Hightown Housing Association Limited (202121975)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121975

Hightown Housing Association Limited

11 August 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:
1. The concerns raised by the resident about the safety and condition of the property when she moved in via a mutual exchange.
2. The associated complaint

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident by way of a mutual exchange on 16 August 2021.
The property is a 3 bedroom house and the resident lived at the property with her four children from the date of assignment until she moved out on 12 March 2022.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

Under the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property and keeping in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property for space heating, water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity.
The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure explains that mutual exchange is a way for social housing tenants to move home by swapping homes with another social housing tenant. When a mutual exchange takes place by deed of assignment, each party takes on the tenancy of the other, along with all the responsibilities and any outstanding liabilities.
The mutual exchange procedure also confirms that a property is inspected before the mutual exchange takes place and that the landlord’s inspector must ensure that any additional fittings or alterations are recorded, and any potentially problematic alterations are removed. The procedure further states that if any work has been done to the property that may cause a health and safety risk, this must be rectified by the outgoing tenant before the exchange can take place, and a follow up inspection must be arranged to ensure the works are complete.
Once an exchange date has been agreed, the landlord must then raise a works order for gas and electric safety checks to be carried out within 5 working days of the assignment date.
The landlord’s website says that it has 3 categories for repairs:
1. Emergency within 24 hours. The landlord’s first priority is any problem that relates to the health, safety or security of its tenants or the building they live in.
2. Urgent within 3 working days.
3. Routine within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process, which is preceded by an early resolution step. The early resolution step is an informal stage, and the landlord will respond at this stage within 10 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 15 working days.

Summary of events

A mutual exchange property inspection was carried out by the landlord on 7 July 2021 in readiness for the mutual exchange. A follow up inspection took place on 13 July 2021. There were no significant issues highlighted during the inspection. The resident signed a disclaimer on 22 July 2021 that stated she agreed to the mutual exchange and would be responsible for any appliances and/or fixtures and fittings that were left in the property. She further agreed to take full responsibility for any damage to the property that may have been caused by the former tenant. She also acknowledged that any other items left in the premises would not be removed by the association and would be her responsibility.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord sent the resident the mutual exchange documents and explained that the sign up process had been temporarily changed due to the Government guidance in relation to Covid-19. A telephone appointment took place on 11 August 2021 between the landlord and the resident when the terms of the tenancy agreement and other relevant tenancy information was discussed. The mutual exchange took place on 16 August 2021 when the resident attended the landlord’s office to sign the deed of assignment.
On 17 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service due to a leak. An engineer attended and noted that the electrics in the property were potentially hazardous. He told the landlord that the resident was waiting for the completion of an electrical test, and that she would like the test to be carried out as soon as possible due to the concerns about the state of the electrics in the property.
A gas safety inspection and boiler service were carried out at the resident’s property on 31 August 2021. An electrical test was carried out at the property on 6 September 2021. The results of the test were unsatisfactory and remedial work was identified to bring the electrics back to an acceptable standard.
On 8 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and raised a complaint about the amount of time she had taken off work to allow access for electrical works to be carried out, and the further outstanding repairs needed, which would require further access.
On 12 September 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord to add the following elements to her complaint:
1. The property was not suitable for her family’s needs.
2. The landlord had allowed her to move into a property that was abused for 15 years by the previous tenant.
3. The previous tenant was abusive and a drug user and did not allow access, and the landlord knew this.
4. The landlord’s inspector was negligent and missed obvious defects during the property inspection, such as missing doors.
5. There were no smoke alarms in her property.
The local councillor sent the landlord an email on 13 September 2021 to ask what was being done to help the resident.
The landlord sent the resident an early resolution stage complaint response on 16 September 2021. It said:
1. The resident’s mutual exchange application was processed in accordance with its mutual exchange procedure, and a visual property inspection was carried out on 7 July 2021, which did not identify the issues with the electrical installations in the property.
2. After the resident moved in, an electrical fixed wire inspection was carried out to check the installation. This check found that repair works were required that could not have been identified during the property inspection. In addition, damage had occurred to the property after the property inspection had been carried out, including damage to light pendants and the removal of the smoke alarm unit. The resident had requested that the issues were resolved as soon as possible and it was keen to work with her to do this.
