Homes Plus Limited (202109576)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109576

Stafford & Rural Homes

14 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 reports of repairs from the start of the tenancy.
This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began on 1 April 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord has recorded specific vulnerabilities for the resident including that she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. She requires ground floor living space, and has a daughter who has learning difficulties.
The landlord has a lettable standard which says that the property will:
1. Be ready for decoration. Residents are responsible for minor cracks and decoration to their own taste
2. Have floors free from major faults or trip hazards
3. Have all internal woodwork in good condition
4. Be cleaned, including sweeping and mopping of all hard floors.
The landlord’s repair timescales are as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – with immediate risk to health or safety – within 4 hours. No heating or hot water – within 6 hours
2. Routine repairs which take less than one hour to complete – within 24 hours. All other routine repairs will take “longer than 17 days”
3. Major repairs – up to 120 days.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process:
1. Stage 1 – a written response will be sent within 10 working days
2. Stage 2 – a written response will be sent within 20 working days.
At the time of the viewing on 23 March 2021, restrictions were in place which meant that the resident had to enter the property separately to the landlord. The resident raised concerns about the condition of the property. She forwarded photographs she had taken to the landlord on 29 March 2021 which included evidence of woodworm on the floorboards, bumpy plastering and the condition of her kitchen units.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 1 April 2021. The landlord completed a “tenancy sign up on site” document which noted that no works were required after the property had been let. The document was signed by the resident and the landlord’s homes advisor.
On 7 April 2021 the resident told the landlord:
1. She had no heating and hot water
2. Three quarters of the bedroom floor was covered in woodworm. She had stepped on the floor and her foot went through it
3. There were holes and cracks in the plaster of the lounge ceiling. There were nails coming through the rear bedroom ceiling
4. About 12 floor tiles were broken and unhygienic
5. The kitchen cupboards and worktops were all swollen, and there were marks and cuts in the sideboards.
The resident chased the landlord on 4 occasions between 12 and 19 April 2021. She said she had no response to her concerns and felt that she was receiving a poor standard of service from the start of her tenancy. She felt she was being “ignored” and believed that the landlord given her a property which was not up to a lettable standard.
On 21 April 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
1. She had been given only 10 minutes to view the property before she was given the keys. During the viewing, she noted that repairs were required and she was told that the maintenance team would be in contact before she made a decision as to whether to move in. The maintenance team had not been in contact, but the landlord said she needed to make a decision to accept the property, and informed her she could raise repairs via the online portal or complete them herself
2. After being given the keys on 1 April 2021, she was unable to turn on the gas and had no heating. The landlord said it was unable to attend her property over the bank holiday weekend, but could attend on the following Tuesday. Nobody arrived for the appointment. An operative turned up unannounced on 7 April 2021.
3. The operative who attended could not get power to the boiler using the isolation switch, and a further appointment was arranged for an electrician to attend 2 days later. Eventually, it transpired that whoever fitted the boiler used old wiring that linked to the emersion heater. The gas operative was supposed to visit the following Monday, but the landlord “forgot to book him in”. As a result she was without heating for 2 and a half weeks. During this time she spent about 4 hours on the phone complaining to the landlord
4. She suffered from severe chronic illness and disabilities which affect her daily life. She struggled to use stairs, which is why she accepted the property as it had a ground floor bedroom
5. There was an inch gap at the bottom of the outside door linked to the ground floor bedroom, and daylight could be seen through it. The bottom of the door was catching on the cement of the ramp causing a “dreadful draught”. The landlord told her it did not need fixing, and she had made an attempt to fix it herself. Though this improved the alignment of the door, there was still a gap at the top
6. The floorboards in the front bedroom were bumpy and had lots of large holes in them from woodworm. They had been lifted for repairs but not replaced, and the floor was uneven. 3 days into her tenancy, her foot went through the floor in the front bedroom. She reported this to the landlord but no one had contacted her
