Unity Housing Association Limited (202127712)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127712

Unity Housing Association Limited

20 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the white goods in their property were faulty when he moved in.

Background

2. The resident is the secure tenant of a one bedroomed flat which he moved into in late October 2019. The move was a transfer arranged because the resident was reporting experiencing bullying and financial abuse whilst residing in a previous property let to him by the landlord.
3. The resident’s previous property contained “white goods” but similar items were already installed in the new property and the resident agreed to leave his items in his old property and accept these items as a gift. He signed a “gifting sheet” confirming acceptance of the items and recognising that the landlord was “not liable for any fault, maintenance or repairs to these items”.
4. In early May 2020, some six months after the move the resident contacted the landlord stating the items had started to break down “months ago” and the landlord advised that this was his responsibility to sort out. No repairs were logged, or repair attendances organised as a result. In July and August 2020 and November 2021 the landlord maintained its position when the resident contacted it further about the issue.
5. On 20 December 2021 the resident complained to the landlord stating he would not have agreed to take the items in place of his own had he known of their condition. He also stated that the situation would not have arisen were it not for the fact he had been suffering with mental health difficulties at the time and he felt that the landlord had taken “advantage of me due to my disability”. The resident stated he had spent £630 buying a new washing machine and cooker; he had also spent £1000 on the items in his previous property. He wanted the landlord to compensate him in the sum of £1700.
6. In its stage one complaint response the landlord stood by its previous position and the resident requested the complaint be escalated. This was on the basis that the landlord had failed to take account of the resident’s severe mental health difficulties at the time. He stated that as a result of the medication he was taking and with the stress of moving home, he did not have the capacity to properly understand what he was agreeing to. Further he stated he would not have accepted the items had he known of their poor state of repair. The landlord responded that the resident had submitted no further evidence to justify a review and it would not undertake one as a result. It offered compensation of £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. He wants the landlord to reimburse him for both the new goods he bought and for the ones he left behind. He claims £1700 in total. The resident accepts he signed the gifting form but maintains he did not understand the consequences of that document.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8. This Service’s Scheme Rules (“the Scheme”) give time limits for when complaints may be considered. This is because as events become historic, it is harder to investigate them effectively. Memories fade and evidence may not be as easy to locate as it was at the outset.
9. In this case the decision to accept the goods at the property was made in around October 2019. Faults were reported to the landlord in May 2020 – but on the basis they had occurred early in the new tenancy. A complaint was not then made about the landlord’s response until December 2021.
10. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme states that: –
    1. “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member [the landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
11. This is not an absolute bar to this Service looking at complaints made after six months because the wording of the rule retains a discretion and allows for “a reasonable period” to be interpreted as amounting to more than six months.
12. In this case, evidence has been received from the resident’s GP which states that in October 2019 he was suffering with a severe mental health condition. The resident reported experiencing difficulty processing information and acting within deadlines. The resident was aware of the landlord’s stance by May 2020 but did not complain for another 19 months after that.
13. The landlord has not stated that the delay made the complaint difficult to investigate. The main events took place over a short period of time and the matter does not have a complicated history. The complaint progressed through the landlord’s internal procedure and was then referred to this Service without any further delays.
14. Given the above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it is fair and reasonable to exercise its discretion to consider this complaint despite the delay that took place.

The resident’s reports that the white goods in their property were faulty when he moved in.