3. It had received quotes for the electrical works and the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment to carry out the works. It appreciated that allowing access for the works/assessments may have caused inconvenience, and could cause further inconvenience, for which it apologised. It had asked the contractor to ensure that any disruption was kept to a minimum. The landlord would contact the resident to discuss the query relating to the doors within the property.
4. Due to data protection laws, it was unable to comment on the former tenant. The assessment of the mutual exchange application found that the property did meet the needs of the family. It was only able to refuse to proceed with a mutual exchange on grounds set out in legislation, and it found the resident to be eligible for the exchange she requested.
5. When considering a mutual exchange, it advised applicants to view the property and consider whether it was the right move for them. It explained that the property was accepted as seen and that responsibility for any appliances and/or fixtures, along with any damage and items left by the previous tenant, passed to the incoming tenant on completion of the exchange. Unfortunately, the outgoing tenant caused damage to the property, and left it in a poor state of cleanliness.
6. Moving into a new home should be a positive experience and it was sorry that this had not been the case. The mutual exchange process came with certain risks regarding the condition of the property and it had done its best to raise awareness of this throughout the process.
7. It had reviewed the mutual exchange documentation and felt that it had identified the risks associated with a mutual exchange, as it clearly stated, “The other tenant’s responsibilities will usually become yours when you exchange tenancies, therefore check for any damage/alteration that may be passed to you.”
8. It noted that the resident intended the move to be a short term solution due to issues with her previous neighbours and her previous landlord. It was sorry that the resident felt the property was not suitable, and it noted that she had registered for a further mutual exchange.
9. It was unable to accommodate the resident’s request to transfer to a neighbouring property as the current property met her housing need and it was progressing with the required repair works. It let its properties via the local authority to people on the housing register and was not able to offer a direct let of the vacant property.
10. It had not found a failure to meet its service standards.
The resident responded to the landlord on 16 September 2021 and requested that it escalate her complaint as she was unhappy with its response. She said the landlord had failed to provide smoke alarms. The electrics had been altered by the previous tenant, despite not being qualified to do so, and the family had been left with dangerous electrics since 17 August. She said she had to chase the landlord to do gas/electric safety checks and the property still had fire damage from when it was set on fire. The landlord had failed to maintain the alleyway to access the back garden to enable the resident to pay to dispose of the previous tenant’s rubbish, and there were rats in the garden. The surveyor missed a huge hole in the back wall and failed to notice two missing doors, a fake door, a leaking tap, a tap that had no water and the damaged light fittings, which were covered with lampshades. The surveyor also failed to notice a missing back garden gate, a hole in the bedroom wall, and double socket electrics hanging out of the wall because they were glued in.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 16 September 2021. She asked to see the long term repair and maintenance history. She also queried why the landlord had asked her to sign to say that she would allow access for gas/electric checks within 3 days of the start of her tenancy, but then she had to chase it to complete the checks. She also said that the surveyor had missed the previous tenant’s dangerous shower installation, which had to be disconnected, and there was hardly any insulation in the loft.
The landlord sent an email to its electrical contractor on 16 September 2021. It asked the contractor to contact the resident to book an appointment to complete the outstanding remedial works.
The landlord sent the resident a formal stage one complaint acknowledgement on 17 September 2021.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 September 2021. She said that she wanted to ensure the following issues were also considered:
1. Poor customer service.
2. The surveyor failed to notice a glued in double plug socket hanging out of the wall; an unsafe shower; the lack of insulation; and the unsupported kitchen worktop.
3. The house had not been a void for some time and would benefit from being a void. She had no desire to take on a project house and had the surveyor flagged the disrepair, she would not have taken the house.
4. The amount of time she would have to take off work to make the house safe was unacceptable. She could not afford to do this. A move to the empty neighbouring house would resolve her issues.
5. The outgoing tenant had failed to remove her rubbish, clear the loft and fill in holes and smooth them over. The landlord was not pursuing this.
The landlord’s electrical contractor attended the resident’s property on 18 September 2021 to install smoke detectors. Whilst the contractor was on site, the resident received an electric shock from a live wire that was hanging down from behind a kitchen cupboard. The contractor made the wire safe and the resident reported the incident to the landlord.
