Birmingham City Council (202111745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111745

Birmingham City Council

4 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 the resident’s:
1. mutual exchange;
2. property repairs;
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The resident became the tenant of the property on 28 June 2021 through a four way mutual exchange. The property is a three bedroom house.
The landlord is a council. For the purposes of this report, the council’s housing directorate is referred to as ‘the landlord’. Any other area of the council is referred to as ‘the local authority’.

Mutual exchange procedure

The landlord’s procedure stated that ahead of a mutual exchange, a property inspection must be undertaken, with an inspection report completed, and photographic evidence collected. It explained that the purpose of the inspection was as follows:
1. To identify tenancy breaches or non-standard items to be put right before the application is approved.
2. To check the structure and repair of the property.
3. To make sure the tenants were aware that they exchange homes in the condition they find them in.
It said that the landlord’s attending officer must advise the existing tenant of any repairs reported on their behalf, and of any actions they must take regarding non-standard items.
It stated that once the existing tenant had completed any agreed actions for non-standard items, the property must be reinspected.
The procedure stated that the landlord was not responsible for anything other than standard repairs, which would be dealt with in line with its normal repair timescales. It said that an electrical inspection must be carried out after the exchange had taken place.

Repairs policy

The landlord’s policy stated that repairs were prioritised as ‘emergency’, ‘urgent’ or ‘routine’, and explained its repair completion timescales as follows:
1. Urgent repairs – targeted to be completed within one, three, or seven working days of being reported, based on the requirements of the Right to Repair regulations.
2. Routine repairs – targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported.

Complaint policy (Customer guide – your views’ procedure)

The landlord’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint described a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. It said that it aimed to provide a fair, consistent, and structured process for dealing with any problems with its services.
The policy stated that it operated a three-stage complaint process. It said that when a complaint was made, it would acknowledge it and provide the resident with a reference number.
It explained that stage one of the process was used where it was able to resolve the issue “on the spot”. It said that where this was not possible, it would go straight to stage two.
The policy said that stage two complaints would be investigated by the relevant service area, and that if the resident remained dissatisfied they could request an escalation to stage three. It stated that written complaint responses were sent to residents within 15 and 20 working days at stage two and three of the process respectively.

