, and a repair was raised for a light in the back garden not working, which the landlord’s records say was completed the following month.
A year later, on 30 April 2021, the resident says she arranged for a cleaner to clean her oven and hob, and when the oven was turned on this blew all the electrics in the house. The cleaner’s notes say this pointed to an electrical fault in the oven or an element fault. The resident says this is evidence that the landlord left the property in a bad state of repair.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, in July 2021 the resident added that the mains electrics blew when the oven was turned on, and she was informed the oven had been wired wrongly; she had pointed out a non-functioning outside light to landlord staff on several occasions; and she had some issues with extractor fans.
In August 2021, the landlord’s final response noted that it had not received any further reports after it had resolved issues with lights on 12 December 2019 and 9 March 2020; it had not received reports about extractor fans but had raised a repair; and it had raised a repair for the oven. Following this, the resident says contractors attended the same month and replaced the oven with a new one.

The complaint chronology

On 24 February 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised concern about a number of issues.
On 16 April 2020, the landlord logged a complaint after contact from us (following contact to the Ombudsman in February and March 2020). On 23 April 2020, the resident’s solicitor attached authorisation and asked if they could detail the complaint issues in a letter. The landlord confirmed they could and on 19 May 2020, the solicitor detailed the issues that the resident wished to be addressed in a complaint.
The landlord internally agreed to refer the complaint to its solicitor to respond, however on 1 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor to respond (the landlord supplies a copy dated 18 June 2020, but the solicitor received a slightly different version). The following month, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to request escalation of this response. On receipt of this, there was internal confusion as the response went against the agreement for the landlord’s solicitor to respond. The resident says that the escalation request was subsequently refused.
On 6 November 2020, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord again to escalate the complaint. They disagreed with a decision not to progress the complaint through the complaints procedure, noting that we help resolve disputes before they go to court.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor after they had chased. It said that as the resident was represented by a solicitor, it was removing the case from the complaints process and had asked its solicitor to respond. It acknowledged it would normally send a stage two response, but said it did not believe this would substantially change the outcome.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident’s solicitor. They said they had been instructed to act on behalf of the landlord; said they were reviewing the case; and requested future correspondence to be sent to them. In February 2021, the landlord received confirmation that the resident was no longer represented by her solicitor, and it contacted her that month and again in March 2021 to query if she was represented by another solicitor and what she was unhappy with. The resident confirmed she was not represented by a solicitor, raised dissatisfaction that she had tried to escalate the complaint since August and November 2020, and detailed some of her complaint.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response. It noted that it had originally informed her that it had raised a stage one complaint in April 2020, and it apologised for the delay sending its response. It explained that after correspondence was received from the solicitor acting in a legal capacity for the possession proceedings, it closed the complaint and referred it to its legal representatives, as it did not wish to prejudice the proceedings. It apologised that it did not clarify this to the resident or her solicitor, and it said that now the resident had confirmed her solicitor was no longer acting for her, it was happy to respond under its complaints procedure. It acknowledged that it should have clarified that it had closed the complaint and explained why, and it offered £100 in recognition of this.
In June 2021, following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord offered to visit the resident to discuss her complaint. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord and noted that they had previously requested escalation of the complaint in accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure. They noted the 28 April 2021 response and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and provide a substantive response to their 6 November 2020 letter. They said that they were willing to hold a meeting to discuss the complaint.
In July 2021, the landlord wrote to the solicitor and asked them to clarify if they were acting for the resident under legal proceedings or as an advocate. The solicitor confirmed that they were assisting with the complaint and not in any litigation. They noted that they did not understand the landlord’s comment that it had responded outside its complaints process, and expressed dissatisfaction with the necessity for this, noting that the resident had contacted them for their assistance due to the lack of a substantive response to the 6 November 2020 letter. They noted additional points she wished to raise.
Following this, the landlord provided a final response on 12 August 2021. It set out its position and concluded that nothing that arose from the difficulties the resident claimed to experience since starting her tenancy were its responsibility. It said that it did not uphold her complaint or compensation claim beyond the £100 it had offered.