7. There were was a large crack in the living room ceiling, that was being held up by lining paper. When pressed, the whole ceiling would move, and she was worried it would collapse
8. She had issues decorating the house. The walls in every room had “bumpy, messy” plaster on them, and as she was removing the lining paper to decorate, it was crumbling away. The ceilings were artex and in poor condition
9. The bathroom had a bath but no shower, and she could not wash her children’s hair
10. She had concerns about the condition of the kitchen:
  1. All of the cupboards were damaged and the carcasses needed replacing. Every work surface was damaged with burns, chipboard swelling and was left filthy
  2. Every time someone walked into the bathroom above, the vibration made plaster dust call from the ceiling onto the work surfaces
  3. There were asbestos tiles on the floor. She was told they were safe, but there were at least 15 broken tiles
11. Almost her month into the tenancy, she had been still been unable to decorate. She had been unable to fully move into the property and had only “camped out” there for one night. The property was unhabitable, so she was keeping her current tenancy at her previous address as she did not want to make herself homeless. As a result, she was paying bills for both properties
12. She had requested a discretionary housing payment and had to put half of her belongings into storage because her current landlord had said the storage boxes she had ready to move were a fire hazard. She had paid for 8 weeks of storage which was due to end but she could not afford to pay to have the items stored for longer
13. She was suffering with her mental health, and had to start using the food bank “to keep her head above water”. The landlord was not responding to any of her concerns and she was feeling so “run down” where she was getting no help.
On 22 April 2021 an inspection by a technical officer took place at the property and found “clear evidence of woodworm”. Notes of the visit said that:
1. They were unable to determine if the woodworm was as a result of a historical or ongoing infestation.
2. The resident had claimed to put her foot through one such piece of board, but this was more likely down to the fact the particular section had been removed and relayed as part of previous renovation works
3. The resident pointed out cracks in the property but they were superficial and not due to any structural movement. There was a larger crack in the living room ceiling consistent with where the resident had stepped through the floorboard in the room above
4. 12 square metres of floorboards needed to be removed and replaced like for like. A job was also raised to hack away 1 square metre of plaster on the living room ceiling, overboard and skim.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2021 and said the inspector had been to her property and told her:
1. Works were required to several rooms in the house due to the poor condition of the plaster and she was not to use the front bedroom or living room until ceiling works were completed
2. There were asbestos concerns in the property
3. A full rewire check needed to be completed, and the fireplace condemned
4. The inspector said the property should not have been let to her in such a poor condition.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that further time was needed to investigate her complaint due to staff annual leave. It advised that she could expect a response by 19 May 2021.
On 5 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that the toilet in the wet room was blocked and almost over flowing. The sewerage pipe was leaking out brown liquid onto the floor and the sink was gurgling. She said she had tried several times to report the issue over the weekend but she was placed on hold for over half an hour at a time.
A second inspection by the technical officer took place on 6 May 2021 to investigate issues that were not raised during the first visit. It discussed each repair the resident was dissatisfied with. It noted that most of the items the resident had pointed out required no further action, and no repairs prevented the resident from moving in as they could be done around her.
On 7 May 2021 the resident said that she was due to have a hernia operation. This meant she was likely to have trouble with the stairs of the property she was currently staying in. She said if she was able to move into her new property, she would have her parents across the road to help, and a bathroom on the ground floor.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord said it fully understood the resident’s situation. It was doing its best to get the matter sorted and was awaiting further instructions from a senior repair manager and senior surveyor. It said “we all know how urgent this is, but things needed to be repaired in an orderly fashion”.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord’s technical officer noted that they had checked the asbestos register, and neither the artex in the hall or kitchen tiles were a cause for concern.