Summary of events

On 7 June 2021, the landlord’s contract works officer (CWO) completed an inspection of the property for which the resident had applied to complete a mutual exchange. The CWO report explained that the inspection was limited to what was visible and accessible with the current tenant in occupation. The key findings of the CWO report were as follows:
1. It confirmed that the electrics were subject to a separate inspection.
2. It advised that the current tenant had installed their own non-standard light fittings.
3. It stated that the current tenant should reinstate the original light fittings, or alternatively they would need to form part of the resident’s disclaimer.
4. It asked that it be reiterated to the resident that if the non-standard light fittings remained, they may need to be changed if they were found to be unsuitable at its subsequent electrical inspection.
5. It identified 11 defects that it said were the landlord’s responsibility.
6. It confirmed that the defects had been passed to its repairs team to raise works for.
7. It summarised that the property was “presented in good repair and decorative order”.
On 10 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to provide a copy of the CWO report, and to advise of the conditional consent it had approved for her proposed four way mutual exchange. The key points of the landlord’s letter were as follows:
1. It highlighted the CWO comments regarding the non-standard light fittings.
2. It advised of the need for standard light fittings to be reinstated by the current tenant, or for the resident to accept responsibility for the non-standard fittings.
3. It explained that if the non-standard light fittings remained, they may need to be changed if they were found to be unsuitable at its subsequent electrical inspection.
4. It asked that the resident discuss this with the current tenant, and advise it of the outcome.
5. It advised that the main conditions of the resident’s mutual exchange were that she move entirely at her own expense, and accept the property in its present condition.
6. It explained that any outstanding repairs that were its responsibility would be completed within its routine maintenance timescales.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord’s record stated that the resident had telephoned it and confirmed that she understood the implications of accepting responsibility for the non-standard light fittings, and would sign a disclaimer.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that a routine priority job was raised for the internal doors in what would become the resident’s property. The record said that a further five jobs were raised the same day, with the status of all five updated to ‘cancelled’ at an unknown date. The landlord also raised a ‘3-day repair’ priority for the bathroom basin taps, which was noted as completed on 23 June 2021.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that a job was raised for the post-exchange electrical inspection of the resident’s property, with a ‘7-day repair’ priority. The record stated that the landlord also raised a routine priority job for door locks, and a ‘3-day repair’ priority for blocked drainage, which it said was completed on 2 July 2021.
On 30 June 2021, the resident emailed a local Councillor. She raised multiple issues with the condition of the property that she had just completed her mutual exchange for. She stated that the property was uninhabitable and as such, she was looking to book a hotel at the landlord’s expense.
On 2 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the condition of her new property. She said that she had completed her mutual exchange into the property on 26 June 2021 on the understanding that the landlord would have completed an inspection and checks. She referred to the landlord’s inspection report, which she described as making no mention of the significant disrepair of her property. The further key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. She described the kitchen as being in a state of “total disrepair” and highlighted several issues with it, including damp and mould.
2. She questioned whether the landlord had even completed an inspection, and queried how it was possible to allow someone to move into a property with such clear issues.
3. She described herself as a single mother whose family had been left in a vulnerable situation by the landlord, that had pushed her severe mental health issues to new heights.
4. She said that the property was uninhabitable, and that her and her children had had to squeeze in with her sister and her family of five.
5. She asked that the property be inspected and repaired as soon as possible.
6. She provided photographs that depicted the issues she had described.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord’s housing officer (HO) replied to the resident. He said that the resident’s email had been passed to the CWO who had inspected the property prior to her mutual exchange. It advised that a number of repairs had been raised prior to the completion of the mutual exchange, and further repairs had been raised since. It listed 13 repairs and advised appointments dates and times for 11 of them, beginning from 7 July 2021.
On 5 July 2021, the resident replied to the HO and stated that his response was unacceptable. The resident said that she wanted to raise a formal complaint. She said that the CWO report had made no reference to damp or mould. She advised that she had arranged for an independent surveyor to attend on 12 July 2021. She said that she was unable to live in the property.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord exchanged internal emails discussing the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s CWO replied providing copies of the 29 photographs taken at his inspection on 27 June 2021. He stated that the photographs showed that the resident’s property was in good order at the time of his inspection. The landlord’s repairs records stated that a plastering job was raised the same day with a routine priority. It also said that two ‘3-day repair’ priority jobs were raised for a faulty power socket and a leaking kitchen pipe, which it stated were both completed on 7 July 2021.