The landlord’s contractor sent the landlord an email on 20 September 2021, following the visit to the resident’s property on 18 September 2021. He noted the following:
1. He installed a smoke detector on the first floor landing but there was no supply for a downstairs hallway smoke detector so he installed a detector which could run on its internal battery until it could be wired up on 30 September 2021. The property also needed a multi sensor to the lounge and carbon/heat to the kitchen. There was a battery carbon monoxide detector, so he felt the resident was adequately protected from smoke/carbon monoxide.
2. The resident had showed him various items and while doing so she put her hand under a kitchen cupboard to point out some wires and received an electric shock. He tested the wires and he found them to be to be live. He confirmed that he had made the cables safe and tucked them back up behind the cupboard. On his return, he would remove the cupboard, dispose of it as it was falling to pieces, and reinstate the light switch.
3. A blanked off tumble dryer switch; a heat damaged twin socket; socket in downstairs cupboard wired in undersize flex; and doorbell push missing with exposed low voltage cables.
4. The electrical certificate stated the RCD failed trip times but on checking the result page it had passed the test. He checked and found the RCD was fine and worked correctly on the test button.
An internal email dated 20 September 2021 stated that the surveyor was certain that the smoke detectors were in place during the initial mutual exchange inspection and that only one door was missing. The surveyor said that a further follow up inspection had been completed, and he noted that the door had been reinstated. The surveyor also confirmed that he did not recall seeing any fire damage to the property during the inspection. He did not recall noticing the missing back gate; however, he did not check the alleyway at the side of the property as part of his inspection. The large hole at the back of the property was presumed to have been the vent for the tumble dryer, which had since been moved by the former tenant. The landlord said that it would check the level of insulation and look at the unsupported kitchen worktop once it had arranged a suitable date and time with the resident.
The landlord sent the local councillor a response on 20 September 2021. It said it had responded to the resident and her complaint was being investigated. It confirmed that one of its approved electrical contractors had visited the resident on 18 September 2021 to rectify some of the issues and follow up works had been identified and scheduled in for 30 September 2021. It was also hoping to complete a further property inspection on the same day to minimise further disruption. Upon conclusion of the investigation, it would provide an update as to the outcome.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord sent the resident a stage one formal complaint response. It said:
1. It was sorry that the condition of the property was not to the expected standard.
2. Whilst it arranged visual property inspections before a mutual exchange took place and tried to capture everything that needed to be rectified prior to the exchange occurring, it was not always possible to see all the faults, for example if furniture or equipment was in the way. It understood that two inspections of the property occurred prior to the exchange going ahead, however something had obviously happened either in between the inspections and the resident moving into the property, or with the surveyor not noticing certain things.
3. It had been informed that on the second inspection there were doors fitted to the property but the resident’s complaint suggested otherwise.
4. The hole in the wall would seem to be from where the tumble dryer was removed and vented to the outside, and there were clearly electrical faults which should have been addressed by the electricians that carried out the test of the property. It was aware that its contractors had made the electrical installation safe and had also fitted smoke detectors in the property until the remainder of the electrical works could be completed.
5. It had asked the property services supervisor to carry out a full inspection of the property, and any works identified would be completed. It appreciated that this would involve more of the resident’s time to provide access and therefore it would try to accommodate her needs when undertaking the inspection. It requested details of the resident’s availability to arrange the inspection.
6. It wanted to ensure that the resident had a safe home and it was sorry that the mutual exchange procedures had not been effective in her situation. It said that it was reviewing its processes to try to ensure that these types of incidents did not occur in the future and that the testing required following the exchange occurred within the timescales given.
7. It apologised that the resident had to chase for the testing to be completed. It noted that the tests did not occur within the appropriate timescales, which would be discussed with the contractor concerned, as would the quality of the electrical test carried out.It relied on its appropriately qualified contractors to carry out the testing in accordance with the relevant standards.
8. An inspection carried out in 2015 showed there to be approximately 200mm of insulation in the loft space, however it was possible that the insulation had become compressed over time. It would ask the inspector to review the amount of insulation in the loft space during the property inspection.