On 20 May 2021 the landlord told the resident it was “starting to get some of the works underway”, and would follow up in writing all the items that are being addressed. It said that it was still waiting for a response about payment towards storage costs, rent and bills.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It apologised for the late response. It understood that the resident wanted all repairs fixed as a matter of urgency and an explanation of what had gone wrong. It also acknowledged that she wanted a rent and storage reimbursement
2. It was sorry for the lack of communication, the condition of the property at handover, and the lack of urgency in completing repairs. It had recruited more call centre staff to improve its services, and was in the process of advertising for more tradespeople
3. There were a number of repairs that it would address. The resident could expect to receive contact to get the jobs booked in as soon as possible. The repairs included:
  1. Addressing the gap above the rear entrance door and lock barrel. Put a UPVC threshold trim on the front door
  2. New seal required around the kitchen window
  3. Water hammer in hot taps in kitchen and upstairs wash basins
  4. A small section of the living room ceiling would be over boarded and skimmed
  5. Secure loose floorboards in the living room and bathroom airing cupboard
  6. Service window handles in the living room
  7. Electric fire to be removed. Gas meter box outside the front of the property to be fixed
4. There were several issues that the resident reported which it would take no further action on. These included:
  1. Enclosing the rear entrance door with a new porch area
  2. Minor leak from the toilet waste pipe, as the resident had already fixed this herself
  3. UPCV window trims that were no cut at an angle were seen as purely cosmetic and would not be replaced
  4. Plaster dust falling from ceiling in the kitchen would be resolved once the water hammer was repaired
  5. Minor cracks on most ceilings throughout the property were not caused by structural movement and would be resolved once the resident had decorated
  6. The skirting boards uneven and not matching were functional and not in need of replacement
  7. Slightly uneven floor around the fireplace where the original hearth used to be. There would be minimal footfall in this area and once carpeted would not show through
  8. The plaster, though “old and bumpy” did not need to be redone. Lining paper could be used when decorating. The dado rail in the rear bedroom would not be removed as this was decorative and not defective
  9. No asbestos was found in the hallway
  10. There was no requirement to provide a shower over the bath. If the resident required a shower, there was one on the ground floor
5. The kitchen was programmed for replacement before 31 March 2022
6. An electrical test had been conducted in February 2021, and not due again until 2026
7. There were “still some questions” surrounding compensation for storage costs, rent fees and pest control for potential woodworm. Once it had an answer about these, it would be in contact again
8. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response, they could escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process.
On 24 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the workmanship of the repair to the floorboards. The floor had not been levelled as the operative did not have the correct materials. She said she was under the impression that the landlord was going to over board the floor with 3mm of MDF board.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it had consulted with the senior repairs manager and senior assets surveyor and compensation had been agreed:
1. £400 towards the storage of items
2. £100 compensation for failed appointments and the inconvenience caused.
On 27 May 2021 the landlord’s repairs records noted that all the repairs mentioned in the stage 1 response had been completed, with the exception of the repair to secure the loose floorboards.
On 4 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said she wished to appeal its offer of compensation. She included a series of photographs and said:
1. That there were elements missing from the report which had been discussed with the housing quality inspector. These included:
  1. Exterior masonry cracks at the front and rear of the property
  2. Removal of fireplace and vents
  3. Asbestos check throughout the property
  4. Issues with bedroom 3 rear exit door
  5. Leaking guttering over the rear extension
  6. Unfinished felting on the extension roof
2. She was not happy with the quality of the floor levelling that had been completed in her living room and wanted a further inspection by a senior surveyor. The kitchen floor needed to be relevelled as a matter of urgency
3. Work surfaces in the kitchen were covered with grime, and there was damage to the cupboard carcasses
4. Bedroom 1 floor needed raising to meet the concrete hearth. Bedroom 2 had an artex ceiling and had screws showing through them
5. She wanted help to cover the full cost of rent, storage, bills and compensation for delays and inconvenience
6. She was a disabled single parent. She had just had surgery to her stomach and was unable to lift heavy items, stretch or bend. She would not be able to carry out repairs or decorate the property on her own. The ordeal had caused her months of stress, inconvenience and financial hardship for her family
7. She had not received a clear explanation of how it could have been passed for let in its condition.
Later that day, internal correspondence showed that the asset inspector commented to colleagues:
1. “Agreed, the workmanship is slightly sloppy, but they function”. Some of the items the resident was reporting was a “wish list”, and the landlord would not be repairing some of the things she had reported for cosmetic reasons
2. They were very minor cosmetic cracks in the property, these were consistent of a property of its age. Floorboards would be replaced where required, but they would not be over boarded throughout and made flush. This had already been explained to the resident
3. There was not anything in the photos to suggest the resident could not move into the property or that it was unsafe (aside from a repair to 1 floorboard). The offer of compensation was reasonable, and it was her decision not to move into the property.