The resident brought the complaint to us and supplies evidence which includes photos of the property and her alleged injuries; witness statements from different parties; invoices for flooring, storage, removals and medical fees; and placemats to show samples of glue on possessions and furniture after September 2020 works. She expresses dissatisfaction about a range of issues which have been carefully considered even if not specifically addressed. These include her disputing she did not want to view the property before she signed the tenancy; her disputing there was not glue on the flooring before she moved in; her dissatisfaction with unnecessary flooring, storage, legal and medical fees; her dissatisfaction with the length of time she was unable to unpack her belongings and settle into her home; her disputing of reasons given for the Section 21 notice; and her dissatisfaction that the landlord refused to replace the oven and hob. It has been noted that she sought £6,000 for the complaint and £5,000 for her personal injury.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the signup process

The resident has complained that the landlord did not allow her to view the property before the date she signed the tenancy, and disputes its statement that she did not want to do so. She said she would have refused the property if she had had a chance to view it as it was so far out of town; she was told there were no other properties to meet her needs; and she visited the area the property was in before she signed the tenancy. The information provided shows that the resident had reasonable opportunity to view the property, as she did so prior to signing the tenancy the same day. By her own account she also visited the area some days prior, which will have provided reasonable opportunity to get a sense of the property’s location. The resident was informed she could have stayed in her previous property for another month, she had the option to choose not to sign the tenancy after viewing the property, and it was ultimately her choice that she did so. Further, the landlord’s lettings procedure provides for circumstances where a tenant views, accepts accommodation and signs the tenancy agreement at the same time, which shows that the circumstances in which the resident signed the tenancy do not go against policy. With that said, there are aspects of the landlord’s handling of matters which are not satisfactory.
The landlord and resident have different accounts about whether she wanted an earlier viewing. We are unable to resolve the conflicting accounts based on the available evidence. However, it is not satisfactory that there is no evidence to clearly show that the landlord attempted to meet the commitment in its 2 December 2019 letter to offer an earlier separate viewing. We would have liked to have seen correspondence from the landlord to the resident to demonstrate that it attempted to offer this, particularly if it was aware she was vulnerable and it felt (as stated in the final response) that she may have been unnecessarily rushing to sign the tenancy. This shows a lack of care toward the resident which it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider potential learning for, in order to consider if similar circumstances should be handled differently in future, particularly given obligations in the Equality Act 2010 to consider variation of its services.
In summary, the landlord should have demonstrated it showed more care to the elderly and vulnerable resident by setting out in writing any verbal offer it made to view the property earlier, and any verbal advice about her not being required to leave her previous home. However, there is no evidence that the landlord pressured the resident into signing the tenancy; she had the option to choose not to do so if she felt she needed more time to decide; and it was ultimately her choice that she did so. We find no maladministration in relation to this part of the complaint, however, we have made some recommendations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the flooring at the start of the tenancy

The landlord clearly had concerns about the resident’s behaviour, and it is reasonable for it to expect customers to conduct themselves appropriately. The events also clearly caused the resident distress and impacted her mobility and ability to settle into the property; and it is understandable that she felt frustration if she did not feel the landlord provided the necessary acknowledgment and support she felt it should have done. The latter is again a reasonable expectation given the landlord’s responsibility under Section 20 (3) of the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments where a resident is known to have a disability that may impact their access of services.
The landlord’s obligations for flooring are normally limited to the structure, such as the concrete, so even if not stated in the tenancy agreement, a tenant would normally be expected to purchase and fit any hard or soft floor covering themselves. However, when letting a property to a tenant, a landlord is expected to ensure that the flooring is safe and free from any potential hazards when it is handed over. This would be a particular expectation in a property which has been adapted for a wheelchair user, and given the landlord’s responsibilities under Sections 9 and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Section 20 (4) of the Equality Act 2010. These are to ensure a property is fit for human habitation and to take steps where a physical feature (that includes fittings, furnishings and materials on premises) puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to persons who are not disabled, by removing, altering or providing a reasonable means of avoiding it.