9. It understood that the resident had not been happy with the customer service provided so far. It would endeavour to provide the resident with a better level of service moving forwards.
10. It could not offer the void neighbouring property to the resident as it had already been offered and accepted by another tenant.
11. In summary, it would like to carry out a full property inspection and it understood that it would need to accommodate the resident’s working day when completing the inspection and any follow on works to bring the condition of the property back to a suitable standard.
The resident responded on 20 September 2021 and requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two, as she felt that the response had not adequately dealt with all aspects of her complaint, particularly in relation to the time she had taken off work.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the same day. It also said that if the time of the property inspection arranged for the 21 September 2021 was not convenient, it would try to rearrange it to a more convenient time. It offered a 5:00pm or 5.30pm appointment and said that it understood how inconvenient it was to allow access but this was needed to resolve the issues.
The resident responded – she said that it was not inconvenient, it was impossible when working in a different area, parenting four children alone, doing school runs in other areas, sorting out new schools for her children, dealing with sick children, trying to unpack and move into the property, and sending countless emails to the landlord. She said that she was struggling and finding it difficult to cope. She said that she had agreed to the 1:00pm visit on 21 September 2021, then the landlord had offered to tie it in with the electrical work, which would work better for her, but she was not sure when that appointment was taking place.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it empathised with her situation. It said that 3 bedroom houses did not come up very often and it only had limited numbers within its stock in her current area. However, it had a void 3 bedroom property in the area that she had just moved from, and it was in very good condition. The landlord said that if she was interested, it would arrange a viewing for her.
The resident replied on the same day. She said that, although it was an extremely favourable offer, she was not sure what to do as she had just moved three of her children to a local school and the daily commute would be very difficult. She said that she just needed a stable and safe home for her children who had lived in countless houses and attended countless schools. The resident said that she was very grateful for the offer and thanked the landlord. The landlord responded and told the resident to take a few days to think it over, and then let it know what she wanted to do.
The resident sent a further response; she said it was the best opportunity and she was very grateful, however realistically and practically she could not commute for the next 5 to 7 years. She said that she was sorry, but she could not take the property.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord contacted the contractor that had carried out the initial electrical safety check at the resident’s property. It said that one of its approved contractors had attended the property on 18 September 2021 to complete some quoted works, and that during their inspection they had found a number of concerns, including live exposed wires.
The contractor responded on the same day and said:
1. They had been told that the live cables in question were behind a dishwasher, which they would not have seen. All live cables that were found had been made safe and any unsafe cables had been removed.
2. They were going to replace the blank with a new socket on the day but they had not been allowed. All the inspected sockets were not heat damaged; however, they were limited as to what they could see due to the belongings in the property as the resident had just moved in.
3. The undersized cable was not connected on their visit and they told the resident that it was undersized.
4. The doorbell was switched off at the consumer unit and removed from the circuit breaker.
5. The resident made it very clear that her friend was an electrician and they would be doing works in the house and putting things how and where she wanted them. They advised the resident that she would need permission from the landlord before doing any work.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2021 as it had been informed that the electrical contractor was unable to attend on 30 September 2021 due to her child having chicken pox. It said that it was sorry to hear this and it was sorry that the electrician was unable to attend as scheduled. It said that the contractor had no other operatives who could attend in his place. However, the landlord’s inspectors would still be attending at 9:00am, which meant that a further appointment would be required the following week to carry out the remaining electrical work. The landlord said it would be happy to postpone the property inspection to coincide with the electrical appointment, but it understood if the resident still wanted the property inspection to go ahead as scheduled.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that her child was not contagious as he had had chicken pox for 3 weeks. She said that she was very annoyed that they would not come out as she had booked the day off work for the works to be carried out. She said that she was going to lose her job. She confirmed that she would see the landlord’s surveyors the following day as expected.
The property inspection took place on 30 September 2021. The surveyor’s report took into account the resident’s concerns and although some of the issues were deemed to be her responsibility, the landlord confirmed the required remedial repairs as:
1. Inspect living room light as not working.
2. Work to section of wall where doorbell system was housed.
3. Install panel or leg to worktop.
4. New trickle ventabove kitchen window.
5. Small hole under decking to be filled.
6. Loft insulation to be moved around to cover gaps.
7. Plinths to be attached below kitchen units.
8. Resident to clear items then follow up inspection required to garden gate and alley way.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 October 2021. The email confirmed the appointment with the electrical contractors on 9 October 2021 to complete the remaining electrical work. The email also confirmed that the works identified during the property inspection could be completed on the same day by another contractor to avoid further disruption.