15. There is no dispute that at the time of the move the resident agreed to leave his “white goods” – fridge, freezer, cooker, washing machine – at his old property in exchange for him having the equivalent facilities at his new property. He agrees that he signed a “gifting sheet” in which he acknowledged receipt of a fridge freezer; oven/cooker; and washing machine, along with some carpets, curtains, and blinds at his new location. The document stated, “I accept these as a gift and recognise that (the landlord) are not liable for any fault, maintenance or repairs to these items”. The resident also accepts that the landlord offered to move his items to the new property for him, which offer he turned down.
16. There is no evidence of the resident asking to check the condition of the items or of the landlord doing so. In his complaint the resident stated that the cooker was not safe to use from the outset, that the fridge freezer was leaking water onto the carpet and the washing machine broke the first time he tried to use it. No repair reports/requests were made to the landlord. In any event, it has confirmed that it would have declined to attend on the basis the resident had responsibility for the items. The state of the equipment has not, therefore, been established although the resident reports he received expert advice on the cooker.
17. With the assistance of the CAB the resident has provided this Service with a letter from his GP which confirms that as at October 2019 he was experiencing severe mental health problems and had been hospitalised for a week ending in the day he signed his new tenancy agreement. With the benefit of hindsight, the decision(s) made by the resident at that time about the white goods may not have been in his best interests. Indeed, it has been put forward, on his behalf, that he had impaired capacity to make them when he did.
18. The term “mental capacity” is a legal concept. It refers to whether a person has the ability to make decisions for themselves which are legally binding. This can include whether they can understand, and therefore legitimately sign, legal or other documents. Establishing a lack of capacity in this way involves seeking the opinion of an expert medical/mental health professional. There is no suggestion here that the landlord’s staff are/were qualified to carry out such an assessment and this Service does not have that expertise either. A decision about whether someone had mental capacity to sign a document would ultimately be a decision for the courts.
19. However, this does not mean that the landlord was entitled to disregard any health issues apparent to it at the time when dealing with the resident. The landlord is reasonably required to take its residents’ vulnerabilities into account when dealing with them. It can only do this, however, if it is aware of those vulnerabilities, either because it has been specifically notified of them or because they are reasonably apparent.
20. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, shortly before the move, in late September 2019, the landlord carried out a “Housing Application Assessment” with a pre-printed form being filled in between the resident and its housing officer. Next to the question “Do you experience difficulties with any of the following? Please note that we only need to know about illnesses that may affect your housing and communication needs” a tick (for ‘yes’) had been entered against “Mental ill health”.
21. The landlord might reasonably have been expected to act mindfully when presenting the choices open to the resident about the move at the time and when inviting him to sign the document. It is noted that the resident made no suggestion in his complaint that he was misled as to what the options were – he was given the chance to move his own belongings from his old property – and there is no suggestion that he was pressurised into signing the gifting agreement or that he was misled as to its consequences.
22. Furthermore, the landlord acted reasonably in offering to carry out the move for the resident, suggesting that it recognised that help was needed. It also visited the resident six weeks after the move to check he was settling in (and it is noted that no report of faulty goods was made at that visit).
23. The resident has said that he would not have chosen to keep the white goods at the property had he known the state of the goods. This raises the issue of whether the landlord had any responsibility to advise him to check the items.
24. During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this Service that “it is not our policy to test white goods hence they were not subject to any inspection by (us). (The resident) was not advised to carry out an inspection on them”. The landlord’s Void Policy does not require the landlord to test any appliances that have been left in a property by a previous resident. The landlord was therefore not under any obligation to inspect or test the appliances, or to arrange for the resident to do so.
25. Both the landlord’s Allocation Policy and its Tenancy Management Policy commit it to offering support to tenants identified as needing help to sustain their tenancies. However, in its Housing Application Assessment form for the transfer no support was marked as needed. The resident signed that form to confirm its accuracy. Whilst the landlord was aware the resident had mental health difficulties, there is no evidence to suggest it should have been responsible for protecting the resident’s best interests more closely than it did – for example, by organising an inspection of the white goods or advising the resident to do so.
26. In conclusion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports was reasonable. Whilst the situation has undoubtedly been distressing for the resident, no service failings have been identified. The landlord offered a goodwill gesture of £50. The resident will need to consider whether he wishes to accept the same if he has not already done so.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports that the white goods in their property were faulty when they moved in.

Recommendations

28. The landlord should pay the resident £50 goodwill payment previously offered if it has not already done so.
29. The landlord should consider whether its records concerning the resident’s vulnerabilities need to be updated.