The landlord’s position has been that the floor was not sticky before the resident moved in; issues with the flooring arose after she moved in; and she was responsible for replacement of the flooring. It took this position on the basis that if there had been issues, these would have been raised at the viewing or prior. This position was not satisfactory as the landlord was too speculative in its approach, rather than demonstrate that it factually established with contractors and operatives that no issues were raised with the flooring. The resident says that she was able to confirm with contractors that there had been glue on the flooring before she moved in, which indicates this was something the landlord could, and should have, done. This alone shows that the landlord does not demonstrate that it took all appropriate steps to investigate the complaint, which is not satisfactory.
The resident also says she suspects the previous tenant’s carpets in the property were removed. The landlord disputes that it or a previous tenant removed any carpet, however when rejecting the claim, the landlord’s insurers said that a previous tenant lifted the carpet, while the void works the landlord raised included the clearance of carpets. The landlord’s insurer’s account contradicts the landlord’s account that a previous tenant did not remove any carpet, while the void works show that its contractors were instructed to remove any carpet present at the property. These both give cause to question how confident the landlord can be about whether it or a previous tenant did not remove carpet, which again is not satisfactory.
The landlord has supplied new evidence which reaffirms some concerns about the original investigation of the complaint. The landlord confirmed it would review its recordkeeping, and asked if it could respond to the flooring aspect again. The landlord was informed that if it set out its position before the Ombudsman issued the determination, this could be taken account of and noted in the determination. The evidence is information however that would have been expected to have been originally considered in any effective investigation of the issue, and clearly shows that before the resident moved into the property, contractors reported that the flooring was “extremely sticky.” This is something that the landlord has never previously acknowledged, and is contrary to what it has always maintained. This also shows that it was suggested for cleaning contractors to assess the issue and provide a quote if they thought they could clean the flooring, as this would be much cheaper than replacing it. It is not entirely evident that the cleaning contractors went on to clean the flooring after the quote, but even if they did, the landlord should have handled subsequent events differently.
The property is general needs and a tenant is responsible for floor coverings, however it is also a wheelchair adapted property, so some care would be expected to be taken before it is handed over to a new tenant. The landlord should have demonstrated it was attentive to the stickiness of the floor during the voids process; monitored if this was resolved by cleans; and had a considered approach to whether it would replace the flooring. The substance seems to have been one that was impervious to cleaning and remained after initially seeming to go away, so the landlord might not have anticipated further issues if cleaning initially seemed to address it. However, further reports from the resident shortly after moving in should have prompted the landlord to reconsider its approach, which it does not demonstrate it did. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord does not demonstrate that it took sufficient care when letting the property, or demonstrate that it responded appropriately when concerns about the flooring were raised after the resident moved in. Taking everything together, it is not sufficiently apparent that it was reasonable to expect the resident to purchase flooring to address the issue, bearing in mind the contractor’s November 2019 email suggesting replacement may be a costly but appropriate course of action if the floor could not be cleaned; the flooring hazard identified by the local authority in January 2020; and the landlord’s stated aim to be safety first.
As a consequence of the landlord failing to act appropriately, the resident has been affected in multiple ways. She clearly carefully coordinated her move, but the flooring issue meant that she postponed moving of all her possessions from storage for five months, incurring more storage costs than she would otherwise have incurred. She also paid for possessions to be moved back into storage for works in June 2020, incurring more costs. Her age, immobility and health conditions means that she would have been more impacted by the issues. She has a low income, and was unable to pay for the flooring to be fitted after investigating this and obtaining quotes, so her expenditure on new flooring will have stretched her finances. She clearly experienced significant disruption in her home and to her ability to settle in, with boxes of possessions stacked in a bathroom and flooring stored in a bedroom for months, affecting use of the property. She also went to significant time and effort to progress the complaint and paid a solicitor to represent her.
It was appropriate for the landlord to decant the resident in September 2020, but it has come across as unhelpful, unsympathetic, and heavy-handed on other occasions. The landlord should have been aware of her vulnerabilities from the start, as her housing application included these, so it could have demonstrated that it discussed these with her and how it could help vary service to minimise the impact on these. This would have been expected before planned works in February and March 2020, as well as before the works in June 2020 which had to be stopped because of her chemical sensitivity, before which it is not evident that aspects such as the substances to be used were discussed. The landlord said in March 2020 correspondence to the resident that it had verbally offered to decant her – something she disputes – and it would have been resolution focused to re-offer this in writing to clearly show she had that option, rather than highlight this was something she had refused.