The resident responded on the same day; she was unhappy with the landlord’s email. She said that she did not want to live on a building site and the landlord knew that she wanted a quick “turn around house”. The landlord responded and said that it was sorry that the resident remained unhappy with its response to her concerns. It asked the resident for an alternative, more convenient date.
The resident sent a further response to the landlord. She requested that it help her to find a void property to move to or help her to exchange. She said that the proposed repairs did not help the house, she was tired of being ignored and the landlord had been given access previously to complete the repairs.
On 7 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as the electrician had refused to attend her property as the resident’s child had chicken pox. She told the landlord that the contractor wanted to rebook the appointment for the end of November but she could not offer a confirmed date due to work and other life commitments.
The landlord responded to the resident on 8 October 2021. It said:
1. It had spoken to the contractor who stated that when the resident had contacted him that week, she had advised that her son still had chicken pox. From the resident’s email and the conversations with its contractor, it appeared that there had been some miscommunication.
2. When the resident spoke to the contractor and advised of no change from 3 weeks ago, the contractor interpreted this as the child was still ill and infectious, and this was the only reason he sought to rearrange the appointment. If a Saturday appointment was still required, the next available slot was from mid-November onwards.
3. It had greater flexibility for appointments during the week and it had requested that the resident provide the landlord with her preferred times and dates for the remaining works.
4. It reiterated that the resident moved into her new property by way of a mutual exchange. As part of the mutual exchange procedure, she was advised that there would be at least two visits following the sign up to undertake gas and electrical checks and she had agreed to this and had accepted the property in its current condition. The electrical inspection established works were needed and essential electrical work was arranged for Saturday 18 September 2021, with the remaining electrical work scheduled for Saturday 9 October 2021 before the cancellation.
5. It had carried out a property inspection on 21 September 2021 to inspect the areas of concern, and it had proposed to carry out a number of identified works, which the resident had objected to. It proposed that the resident nominate suitable dates and times for the contractor to attend and complete the remaining work.
The resident replied on the same day. She was unhappy with the response and requested that the matter was escalated to a manager. The landlord replied and asked whether the resident would be happy for the content of her recent emails to be addressed in the formal complaint review. The resident agreed.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and asked what outcomes would resolve her complaint. The resident responded and said that she would like the landlord to take the house back as a void as it needed stripping back, investigating and repairing due to it being used to grow drugs. She said that she wanted the landlord to move her to the neighbouring void property or another local void property, and if this was not possible, provide a list of repairs that could be offered to a new tenant upon exchange.
The landlord sent the resident a stage two final complaint response on 15 October 2021. It said:
1. The condition of the property was not that of a standard re-let when she moved in and that it would not let a property directly in such condition. She had been reminded of the difference between a direct let and a mutual exchange and that there was an element of risk with a mutual exchange as the incoming tenant was accepting the property as seen and was taking on the former tenant’s responsibilities. It did sympathise with the resident and it was on standby to complete any outstanding works and other items it had agreed to compete as a gesture of goodwill. All it required was suitable dates from the resident.
2. It had found that the two property inspections undertaken prior to the completion of the mutual exchange were compromised by the amount of belongings in the property. In addition, a number of the property faults identified after the resident moved in were electrical and the landlord’s property inspectors were not qualified to undertake an electrical assessment which was why, after every mutual exchange, it arranged for an electrical safety and gas inspection.
3. It appeared that there was damage to the property between the final property inspection on 13 July 2021 and the resident moving in, including the removal of one of the internal doors, and the removal of a hard-wired smoke alarm. Once the washer/dryer was removed by the previous tenant, it also became apparent that the kitchen worktop required additional support and there was a hole in the kitchen wall where the washer/dryer had been vented.