On 7 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding her electrical inspection earlier that day. The resident said that the electrician had advised that that the property needed rewiring due to the wiring being “condemned” in 2019, but that the previous tenant had refused access for the work. She asked why the landlord had allowed her mutual exchange to go ahead, and why she had not received a management response to her previous email.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord’s HO replied to the resident’s email. It confirmed that the landlord had completed an electrical test of her property in 2019, and that it had identified that the wiring was in need of an upgrade. It stated that the electrical installation was not condemned, and nothing dangerous had been identified. It explained that the rewire was not a necessary repair, but rather an improvement to bring the electrical installation up to a modern standard. It confirmed that the previous tenant had refused the works. It explained that electrical safety checks are carried out after mutual exchanges are completed. It said that its test that day had revealed the same as in 2019, and as such it had raised a works order for the property to be rewired. The landlord’s repairs record stated that the rewire works were raised that day.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident its complaint response letter. The letter was titled as “Your complaint – mutual exchange”. The key points of the landlord’s letter were as follows:
1. It emphasised the conditions of the resident’s mutual exchange, as advised in its letter to her on 10 June 2021.
2. It described the CWO inspection on 7 June 2021 as non-intrusive, and stated that it was undertaken with the previous tenant in residence.
3. It explained that the inspection was not as thorough as would be the case if the property was vacant. It said that what was visible and accessible would be limited by the previous tenant’s belongings.
4. It provided copies of the photographs taken at the CWO inspection
5. It stated that the inspection had identified a number of repairs that had been raised, and would be dealt with in line with its timescales. It repeated the list of 13 repairs the HO had provided the resident on 5 July 2021, 11 of which were appointed.
6. It advised that as these repairs had already been identified and raised, a further inspection of the resident’s property was not deemed necessary.
7. It repeated its earlier assurances regarding electrical safety, and its intention to complete a rewire of the property.
8. It advised the resident of her right to escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 9 July 2021, the resident replied to the landlord’s HO email sent on 7 July 2021. She stated that she was confused by the contents of the HO email, as it did not correspond with her understanding of the relevant electrical safety regulations, which she quoted.
On 12 July 2021, the landlord exchanged internal emails regarding the resident’s property. It stated that it was arranging a further inspection with the resident. It advised that although the property was not up to the current electrical standards with regard to the earthing, it was not dangerous as no faults had been discovered on its test. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was at stage two of its process.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord’s internal emails stated that the HO had spoken with the resident, and that she was not happy with the response she had received to her complaint. It said that the resident’s issues mainly concerned the electrical safety of the property, and the damp and mould in the unit under the kitchen sink. It stated that the resident had advised that she would continue living with her sister until the works were completed.
On 14 July 2021, the landlord sent an internal email. The email stated that it had completed an inspection of the resident’s property that day, and that it had identified an additional schedule of repair works that it would undertake. It said that the resident’s primary concerns were security and the kitchen. It stated that it considered the property to be habitable. It advised that it had completed a report of its inspection, the key points of which were as follows:
1. It explained that the previous tenant had only left half a set of keys, but noted that the handing over of keys on a mutual exchange was outside of its remit.
2. It confirmed that the property would be rewired on 20 July 2021.
3. It identified various defects around the property. It detailed the necessary works, and stated which would be recharged to the previous tenant.
4. It included 90 photographs of the resident’s property taken at the inspection.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord sent the resident a second complaint response letter. The landlord’s letter was titled “Your complaint – Electrics”. The letter referred to its complaint response to the resident sent on 7 July 2021, and acknowledged the resident’s request for it to be reviewed, which it said that it had done. The letter restated that it had completed an electrical check of the resident’s property in 2019 and identified that it would benefit from a rewire, but that it presented no danger. It said that it had completed a further electrical check on 7 July 2021, in line with its mutual exchange process. It confirmed that the test had revealed the same, and that a rewire of the property would be completed that financial year. It referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord compiled an internal record of events to date related to the resident’s mutual exchange and complaint. The key points of the record were as follows:
1. It provided a chronology of events since the resident’s mutual exchange had been approved.
2. It stated that its HO had contacted the resident to discuss her returning to her property. It confirmed that she had said she would not return until the identified repairs works and rewire had been completed.
3. It confirmed that it had raised all of the additional works identified at its inspection the previous day.
4. It said that its photographs and inspection of the resident’s property on 7 June 2021 had found it to be in a good state of repair and decoration.
5. It stated that, based on the more recent photographs, it was clear that wall coverings in the kitchen had been removed to the detriment of the appearance of the room.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that it had raised a routine priority plastering job for the resident’s property.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord responded to a local Councillor’s enquiry that had been made on behalf of the resident. It detailed the events relating to the resident’s mutual exchange and complaint, and the actions that it had taken, and still intended to take. It stated that it had completed its original inspection of the property in line with its mutual exchange procedure, but that it had recorded the matter as a learning outcome. It explained that it did not agree that the property was uninhabitable, and that most of the necessary works were cosmetic.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that it had completed the routine priority job raised for the resident’s property on 21 June 2021, that concerned the resident’s internal doors.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that 12 routine priority jobs were raised for the resident’s property, including works to the kitchen, understairs cupboard, living room, bedroom, bathroom, landing, and the renewal of the locks to the lounge patio door and the external store door.