The landlord also comes across as unnecessarily sceptical about the flooring being sticky and a risk, when the local authority’s correspondence confirms they identified risks which caused them concern and which they asked action to be taken about, even if not within a formal improvement letter. There was not a satisfactory explanation about why a contractor did not re-attend in February 2020 and why the resident was informed that month’s works were cancelled, as the previous day’s inspection notes do not remark on any blockers to the works progressing. The landlord is entitled to take action to manage behaviour, but when doing so it should provide very clear examples of behaviour and information about the action it is taking, which it did not satisfactorily do. In addition, even if the landlord withdrew its offer, it still had an obligation to make the flooring safe in line with the local authority’s requirements, which it did not satisfactorily do.
In December 2020, the landlord informed the resident that she is now an assured tenant, but prior to this she will have been caused distress and uncertainty by the landlord’s issuing of a Section 21 notice, and when this was established to be invalid, by the possibility of being issued another one. The issuing and timing of the Section 21 notice was counter to the landlord’s attempts to try to resolve the flooring issue, and it was reasonable for this to have led the resident to evaluate if she should lay her purchased flooring if she had to leave.
The landlord did not provide us with details and dates of specific incidents leading to the Section 21, and it is unclear if they were ever provided to the resident, but the Section 21 does not seem reasonable and proportionate on the available evidence. The landlord could have demonstrated that it made attempts to be more customer friendly and offered explanation and advice for issues such as the returned post, rather than taking the overly heavy handed approach which is evident. The Section 21 was signed by staff who the resident says has provided false accounts. On the available evidence, it is not possible to resolve the conflicting accounts. However, the landlord should demonstrate that such notices are issued as a last resort, after an objective assessment of evidence, and after attempts to understand a tenant’s point of view. As noted above, the landlord is entitled to take action to manage behaviour, but it should also recognise it has its own role to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship by acknowledging and trying to resolve any of its own actions that may risk impacting this.
The landlord disputed the Section 21 was in retaliation to the resident’s complaints, as it was served in March 2020 before the formal complaint in May 2020, which seems overly literal. It could have done more to avoid the impression that the Section 21 was out of retaliation for the issues the resident raised, including the flooring, before this was issued. The landlord should have a formal policy in place for this process to ensure and demonstrate that it handles such issues fairly. The information provided suggests that the resident’s health conditions may cause some behaviours, and the landlord could be more mindful of Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, which says that a disabled person may be being discriminated against if they are treated unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of their disability, and if it cannot be shown that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The landlord did not have sufficient regard of the resident’s human rights in relation to adequate housing.
The resident says that her foot injury required hospital admission, six months of physio, multiple X-rays and investigation of whether she had fractured her foot, and she provides medical records that confirm that:
1. on 20 December 2019, she went to hospital for an injury from catching her foot in her wheelchair;
2. on 22 December 2019, she was admitted to hospital for a soft tissue / inversion injury to her ankle, which on examination had swelling and a decreased range of movement.
3. in January 2020, she was referred for physiotherapy;
4. in February 2020, physiotherapists noted concern that after seeing her on three occasions, her foot remained very painful and hypersensitive; it had reduced movement; and it was developing signs of CRPS, a condition where persistent severe and debilitating pain is experienced and often triggered by an injury.
5. In February 2020, she was examined by a foot consultant who found there was some swelling but there was no specific point of tenderness; a range of motion could be encouraged in the ankle; the mid foot was pain free; and X-rays showed normal bone alignment and no bone injuries or fractures. It was accepted that she had discomfort in her lower limb, but it was believed that this would benefit from carrying on with the physiotherapy.
6. In October 2021 and October 2022, she saw doctors and continued to report foot and leg pain.
It is not in our authority or expertise to make decisions about personal injury or their cause, which we informed the resident of in November 2021 and August 2022. It is noted that the landlord’s insurers rejected an injury claim, and avenues for pursuing the claim may be limited, as there are time limitations to take a claim to court. This may have been impacted if the insurers were not provided the November 2019 emails about the flooring being extremely sticky before the resident moved in. It is reasonably evident that, while there seem to have been no fractures, the resident suffered a foot injury that caused her some degree of pain and discomfort, which will have impacted her more than other people given her age and immobility. In not demonstrating that it took sufficient care in respect to the identified extremely sticky flooring when letting the property, the landlord does not demonstrate that it did enough to appropriately minimise the risk of injury when the resident moved in, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion is not satisfactory.