4. It found that the mutual exchange property inspection form had not been completed in line with its expectations and lacked some details, which had been raised with the property inspector. However, it would not expect them to seek to identify technical electrical faults. The role was to carry out a visual inspection of the building fabric. It agreed that the resident had to take the lead in raising property concerns as it had failed to arrange the electrical safety inspection within 3 days of the resident moving in. It did not raise an inspection request until 25 August 2021, and did not carry out the inspection until 27 August 2021. For this, it apologised and offered compensation of £200 for the failure in its service standards.
5. When the electric inspection was undertaken, the contactor identified that there was no working smoke alarm. It expected its contractor in these instances to replace the hard-wired alarm or if not possible, leave a working battery operated alarm or advise the landlord of the need to provide one. This had not happened and it apologised and made a further offer of compensation of £200 for this failure.
6. It was evident when the resident first moved in that she was not happy with the property. In the resident’s email dated 16 August 2021 she said she did not want to live in the area and she would like to move back to where her support network was. The offer of the property close to the resident’s support network was made solely to assist the resident as the landlord thought this was where she wished to move.
7. It had seen from communications that arranging access to complete works was proving difficult as the resident was working and raising four children, and the landlord’s contractors worked Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm. It understood that this could be difficult and it had sought to combine jobs and visits to minimise the inconvenience and had also asked contractors to work weekends to complete the works. Unfortunately, following the initial electrical safety inspection on 27 August 2021, due to the value of the works identified, the work needed to be tendered and was eventually awarded to a different contractor.
8. Its records showed the following appointments to the resident’s property:
  1. Electrical safety inspection on Friday 27 August 2021.
  2. Gas safety inspection and boiler service on Tuesday 31 August 2021.
  3. Instillation of hard wired smoke alarms, and repair to live wire identified on the visit on Saturday 18 September 2021.
  4. Property inspection to follow upon concerns of disrepair on Thursday 20 September, scheduled to coincide with electrical works.
9. Having reviewed its records, it appreciated that taking time off was difficult and as the resident was new to the area, she did not have support networks that could assist with access when she was not available. It had tried and would continue to work with the resident to identify times that were suitable. As there was less contractor availability on weekends, it was afraid that it may take slightly longer to complete the outstanding works.
10. It was looking to identify an alternative contractor, who would be available on weekends, to complete the electrical work as the previous contractor had declined.
11. It was disappointed to read the different emails regarding access to complete the outstanding electrical works. It could see that it had liaised closely with its electrical contractor to arrange weekend work, which was something that they do not normally do. This had been complicated by one of the resident’s children having chicken pox.
12. From the communications it had reviewed, it did appear that there had been a misunderstanding as to whether the resident’s child continued to be infectious or not, which led to the electrician, scheduled to complete the work on 9 October 2021, not attending. The landlord had fed back on 8 October 2021 information it had received from the electrical contractor. It had therefore found no evidence to suggest that the landlord had lied to the resident or had been deliberately dishonest in any way.
13. As previously advised, the neighbouring void property had already been pre let to a nomination from the local council. Having inspected the resident’s current property and following an electrical safety inspection and associated urgent works, it had found that the property was safe to occupy. Due to nomination agreements with the local authority, it was unable to make a direct offer of an alternative property although it could advise the resident on other options, which could also include a further mutual exchange.
14. In summary, it did understand the disappointment experienced when the resident moved into her new home. Moving to a new home should be a happy experience and it did not dispute that the previous tenant should have left the property in a better condition. There was risk related to mutual exchange, and this was explained as part of the process, as was the need to gain access for safety inspections and any follow up work.
15. It had found that it had sought to accommodate the resident’s appointment requests and it had found no evidence of the landlord deliberately misleading her.
16. It had found that it fell short of its service standards to ensure safety inspections were carried out within 3 days, and the resident had no working smoke alarm in the property. It was unfortunate that it was unable to agree an appointment date to install the hard wired alarms until 18 September 2021 and it should have made arrangements for a battery operated alarm to be provided.
17. It offered its sincerest apologies and offered total compensation of £400 to recognise its failures.
The resident responded on 15 October 2021 and said that the landlord had failed to comprehend how she could not take time off work for the repairs. She said that £200 for ruining their lives was unacceptable.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 October 2021. She said that a referral had been made to social services as she was living in a dangerous ex-drug growing house with four children. As the landlord was aware, she had been electrocuted by hidden wires without so much as an apology from the landlord. That fact had been completely ignored. The resident requested that the landlord explain why it had ignored the fact that she had received an electric shocked with 240v and why it had not given the resident or her local councillor the reports they had requested. The resident also asked to join the management transfer list.