On 23 July 2021, the Councillor replied to the landlord, and asked the following additional questions:
1. Why was the landlord saying the resident’s electrics were safe, when its electrician had said there was no earthing?
2. Why did it pass its pre-exchange inspection with no smoke alarms?
3. Would it now agree that the resident’s kitchen units were unusable?
4. Why had it only listed 11 repairs, when the resident had been told there were 16?
On 25 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express her disappointment with its response to the Councillor on 20 July 2021. The resident reiterated her concerns with the electrical safety of the property, and with the state of the three kitchen units. She said that it was not unreasonable to ask for a decent kitchen to be put in.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord sent an internal email that stated it was awaiting a response from its contractor as to whether the works at the resident’s property could be prioritised above its normal timescales. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It stated that its policy was to complete electrical tests after a mutual exchange was completed, and that anything identified as ‘Code 1’ at the test would have been deemed unsafe and rectified at the same visit.
2. It explained that a ‘Code 2’ is a necessary repair that is not considered an emergency. It said that the earth to the lighting was not a ‘Code 1’, as there were no faults on the circuit and the cables were checked as safe.
3. It advised that if it had replaced the two metal light switches with plastic ones and fitted the smoke alarm, it would have reduced the category to ‘Code 3’.
4. It explained that it had not done this as the resident had stated that she would not move in until the full rewire was completed, and so it had prioritised completing that.
5. It confirmed that it did not undertake property cleaning works as part of its mutual exchange process.
On 28 July 2021, the resident emailed the local authority’s chief executive officer (CEO) to advise of her intention to raise her issues on social media. She stated that her safety was not being taken seriously by the landlord. She said that a repair had been completed at the property that day, and the operative had advised her that the property contained asbestos.
On 2 August 2021, the landlord replied to the Councillor’s email from 23 July 2021. The member of staff apologised for the delay, which it said was due to having just returned from sickness. It advised that the resident had raised further issues concerning her property. It said that it would be calling her to discuss this. It said that it would provide the Councillor with a full response once all of the information was available and reviewed.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord’s records stated that it had spoken with the resident following her recent emails. The record said that the landlord had explained to the resident that most buildings built before 2000 contained asbestos, and that it had an asbestos survey to show where in the property it was located, that allowed it to work safely. The record stated that the resident became very cross, and stated that she had no kitchen storage due to the units being unusable, and the pantry having ‘dangerous asbestos’.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord’s HO emailed the resident to confirm her awareness of the forthcoming repairs, and whether she was now occupying the property following the completion of the rewire. The HO listed the repairs scheduled for 20, 23, and 26 August 2021.
On 16 August 2021, the resident replied to the HO and stated her understanding was that all of the repairs were being completed from 25 to 28 August 2021. She said that she was not living in the property as there was nowhere in the kitchen for her to store anything. She stated that the situation had impacted her mental health, which would be worse still if she was living there during the works. The HO replied, and stated he would check the repair dates again and come back to her.
On 19 August 2021, the landlord replied to the Councillor. It explained that the resident’s complaint had been raised through various contact routes to the Councillor, the landlord and the local authority, and as such it had accumulated additional points for it to investigate and respond to. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident believed that its original inspection had not been properly completed. It provided a copy of the inspection report and photographs, and reiterated that it had been undertaken in line with its process.
2. It explained that smoke alarms are inspected during the electrical inspection undertaken after a mutual exchange is complete.
3. It stated that the resident had maintained that the electrician who had completed the electrical inspection on 7 July 2021 had advised her that the property was not earthed and was unsafe. It said it had been unable to corroborate this but that if it were true, the electrician would have been obliged to condemn the electrics on site, which he had not.
4. It said that the electrician had recorded that the lighting circuit had no earthing, and as such had categorised it as a “code 2”. It explained that this meant “potentially dangerous – urgent remedial action required”, and as such it had completed a full rewire on 20 July 2021. It said that the rewire had included new smoke alarms.
5. It stated that the lack of earthing to the lighting circuit was due to the previous tenant fitting non-standard light fittings of a metal nature. It said that it had forewarned the resident of the possibility of this prior to her exchange.
6. It said that it accepted that the resident was unhappy with the condition and available storage space of the kitchen. It stated that the resident had known what she was accepting as part of the exchange process.