In summary, the landlord does not demonstrate that it took all appropriate steps to investigate the flooring complaint. The landlord supplies new evidence that shows the flooring was “extremely sticky” before the resident moved in, contrary to what it previously maintained, meaning subsequent events would have been expected to be handled differently. The landlord could have done more to avoid the impression that a Section 21 it issued was out of retaliation for the issues the resident raised, including the flooring. The resident suffered a foot injury, and in not demonstrating that it took sufficient care when letting the property, the landlord does not demonstrate that it did enough on its part to appropriately minimise the risk of injury.
We have therefore made a finding of severe maladministration and order the landlord to apologise to the resident; reimburse her for the flooring she paid; pay a contribution toward her additional removals and storage expenditure from December 2019, which would not have been incurred if matters had been handled more appropriately; and to compensate her for her distress and inconvenience. This includes a contribution to reflect that she did not have full use of a bedroom and ensuite for a period, due to storing rolls of flooring and unpacked boxes in them.
The information provided shows the resident seeks reimbursement for all her removals and storage expenditure, however it is not considered reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse these in full as some of these expenses will have been incurred as part of her move anyway. The resident also seeks reimbursement for the cost of an MRI scan in March 2020, however the necessity for this scan is not clear on the information available, and as noted above it is not in our authority or expertise to make decisions about personal injury or their cause. The Ombudsman does however make an order for the landlord to take steps to consider, with its insurer, whether it should pay the resident an additional amount.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the heating

The landlord’s response shows the boiler was inspected before the resident moved into the property; its staff showed her how to use the system when she viewed it; and the heating worked at that point and was left working on other occasions it attended. It also noted that it changed the boiler controls to make it easier for the resident to understand and agreed to move the thermostat. The evidence confirms that the boiler and heating were found to be working when the landlord gas safety record was carried out in November 2019, and a review of the repairs records shows that in the previous twelve months, no issues were reported with the heating. On the available evidence it would not be reasonable to conclude the landlord was at fault for the resident being without heating over Christmas and New Year, as after an operative attended on 23 December 2019 she did not report the issue directly to the landlord until 3 January 2020. However, it is not always evident that the response to the resident’s reports were satisfactory.
The landlord’s July 2020 reply to the resident disputed it had received concerns about heating from the local authority, and it disputed there being any issues. This was not satisfactory, given that it received concerns from the local authority in January 2020, and received them again three weeks after the July 2020 response. The landlord has repeatedly ignored or denied the local authority’s reports in its responses, which shows a lack of internal communication and poor investigation. The evidence shows that by July 2020, a number of repairs had been raised, for which records from January 2020 are not always clear about the actions being taken and the status of the heating.
It is unclear that the resident had heating from 3 January 2020, when she was left heaters, to 16 January 2020, when the local authority could not get the heating working and the landlord attended. There is a gap from around 16 January 2020, when operatives attended and reported that a thermostat needed wiring, to 4 February 2020, when a repair to fit thermostats was raised; which shows there was a two week delay raising a follow-on repair. There is then a further gap from 4 February to around 28 February or 3 March 2020, when this was completed. These suggest that the heating controls may not have been fully operational for periods, and that the resident may have had limited heating. The landlord should demonstrate that it took a more customer focused and proactive approach and made attempts to visit and assess the issue directly to understand this for itself, particularly once the issue became a complaint. It is not satisfactory that it took further contact from the local authority in July 2020 for a full system check to be arranged.