The landlord sent the resident a revised formal response on 18 October 2021 to both the resident and local councillor. It said:
1. It had attached a revised formal response to the resident’s complaint. It had checked its records and found that it had not provided a formal apology for the shock the resident received and it had included this within the revised response. It had also made an additional offer of compensation of £200.
2. In addition, it asked the resident to clarify which reports she was waiting for and it confirmed that it was able to keep the resident on its transfer list, however the turnover of 3 bedroom properties in the area was low. It confirmed that it was unable to share any information in relation to the previous tenants of the resident’s address.
3. It advised the councillor that, should the resident wish to raise her complaint with the Ombudsman, this could be accelerated due to the councillor’s involvement, as she could refer the case directly. It also said that it would be grateful if some dates and times for the completion of the outstanding works could be provided.
The electrics were confirmed by the landlord’s contractors as satisfactory during a final retest on 13 November 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the concerns raised by the resident about the safety and condition of the property when she moved in via a mutual exchange

The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her health, particularly in relation to the electric shock she received on 18 September 2021 from handling live wires in her property. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure says that when a mutual exchange takes place by deed of assignment, each party takes on the tenancy of the other, along with all the responsibilities and any outstanding liabilities. The procedure further says that a property is inspected before the mutual exchange takes place, and if any work has been done to the property that may cause a health and safety risk, this must be rectified by the outgoing tenant before the exchange can take place.
The Ombudsman notes that the mutual exchange inspection is not intended to replicate the voids inspection used by a landlord to ensure that a property is ready to relet following the end of a tenancy by notice, rather than exchange. However, the inspection should still be thorough enough to be able to highlight any areas of concern.
When a tenant moves to a property via mutual exchange, it is a tenant’s responsibility to check that they are happy with the condition of the property. The mutual exchange agreement signed by the resident on 22 July 2021 confirms that the resident accepted the property in the condition it was in at the time of the mutual exchange. The landlord’s inspection of the property did not highlight any concerns that would have caused it to refuse the mutual exchange application.
The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure also says that once an exchange date has been agreed, it must then raise a works order for gas and electric safety checks to be carried out within 5 working days of the assignment date. As the mutual exchange took place on 16 August 2021, the landlord should have completed the safety checks by 23 August 2021.
From the information provided, the landlord did not carry out the gas safety check until 31 August 2021 and the electrical safety check until 6 September 2021, which is unreasonable and a clear failure to comply with its own mutual exchange procedure. From the evidence provided, there were no additional concerns raised in relation to the gas safety check.
It is concerning, however, that the landlord failed to respond to the concerns noted by the engineer that attended the resident’s property on 17 August 2021, following her call to the out of hours service due to a leak. The engineer noted that the electrics were potentially hazardous and told the landlord that the resident was waiting for the electrical test to be carried out. It is unclear from the information provided why the landlord did not act on the concerns raised, however, this was clearly a missed opportunity to make the electrics safe at an earlier point.
Following the ‘unsatisfactory’ outcome of the electrical safety test on 6 September 2021, the landlord would be expected to make safe any immediate concerns as an emergency. This is in line with the landlord’s repairs information provided on its website. It is unclear whether the landlord considered any of the electrical failings to be an immediate risk to the resident and her children, however the evidence provided, and the ‘early resolution’ response, suggests that it did not take any immediate action other than request quotes for the required remedial work from its contractors.
The landlord’s ‘early resolution’ stage response on 16 September 2021 failed to acknowledge its failings in relation to the delay in carrying out the electrical and gas safety checks and failed to acknowledge the potentially unsafe condition of the electrics. The landlord concluded that it had not found a failure to meet its service standards when the evidence shows that it clearly had, which is unreasonable.