On 5 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord with photographs of bumpy plastering in the property. She asked that job also be raised to clear the guttering. A surveyor reviewed the photographs and said that what the resident had sent in was cosmetic and the landlord would not be undertaking further works. A job could be raised to clear the guttering, but they did not have the access to the system to raise the works.
On 7 June 2021 the senior repairs manager asked the surveyor if an appointment had been arranged to visit the property. The surveyor advised that nothing had been arranged as there had been “quite a few emails” and they “weren’t quite sure what was happening”.
On 8 June 2021 the voids supervisor responded to colleagues and said that they had looked through the pictures the resident had sent in. They said that:
1. At the time of handover, the voids team was only carrying out works that was on the specification they had been given, unless anything was deemed to be a health and safety issue
2. The kitchen floor was cleaned, but it didn’t receive a deep clean. Even if it was cleaned, the floor wouldn’t be spotless. It looked like the resident had painted without using dust sheets since the property had been let, and so the photographs showed it was worse than it was before
3. The only item that was “possibly missed” upon void was sealant to the windows, however they were due for replacement and therefore it would make more sense for them to get done alongside other works.
On 9 June 2021 a surveyor from environmental services emailed the landlord to update on a recent inspection of the woodworm. They recommended a one off treatment of woodworm to all upper floors. In a separate email they said that:
1. Whilst at the property, the resident pointed out that the ceiling was artex. It was explained that artex was completely safe if it was not damaged. No damage was seen
2. The resident said the floor tiles were asbestos and some were broken. They informed the resident that this would be extremely low risk and an asbestos report had shown there were no concerns with the property
3. The resident was unhappy with the level of concrete in front of the fireplace. She was advised that once covered with carpet, it would go unnoticed.
On 9 June 2021 the surveyor asked that a bullet point list be sent with all the resident’s outstanding items. They said that they were “trying to get everything in order to move forward in a more organised manner. [The complaint] was messy with all the emails flying around”. They said they were getting confused as to what had been answered or not, and whether a visit was required or not. They said that the landlord’s communication “had been less than effective”.
On 10 June 2021 a senior repairs manager and asset surveyor attended the property. They produced a report that noted repairs were required to:
1. Cut back ceiling plaster and fill with flexible sealant for use around the heating pipework in the kitchen and replace seal around the kitchen window
2. Repair the loose floorboards and replace the chimney vent in the front first floor bedroom
3. Repair the window and replace the chimney vent in the rear first floor bedroom
4. Replace bath taps with mixer taps and shower attachment in the bathroom
5. Refix floorboards on the landing
6. Repoint the front porch
7. Rehang the rear entrance door
8. Fill gap around the lock barrel of the rear entrance door with silicone.
On 11 June 2021 the planned programme team advised that the kitchen was due for replacement on the 2021/2022 year programme and therefore “to save wasting repairs” to the current kitchen, it would make arrangements to have a survey done of the kitchen for replacement as soon as possible. It noted that with surveys and manufacturing taken into account, the kitchen would not likely be booked in for another 3 months.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord shared the outcome of the surveyor’s report with the resident. It said that:
1. In addition to repairs noted within the report, jobs had been raised to:
  1. Add screws to the ceiling
  2. Remove the canopy and replace roof felt to the flat roof
  3. Remove the fireplace
  4. Make good the plaster and replace the skirting board
2. The offer of £500 compensation stood, to include 2 months worth of storage at £400, plus £100 for inconvenience for failed appointments
3. Laboratory tests had shown that there was no asbestos in the property.
On 26 June 2021 the landlord completed a deep clean to the property. It noted that the works were done as a gesture of “goodwill”.