The evidence also shows the heating system was complicated, and the resident was not alone in finding this. Her account says that she spoke to a gas engineer who acknowledged it was complicated and confirmed other flats were the same. Her personal assistant’s statement says that in December 2019, they were unable to get it working despite trying to follow instructions. The local authority noted in January 2020 that they could not get the heating working and that the controls did not appear to activate the boiler; and noted in July 2020 that the programmable controls in the hall, kitchen and bedroom appeared defective and made the system complicated and inconvenient to use. The landlord’s contractors attended on a number of occasions, however it is not satisfactory that it is not evident until February and April 2021 that the resident was being provided more than cursory guidance on how to use the heating, when she was told not to shut the door where the thermostat was located, and was provided further sessions and operating instructions. The landlord should have acted much sooner.
In summary, while the landlord’s contractors attended following the resident’s reports about the heating in a timely manner, and it is not evident that it was non-functional, evidence such as the local authority’s involvement shows there were some issues with the heating and the controls. The landlord should have demonstrated that it took a more customer focused and proactive approach and made attempts to visit and assess the heating issue directly to understand the resident’s concerns for itself, particularly once the issue became a complaint. We therefore find service failure and order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the door entry system

The landlord’s response that no faults were found with the door entry system and that this was left fully operational on every visit does not seem accurate from the repairs records. In December 2019, ten days after the resident moved in, it was identified that she had not been issued a key fob and there was also a broken cable which affected entry. In March 2020, there were issues closing and securing the door and issues with a door code. In April 2020, it was identified that the door code was not activating the automatic door and repairs had to be carried out to ensure that the code and intercom always activated the door. It is therefore clear there were some issues with the door entry system.
The landlord responded in a timely manner to evidenced reports about the issue; its own staff appropriately assessed the issue in March 2020; and it is not evident that the resident has never been unable to access or exit the property. The resident says that the repair on 20 March 2020 was not carried out and was raised to the wrong contractors, but the evidence indicates this was the first of two repairs that were raised at the same time, and the second repair carried out in April 2021 was the repair the resident thought the March 2020 one was for.
However, it is not reasonable that the resident experienced issues with the door early on. The landlord should have issued the tenant with all relevant access keys such as fobs at the start of her tenancy. That did not happen. The broken cable in December 2019 and the repairs in April 2020 suggest previous attendances did not leave the door entry system fully operational. Bearing in mind that a wheelchair–using tenant will be particularly reliant on the automatic door entry system, it is likely that any issues that affected its smooth running will have had a negative impact even if entry to and from the property was not technically prevented. This was service failure. We order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident to reflect the impact this had on her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the electrics comprising the oven and hob, external lights, and extractor fans

There is no clear evidence to show any failing on the part of the landlord. The electrics test shows that the electrics were found to be in working order at the start of the tenancy. The tripping of electrics after lack of use of the oven for many months does not clearly evidence an electrics fault when the resident moved in. The landlord may have verbally promised to replace the oven and hob, however in written responses it has said that the resident has the option to purchase new ones. This is consistent with the landlord not being obligated in the tenancy agreement or elsewhere to provide or maintain an oven and hob. Its response was therefore overall reasonable, and it went beyond its obligations when replacing the oven in August 2021.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised repairs for external lights in December 2019, which were recorded completed the following month. While the resident says she continued to make verbal reports about external lights at the landlord’s visits, it is not evident that she did, and there is no evidence that she reported the issue via other channels. There is no evidence to identify any failing on the part of the landlord for this issue.
The resident raised issues with the extractor fans, which it is not evident were raised previously, and the landlord responded appropriately by raising repairs for this issue to be looked into. There is no evidence to identify any failing on the part of the landlord for this issue.
We therefore make a finding of no maladministration for these issues.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Our guidance on jurisdiction and insurance claims at the time of the complaint recognised there were separate procedures for legal proceedings and insurance claims, and Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.” This can mean that we may not investigate complaints which involve legal proceedings.
However, the guidance says that proceedings did not become ‘legal’ until a letter of claim was received. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court. The guidance at the time of the complaint also said a landlord should respond to insurance-related complaints, including dissatisfaction with an insurer’s decision, to establish if there has been any service failure; if actions or inactions have caused distress to a complainant; and if compensation is appropriate. The landlord does not demonstrate that it handled matters reasonably in accordance with approaches the Ombudsman had set out in January 2020 and by the time the complaint was received.