From the information provided, the landlord’s inspection process prior to a mutual exchange is insufficient, and although it is a visual inspection only, and is not intended to replicate a voids inspection, there were clear failings in the way it was conducted, and in relation to the quality of the inspection records. The landlord’s email dated 20 September 2021 refers to the surveyor “being certain” that the smoke detectors were in place at the first inspection, and that “he did not recall” seeing any fire damage to the property. The surveyor also confirmed that he had failed to check the alleyway access to the property.
The landlord’s inspection records should be a clear and accurate visual assessment of the state of the property on the date of completion. There should be no uncertainty following the inspection as to whether items such as smoke detectors were in place. If areas of the property could not be inspected for any reason, this should be noted and arrangements made to complete a follow up visit. The landlord’s failure to complete the inspection records satisfactorily contributed to the delays in resolving the issues raised by the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 formal response does acknowledge that the property was not to the expected standard, and the resident had to chase the landlord for the completion of the safety checks. It also acknowledged that there were electrical faults that should have been addressed by the electricians who carried out the safety test. However, the landlord failed to offer any redress.
The stage 1 response does not acknowledge one of the resident’s main concerns, which was the amount of time she had taken off work to allow access to her property. This service notes that the landlord did attempt to arrange inspections and repairs at times convenient to the resident, including making appointments over the weekend. However, it was also aware that the resident worked, had 4 children to care for, and had no local support network to assist her.
Due to the landlord’s failures and delays, the resident was subject to a high volume of visits and inspections over and above what would be expected following a standard mutual exchange – this likely added to the resident’s considerable distress and inconvenience.
The landlord did offer the resident an alternative property in an area that it thought would be suitable for the resident, which was reasonable in the circumstances. It is unfortunate that the resident had already secured school places in her current area prior to the offer being made.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response acknowledged that the pre-mutual exchange inspections were compromised and the property inspection forms lacked detail. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the failure in its service standards. The landlord also apologised and offered a further £200 compensation for the issues relating to the smoke alarms and the safety inspections. This was a total compensation payment of £400, which the landlord later increased to £600, following a revised final response, to include compensation in relation to the electric shock received by the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and by offering compensation in view of its service failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also offered to complete repairs to the property that were considered to be the resident’s responsibility following the mutual exchange.
The landlord’s revised offer of £600 and its apology represented reasonable redress for the identified failings, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaints and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there were identified failings, the landlord attempted to put things right during its revised final review response on 18 October 2021. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the £600 compensation offered if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has 2 formal stages within its complaints process, which is preceded by an ‘early resolution’ stage.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says at paragraph 5.17 that two stage landlord complaint procedures are ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long. If landlords strongly believe a third stage is necessary, they must set out their reasons for this as part of their self-assessment.
The landlord’s self-assessment completed in 2022 says that it complies with Code section 4.1. which states “Any decision to try and resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and a landlord’s audit trail/records should be able to demonstrate this. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt”.
The landlord self-assessment commentary states “Policy confirms that all formal complaints will be acknowledged within three working days. Early resolution step included in complaints policy at the request of the Residents Voice and Scrutiny Panel as they felt that it would encourage people to raise concerns, promote quick resolution of more simple issues, and would be beneficial to those who would be reluctant to go through a formal process”.
However, in this case, the additional stage provided no benefit to the resident during the complaints process and lengthened the overall process unnecessarily, which is likely to have contributed to the resident’s overall distress, frustration and inconvenience. The Code requirement, set out in the self-assessment document, is clear that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages within the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, the landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in the way it handled the concerns raised by the resident about the safety and condition of the property when she moved in via a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s complaint response, following its final review, recognised its failings and apologised to the resident for its handling of the pre-mutual exchange inspections, delays to the gas and electrical safety tests being carried out and follow up remedial repairs, and the electric shock that the resident experienced as a result of the exposed live wires. The overall offer of £600 compensation was fair, reasonable and in line with Housing Ombudsman guidance.
The landlord has failed to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as it has an additional ‘early resolution’ stage within its complaints process. This caused an unnecessary delay to its process in relation to the resolution of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
2. Review its complaints policy and procedure and consider removal of the ‘early resolution’ stage.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £600 compensation it offered on 18 October 2021 if it has not already done so.
2. Review its mutual exchange procedure, if it has not already done so, to improve the quality of its pre-mutual exchange inspection process, to ensure that properties are in a reasonable condition prior to exchange.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.