On 30 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that a repairs operative witnessed her “almost twisting” her ankle at the top of the stars where the floor board had come loose. On 2 July 2021 environmental services attended the property to treat the woodworm.
On 5 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and said that some jobs had been completed “to a great standard”, but others remained outstanding. These included cleaning of the gutters, repairing the flooring where woodworm was present and pointing to the front porch. She was now in her overdraft and had no money for food, because she was paying for rent and bills on 2 properties.
On 6 July 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that there was a delay in responding to her complaint and she could expect to receive a response by 21 July 2021.
On 20 July 2021 internal correspondence from the senior repair manager noted “yes, there may be pests by the way of woodworm but this would not prevent you from living in the property”. They said work could have been done around the resident. It was her choice not to move in or consult the landlord before taking the decision to stay in her old property. If she had, it could have been explained to her that it was fine to move in.
On 21 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It was partially upholding her complaint. It said it had reviewed the voids report and considered the outstanding list of repairs against its repairs policy and lettable standard. In doing so, it found that:
  1. There was a service failure with regards to miscommunication and missed repairs appointments. It was sorry for this.
  2. The repairs that were not actioned on empty inspection did not mean that the property was unhabitable. There were repairs that would not have been picked up until the resident was aware of them, because they had not been informed of them by the previous resident. It was unaware of any works that the previous resident did to the floorboard themselves, which was the case with the board she put her foot through
  3. The property was structurally sound and safe, and the repairs she had noted were “minor in nature”. It was her personal choice not to move into the property and therefore the £500 compensation it offered remained.
  4. A deep clean took place in the property on 26 June 2021 and the woodworm treated on 2 July 2021. Surveyors have agreed she could move into the property
2. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could contact the Ombudsman.
On 27 July 2021 the resident contacted her landlord and left a voicemail. She stated she was very upset with the amount of compensation offered and wanted to take her case to the Ombudsman.

Post ICP

The landlord informed the Ombudsman that whilst it was awaiting a determination form this Service, it reviewed the resident’s case again in 2022. As a result, it felt that the property was provided in an unacceptable condition and did not meet the lettable standard. It has since taken the following action:
1. A “whole house survey” was undertaken on 19 July 2022. This identified a number of repairs to the property which have since been completed
2. A written apology has been issued to the resident and compensation has been paid as follows:
  1. £1251.16 rent refund, bringing a nil arrears balance
  2. Storage costs of £6,704.73
  3. £700 for the replacement of the resident’s carpets in the living room and bedroom
3. Fitted a fan in the downstairs bathroom, and agreed to replace the wet room floor on 7 August 2023
4. Authorised the resident’s request to install a rear porch
5. Developed a pest control policy which went to board for approval in November 2022
6. Changed its internal processes to ensure that all complaint responses were signed off by a head of service or director.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. During the time of her complaint, she had no support and her mental and physical health were affected, leaving her with long term effects. She felt unable to move into the property for approximately 12 months after her tenancy start date. She reluctantly accepted the property in the condition it was in so that she could live closer to her parents
2. The landlord’s contractors have exacerbated the issue where they completed works to a poor standard. They will often attend and patch up repairs that later need to be recalled. She has had several issues with new repairs identified since the stage 2 response. There was an incident on Christmas Day in 2021 where a small fire took place and the smoke detectors did not sound the alarm
3. Since July 2022, the housing director for the landlord has been involved and they have been helpful and compassionate. They got in touch with the resident after she had expressed to the landlord she was at “breaking point”. They have kept in touch regularly and they have arranged for contractor monitoring, which has been working well. She is happy with this improved level of communication but feels that it is “too little too late” as her experience has tarnished her view of the landlord. She wants the Ombudsman to acknowledge her poor experience and recognise that the property should not have been let in its condition
4. There are still outstanding repairs which have appeared over time, some as a result of poor workmanship. Over the past year, the landlord has been proactive in addressing these, as it has visited to post-inspect repairs and quality check. She is happy with progress made but there are some repairs outstanding. These include:
  1. Re-plastering around the front door where old plaster fell off
  2. Artex in her daughter’s bedroom is flaking off
  3. A recall for a job to the flat roof where operatives pinned it without applying adhesive. She has been told it needs to be treated with bitumen
  4. Her son has mould in his bedroom. She is yet to report this to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs from the start of the tenancy.