7. It said that it recognised that damage had been caused to the kitchen units since the previous tenant had left, but that it did not accept that they were unusable. It reiterated that it would be carrying out repairs in the kitchen.
8. It stated that since receiving the Councillor’s email, the resident had raised further concerns regarding asbestos. It said that it had explained to her that most properties built prior to 2000 contained asbestos. It stated that it had an asbestos survey of the property and acted in line with the Health and Safety Executive’s guidance.
9. It confirmed that there had been 11 repairs raised from the pre-exchange inspection, and a further 14 raised at the follow up inspection on 14 July 2021.
10. It said that its HO had contacted the resident about moving into the property, but that she had stated that she was not prepared to, until the repairs were complete.
11. It stated that it had tried to prioritise the resident’s repairs but had been unable to resource it. It said that the repairs would be completed in line with its routine repairs timescales. It listed 14 outstanding repairs that were booked to be completed on 20 August 2021. Further, a plastering job was due for 23 August 2021, and a mould treatment for the rear of the sink was to be done on 26 August 2021.
12. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, and how daunting moving home could be. It said that its HO was on hand to signpost the resident to specialist support, and provided his direct contact details.
13. It confirmed that its investigation had found that the mutual exchange and inspections had been handled in line with its procedure, and that remedial works were being completed within the timescales required.
14. It referred to the resident’s original complaint on 2 July 2021, and its subsequent responses. It stated that it had reviewed all of that as part of the Councillor’s further enquires, and was satisfied it had now answered the resident’s concerns in a satisfactory manner.
15. It acknowledged that its previous complaint response to the resident had referred her to the wrong Ombudsman. It asked that its apology for this be passed to the resident.
16. It confirmed that the resident had now exhausted its complaint process, and referred her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. It apologised for its delay in responding.
On 20 August 2021, the resident emailed the local authority’s CEO and the landlord’s HO to complain about the landlord’s handling of her repairs. She described confusion around the appointments. She said that when the contractor had attended, he had said that some of the jobs either still needed to be confirmed by the landlord, or would require two people to complete. She reiterated the impact that she said that the situation was having on her mental health. She asked for clarification of what was going to happen next, and to be reissued her stage two complaint response, as it was needed for this Service.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord’s HO replied to the resident. Various emails were exchanged concerning her repair appointments, and the notice that she said she needed given that she was not living at the property. It was confirmed that two jobs had been completed, but many other works remained outstanding. The HO apologised that the works were not progressing as hoped, and confirmed that the landlord had already approved all of the works with its contractor.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that it completed two of the 12 routine priority jobs that had been raised on 21 July 2021. The two jobs were for the renewal of the locks of the lounge patio and external store doors. The record also stated that a further routine priority job was raised the same day involving the resident’s kitchen units, which the record said was completed on 23 August 2021.
On 24 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s HO regarding the plastering that was booked for her property the previous day. She said that it did not go ahead, as she was told that it could not be done. She enquired what would happen now.
On 25 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, the Councillor, the local authority’s CEO and this Service, in response to the landlord’s email to the Councillor on 19 August 2021. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. She disputed the effectiveness of the CWO inspection, and said that it should have identified more of the property issues.
2. She said that there had only been one smoke alarm that was not hard wired and did not work. She said that she had asked the electrician to fit one, and he had advised it would be done as part of the rewire.
3. She stated that the landlord had contradicted itself by saying that the rewire was not essential, but that its test on 7 July 2021 had resulted in a “Code 2 potentially dangerous – urgent remedial action required”.
4. She said that the landlord’s claim that damage had been caused in the kitchen since the previous tenant had left was unfounded and ridiculous.
5. She explained that the reason she had not moved into the property was that it was easier for the works to be completed whilst the property was empty. She said that for her to be there while the works were ongoing would impact her mental health.
On 25 August 2021, the landlord’s HO replied to the resident’s email sent on 24 August 2021, and advised that he had forwarded her query to the officer investigating her complaint who would respond directly. He said that he noted on the repairs record that the operative had recorded that the plastering works were not needed. The HO advised that he had asked for this to be looked into.
On 26 August 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email sent to multiple parties on 25 August 2021. The key points of the landlord’s email were as follows:
1. It apologised for the miscommunication over the repairs scheduling. It explained that to avoid further delay, it had arranged for dedicated operatives to be made available to complete the works in the shortest time possible.
2. It said that its contractor would contact the resident within the hour to discuss this further and arrange access.
3. It said that with regard to the resident’s mental health, it had asked for a HO to contact her to review her situation and any local services that may be available to support her.
4. It confirmed that, as the resident had exhausted its complaint process, she way now wish to contact this Service.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord’s repairs record stated that the remaining 10 of the 12 jobs it had raised on 21 July 2021 were completed.