The resident wrote to the landlord in February 2020 to detail her concerns about the property condition and issues in respect to her injury, flooring, heating, door, lighting and cooker. This was an expression of dissatisfaction for which it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider raising a complaint before it did so in April 2020.
The landlord referred matters to its solicitor around May and December 2020, however it is not evident that the landlord’s solicitor issued substantive responses at any point. The landlord set out a position in July 2020, however it is not clear why this was not presented as a formal complaint response and why it refused to handle issues under its complaints procedure. The Section 21 was established to be invalid in March 2020, while the personal injury claim was rejected in June 2020, both before the July 2020 response. Given that the April 2021 response repurposed the July 2020 response, the nine months it took for the resident to receive a further response was unnecessary and inappropriate.
The landlord seems to have refused to escalate the matter from August 2020 because this was requested by the resident’s solicitor. The landlord seems to have equated the resident’s representation by a solicitor to legal proceedings, which is not reasonable. The landlord should have been more mindful that the solicitor clearly stated they were attempting to progress the complaint under the complaint procedure, and more mindful that its policies allow complainants to be represented by a third party. If the third party that a resident chooses happens to be a solicitor, this should not in itself exclude matters from being responded to as a complaint.
The landlord’s serving of the Section 21 notice justified the resident’s seeking of legal support to assist with her complaint, and she has paid her solicitor almost £3,000 to continue to assist with the complaint after her legal aid ran out, as she felt vulnerable and intimidated and unable to handle matters on her own. The landlord’s actions and delays will have therefore caused some expense which may have not been necessary, although it is not evident that legal support was necessary to help progress the complaint throughout the entire course of events.
The case had some complexity, however it was not reasonable that the landlord declined to respond to or escalate the complaint for a lengthy period. The courts encourage parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution, which a landlord’s complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service are seen as part of. The landlord following its formal complaints procedure can be beneficial to disputes between parties as this can offer a structure for how matters are handled; a channel for effective communication; and a means of trying to bring closure to a case in the form of a comprehensive complaint response that addresses a resident’s concerns and sets out a position.
The landlord’s responses did seek to address the issues raised, and correspondence from the final response investigation shows it was trying to do so in a considered way. However, as indicated previously, the responses lacked sufficient investigation of certain aspects, such as whether contractors observed any issues with the flooring, or whether evidence showed the Section 21 was proportionate, and there seems an overreliance on the accounts of a limited number of individuals. The lack of more effective contemporaneous investigation has contributed to how protracted resolution has become for the resident, and more timely escalation closer to events are likely to have benefited the investigation.
Overall, the resident went to significant time and trouble to progress the complaint. This will have caused additional frustration, distress, inconvenience and expense to the resident; led her to feel issues raised were unresolved; and undermined her confidence in the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged and compensated for some of its handling, this will not sufficiently reflect the time, trouble and expense that the resident has gone to. The landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the issues, and the evidence showing issues with the flooring before the resident moved in, significantly undermines whether an appropriate conclusion and resolution was reached in the final response. We therefore make a finding of severe maladministration, and to order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for its complaint handling; her time and trouble pursuing the complaint; and to contribute towards the £2,945.70 that she has paid to her solicitor to progress the complaint, given the landlord’s serving of the Section 21 notice justified her seeking of legal support to assist with her complaint.
The resident seeks reimbursement of over £600 for a range of expenditure related to her complaint such as postage and ink cartridges. It is not reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse all the costs the resident seeks, as it is not evident that all of these such as ink cartridges will have been used on the complaint. Neither is it reasonable to reimburse the entire £2,945.70 in legal fees, given it is not evident that legal support was necessary to help progress the complaint throughout the entire course of events. However, the resident went to additional time and trouble to pursue her complaint and the contribution ordered is intended to reflect this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the signup process.
2. severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the flooring at the start of the tenancy.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the heating.
4. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the door entry system.
5. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the electrics comprising the oven and hob, external lights, and extractor fans.
6. severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord could have shown more care to the resident in the signup process, there is no evidence that it pressured the resident into signing the tenancy; she had the option to choose not to do so if she felt she needed more time to decide; and it was ultimately her choice that she did so.