Assessment and findings

Mutual exchange

The 29 photographs taken by the landlord at the resident’s property on 7 June 2021 did appear to show a property that was in good order. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess the standard of the property nor the quality of the inspection. Rather, it is to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter, and whether it has acted in line with its policy.
The resident’s disappointment and distress with the condition of her property, as depicted in her own photographs sent to the landlord on 2 July 2021, was understandable. However, a mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, but a means by which residents step into the shoes of other residents they wish to exchange properties with. This meant that the resident took up occupation of the property “in its present condition”, as was explained to her in the landlord’s letter sent on 10 June 2021.
The landlord does not carry out void checks as part of this process, and the property may not be to the same standard of repair as a property which had gone through the landlord’s voids procedure. The landlord should though act in line with its mutual exchange procedure – it is the view of the Ombudsman that it did so. As such, a finding of no maladministration has been made.
The landlord’s completion of its inspection on 7 June 2021, with the previous tenant and her belongings still in residence, was in line with its procedure, as was its completion of its accompanying report and photographs. Similarly, the landlord’s identification, and report to its repairs team, of the defects that it was responsible for, along with its identification of non-standard fittings that the tenant was responsible for, was also in line with its procedure. Whilst the resident believed that the landlord should have identified more defects at the inspection, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified staff.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 June 2021, and it was appropriate for it to explain the conditions of her mutual exchange in line with its procedure. It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident with regard to the existing tenant’s non-standard light fittings, and for it to make clear that, if they remained, the light fittings may be found to be unsuitable at its subsequent electrical inspection. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to discuss the light fittings with the existing tenant. All of this would have allowed the resident to make her own informed decision, and she advised the landlord the following day that she wished for the non-standard light fittings to remain.
Had the resident decided that she wanted standard light fittings reinstated, responsibility for this would have fallen to the existing tenant. The landlord’s procedure would have then obliged it to reinspect the property once the existing tenant had completed the work. As this was not the case, it was appropriate for the landlord not to complete a further inspection prior to the completion of the exchange.
The landlord’s procedure stated that an electrical inspection was to be undertaken once the mutual exchange was completed. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to raise a job for the electrical inspection on 29 June 2021, the day after the resident’s tenancy began.

Repairs handling

Many of the repairs to the resident’s property were completed within the timescales of the landlord’s policy, and the landlord appropriately handled the resident’s electrical inspection and subsequent rewire.
However, it was unclear why there appeared to be a delay in the works identified at the CWO pre-exchange inspection being raised. The lack of explanatory notes on the landlord’s repairs record also meant that it was unclear why so many jobs were raised that were subsequently cancelled.
There were also various repairs that were not completed within the timescales of the landlord’s policy, and the landlord’s email to the resident on 26 August 2021 acknowledged there had been miscommunication around appointments. The landlord’s same email apologised for this failing and advised of its action plan that saw the outstanding works completed the following week. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure.
The landlord’s CWO inspection report confirmed that the identified repairs were passed to its repairs team on 7 June 2021. It would have been reasonable to expect the works to then be raised in a timely manner, and it was unclear why this did not occur for a further two weeks.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s electrical inspection of the resident’s property was completed within the seven working days allowed by its policy, on 7 July 2021. The landlord was aware that the property was overdue an electrical upgrade, and its inspection identified an issue with the non-standard light fittings installed by the previous tenant. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its qualified staff, who advised that the priority of the electrical works could be reduced to a routine ‘Code 3’ by simply replacing the decorative metal light switches for standard plastic ones and fitting a smoke alarm. As the resident had confirmed she would not move into the property until the works were completed, it was reasonable for the landlord to forego that course of action and prioritise the resident’s rewire, which was completed nine working days later.
The resident had asked on 2 July 2021 for her property to be further inspected. As is covered in the ‘complaint handling’ assessment below, it was not appropriate that the landlord initially declined this, until it changed its mind 10 days later. The further inspection went ahead on 14 July 2021, and identified a wide range of necessary works. Particularly given the resident’s circumstances, it would again have been reasonable to expect the landlord to raise the works in a timely manner, and indeed its internal communications on 15 July 2021 claimed that it already had. It was therefore not reasonable that the works were not raised until 21 July 2021.
Most of the works at the resident’s property were prioritised as ‘routine’, in line with the landlord’s policy. As such, the works had a target completion timescale of 30 days. Whilst it was regrettable that it could not be resourced, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask its contractor to prioritise the resident’s work above its standard timescales, as the landlord’s internal communication of 26 July 2021 confirmed that it had.
The bulk of the works to the resident’s property were originally scheduled for August 2021. The resident said she did not want to be living in the property whilst the works were undertaken, and it was therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to provide sufficient clarity and notice regarding appointments, so as to allow her to get to the property and give access. Whilst the landlord’s HO and repairs team did make efforts to keep the resident informed, it appeared that its contractor did not always act in line with its instructions. The landlord’s communications to the resident around mid-August 2021 sometimes contradicted previous appointment advice that she had been given, which would have been frustrating and confusing for the resident, in what was already a stressful situation. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
As stated above, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for these communication failings in its email to the resident on 26 August 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to resolve this by making available operatives dedicated to undertaking the resident’s works, and completing the work the following week on 2 September 2021.