The landlord does not demonstrate that it took all appropriate steps to investigate the flooring complaint. The landlord supplies new evidence which shows that the flooring was “extremely sticky” before the resident moved in, contrary to what it has always maintained, meaning subsequent events would have been expected to be handled differently. The landlord could have done more to avoid the impression that a Section 21 it issued was out of retaliation for the issues the resident raised, including the flooring. The resident suffered a foot injury, and in not demonstrating that it took sufficient care when letting the property, the landlord does not demonstrate that it did enough to appropriately minimise the risk of injury.
The landlord’s contractors responded to the resident’s reports about the heating in a timely manner, and it is not clearly evident that this was non-functional. However, the landlord should have demonstrated that it took a more customer focused and proactive approach and made attempts to visit and assess the heating issue directly to understand the resident’s concerns for itself, particularly once the issue became a complaint.
The landlord’s response that no faults were found with the door entry system does not seem accurate from the repairs records, and it was not reasonable that the resident experienced issues with the door early on. It would be expected for a tenant to be issued with all relevant access keys such as fobs at the start of the tenancy, which the resident was not, and some attendances did not leave the door entry system as fully operational as it could have been. Bearing in mind that a wheelchair–using tenant will be particularly reliant on the automatic door entry system, any issues that affected its smooth running will have had a negative impact even if entry to and from the property was not technically prevented.
The landlord was not obligated to provide or maintain an oven and hob and it went beyond its obligations when reportedly replacing the oven in August 2021. There is no evidence to identify any failing for external lights, and there is limited evidence that these were reported via the landlord’s formal repairs reporting channels. There is no clear evidence to identify any failing for extractor fans and it is not evident these were raised previously.
The landlord handled matters out of line with guidance for cases involving legal proceedings and insurance claims, delayed unreasonably in progressing the case through its complaints procedure, and failed to appropriately investigate some of the issues raised such as the flooring. This and the new evidence showing issues with the flooring before the resident moved in significantly undermines whether an appropriate conclusion and resolution was reached in the final response, which is not appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident for the issues identified in this report, in line with the approach encouraged in our guidance.
The landlord to pay the resident £5,687.78 compensation. This comprises:
1. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the flooring issue.
2. £1,631.78 in reimbursement of the flooring the resident purchased.
3. £656 in contribution towards the resident’s additional removals and storage expenditure from December 2019.
4. £100 for the issues identified with the handling of the heating.
5. £50 for the issues identified with the handling of the door entry system.
6. £500 for its complaints handling, including the £100 previously offered.
7. £750 in contribution towards the resident’s solicitor fees and additional time, trouble and expenditure pursuing the complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has taken steps in respect to the above within four weeks of this decision.
The landlord to take steps to consider, with its insurer, whether it should pay the resident an additional amount. As part of this, it should liaise with the resident to collect, then return to her, any further medical information she wishes to supply.
The landlord to review learning from the case in respect to reports and complaints it receives. Particularly, it should:
1. review its approach to investigation of, and recordkeeping for, similar allegations about the conditions of properties.
2. review its handling of complaints that involve legal proceedings, solicitor representation, and housing or insurance claims. As part of this it should amend its policy to confirm that third parties may include solicitors if they are representing a customer for a complaint, and review the Ombudsman’s guidance on Housing Conditions Claims and insurance.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with the outcome to the above within six weeks of the decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to review learning from the case in respect to its void and signup procedures. Particularly, it should:
1. review how it should handle circumstances where a customer says they do not want a viewing prior to the signup date, particularly if they are vulnerable.
2. review if these effectively ensure that wheelchair accessible doors are fully functional, and sufficiently ensure that appropriate key fobs are issued to new tenants.
3. consider whether any additional processes need to be introduced to verify the flooring of wheelchair adapted properties is appropriate.
The landlord to review learning from the case in respect to its processes for issuing possessions-related notices such as Section 21s, to ensure these are issued in an appropriately evidence-based way and have appropriate oversight and signoff. This should involve implementation of a formal policy, if it does not have one already, to ensure and demonstrate that it handles such issues fairly.
The landlord to review the Equality Act 2010, including sections 15, 20 and 149, and review its learning and training needs in relation to this.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in respect to the above recommendations within four weeks of this decision.