Complaint handling

In assessing the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to Be fair; Put things right; and Learn from outcomes. The landlord did ultimately issue the resident a comprehensive final response, albeit via the local Councillor. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint prior to that point was fragmented, confusing, and did not correspond with its own policy. As such, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint reasonably, nor in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, and a finding of service failure has been made.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord via email on 2 July 2021, and it was appropriate for the landlord to respond the next working day, on 5 July 2021. However, the resident’s email raised multiple issues with the condition of her property, expressed her intense dissatisfaction, and asked that her property be reinspected. As such, it was clear that the landlord would be unable to resolve the issue ‘on the spot’. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to go straight to stage two of its complaint process, in line with its policy.
The resident’s further email the same day explicitly stated that she wished to make a formal complaint, however the landlord still failed to acknowledge it in line with its policy. As such, it failed to provide the resident with any clarity regarding its process, nor assurance that it was taking her complaint seriously. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
It was reasonable for the landlord to issue its first complaint response letter on 7 July 2021, which was well within the timeframe stated in its policy. It would however have been appropriate for the letter to make clear to the resident what stage of its process her complaint was at. It appeared that the landlord’s failure to do this contributed to the subsequent confusion.
The landlord’s complaint response letter did appropriately address the range of issues the resident had raised, but concluded that a further inspection of her property was unnecessary. From the information provided, it appears that it was only then the intervention of the Councillor and local authority that led to the landlord’s change of mind on 12 July 2021, when it decided it would complete a further inspection. This did not suggest that the landlord was initially committed to acting fairly nor putting things right, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord internal communications the same day stated that the resident’s complaint was at stage two of its process. It was unclear to the Ombudsman what was meant by this, and it appeared to also be unclear to the landlord. Stage two, as stated in the landlord’s policy, was its first formal written response stage. However, its final response letter sent to the Councillor on 19 August 2021, referred to its previous letter as stage one, which implied that the letter to the Councillor was at stage two.
This confusion was then compounded when the landlord issued an additional complaint response on 15 July 2021, the day after it had completed its further inspection of the resident’s property and identified numerous additional works. It was also the day after the landlord had separately spoken with the resident, and she had expressed her dissatisfaction with its previous response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage three of its process for a more senior review, in line with its policy. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this in writing to the resident, and confirmed the stage her complaint was at, and the timeframes it was working to. The landlord failed to do any of this, and as such its actions were unreasonable.
The landlord’s letter sent to the resident on 15 July 2021 did refer to her original complaint, and her request that it be reviewed. The landlord’s letter began by stating that it had completed this review, but then went on to exclusively respond to the resident’s electrical concerns as if they were a separate complaint. The letter also advised that the resident’s rewire would be completed during “the financial year”, when its internal communications the previous day had confirmed the rewire was booked for 20 July 2021.
The landlord concluded its letter by explaining that the resident had completed its complaint process, and by referring the resident to the wrong Ombudsman. The resident had made clear how stressful she was finding the overall matter, and its impact on her mental health. The landlord’s disjointed handling of the resident’s complaint, and its inadequate ‘final response’ would have only added to her distress. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
The landlord’s handling of, and response to, the Councillor’s enquiry made on the resident’s behalf, was handled more effectively. However, it appeared to be running in parallel to, and disconnected from, its complaint process. This was illustrated by the thorough investigation the landlord completed, and the resultant internal record of its findings that it created, ahead of its first response to the Councillor. The record of its findings was finalised on 15 July 2021, the same day it had sent its ‘electrics only’ final complaint response to the resident. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that there was such a contrast in the effectiveness of the landlord’s handling of the Councillor’s enquiry, relative to its poor handling of the resident’s actual complaint.
The landlord sent its final response to the Councillor on 19 August 2021. It was appropriate that it provided a comprehensive response to the resident’s complaint, and offered its apology to the resident for referring her to the wrong Ombudsman. The response letter addressed the resident’s dissatisfaction with her property, including her asbestos and other more recent concerns. However, it did not acknowledge, or even refer to, the clear failings in its prior complaint handling, nor offer redress for the distress this would have caused the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to this regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman acknowledges the impact on the resident that she described the condition that the previous tenant left the property in, as having. Nevertheless, the landlord’s letter of conditional consent appropriately advised the resident of the conditions of her exchange, and of the presence and implications of the non-standard light fittings. The landlord’s inspection, accompanying report, and subsequent raising of the electrical inspection, were also all in line with its mutual exchange procedure.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs was mixed. Some works, in particular the resident’s rewire, were raised and completed promptly. Other works were slow to be raised and attended, which appeared to be caused largely by miscommunication. The landlord did ultimately propose a reasonable resolution to completing the works but this only came after what would have been a stressful few weeks for the resident.
The landlord thoroughly investigated and provided a full response to the Councillor, who had enquired on behalf of the resident. This was in contrast to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s actual complaint, whichwas disjointed and failed to comply with its own policy. The landlord’s first complaint response to the resident was reasonably comprehensive. However, it missed the opportunity to put things right by declining a further inspection, which the landlord then reversed its decision on, seemingly only after the Councillor’s involvement.
The landlord’s second complaint response letter to the resident began and ended as if it was presenting the findings of an escalated stage three review. However, the letter itself focused solely on one matter, and the advice it gave regarding the date of the resident’s rewire had already been superseded prior to the response being sent. The landlord’s complaint handling failures added to the resident’s time, trouble and distress, and would have undermined any confidence she might have had in her property issues being resolved.
The Ombudsman published a report in January 2023, detailing the findings of its special investigation of the landlord’s services. The Ombudsman’s report made a range of recommendations, including for the landlord’s repairs service and complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the landlord has updated its processes and complaint policy since the time of the resident’s complaint, and that is therefore reflected in the recommendations below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its repairs handling.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should share a copy of this report with its member responsible for complaints, along with an assessment of how it would have handled the complaint under its new policy and process, following the revisions made in response to the Ombudsman’s special report in January 2023.
The landlord should then identify any further improvements and actions within its complaint handling and record keeping as a result of this investigation.
The landlord should update the Ombudsman on these recommendations within eight weeks of the date of this report.