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced delays in the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs since the start of her tenancy. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on her physical and mental health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman of new repairs that were identified after the stage 2 complaint response which remain outstanding or have not yet been reported to the landlord. The Ombudsman is not able to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint or for which the resident had yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore the issue of new repair concerns identified after 21 July 2021 are outside the scope of this investigation.
A void inspection sheet was completed by the landlord on 17 March 2021. There were no accompanying photographs, however it noted that the property was “clean and to a lettable standard”. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the property condition met the lettable standard at the time the resident signed the tenancy agreement. However we can consider how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of repairs from the start of her tenancy.
The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with condition of the property on 29 March 2021, however no evidence was seen that it appropriately recorded her concerns. The “tenancy sign up on site” document the resident signed on 1 April 2021 showed no comments or concerns about the condition of the property. A separate assessment has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
Once she had signed her tenancy agreement, the resident experienced difficulties getting a response from the landlord to her reports of repairs. She informed it that she had concerns about the heating and hot water, woodworm on the floorboards and the condition of her kitchen from at least 7 April 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord responded promptly to these concerns and she had to chase it on at least 4 occasions before making a formal complaint on 21 April 2021
The delay in responding to the resident was unreasonable, and she reported this impacted her impression of the landlord from an early stage. By the time she made a formal complaint on 21 April 2021, she reported that she felt “run down” and her mental health was deteriorating. She also informed the landlord that she was unwilling to move into the property as a result of the outstanding repairs, and was paying dual rent and bills until matters were addressed. No evidence was seen that it responded to these specific concerns until 10 May 2021, and when it did it provided no reassurance of what steps she could take whilst the landlord organised its repairs “in an orderly fashion”. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord provided further support to the resident when it knew that she and her daughter had specific conditions which made them vulnerable.
On receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded promptly by arranging for a technical officer to visit the next day. The primary purpose of the visit was to confirm the presence of woodworm, inspect the floorboards and look at cracks which suggested any structural damage. Notes from the visit recorded that woodworm was present and that some floorboards would need to be replaced like for like. There was no evidence to suggest that the resident could not use certain rooms, or that the officer was in agreement with the resident that the property was let in a poor condition.
A second inspection took place a further 10 working days later by the same officer. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what prompted the second visit, but from evidence seen, the investigation into each of the resident’s concerns was comprehensive. The officer noted that they explained to the resident which of her concerns were repairs that could be raised and which required no further action. For example, it was explained that there were minor cracks in the property which were not caused by structural movement and would be rectified once decorated by the resident.
There is no evidence in either of the inspection reports that any immediate health or safety concerns were identified, and there was no reference that the property was uninhabitable. Internal correspondence showed that the technical officer advised colleagues after their visit that there was nothing that prevented the resident moving into the property whilst repairs were raised. By not sharing the outcome of the visit, the landlord provided the resident with no reassurance that she could safely move into her new property whilst repairs were raised. As a result, she continued to accrue rent arrears over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord was slow to treat the woodworm in the property. The resident first reported woodworm on 29 March 2021, but it was not until 66 working days later that it was treated. At the time, the landlord had no pest control policy in place, which hindered its ability to reassure the resident what it was doing to tackle the issue. The landlord advised this service it designed a new pest control policy in November 2022, however a copy of the policy has still not been seen.
When the resident said she was unhappy with the quality of repairs and wanted a senior surveyor to visit the property, the landlord acted promptly. A senior repairs and asset surveyor visited 5 working days later. The landlord’s communication was reasonable and the results of the joint visit were shared with the resident in a timely manner. The landlord was entitled to rely on the view of its qualified surveyors as to the overall condition of the property who advised that there were no concerns which prevented the resident from moving in.
It was not until the stage 2 response that the landlord made clear that based on the routine repairs that were required, the decision not to move into the property was hers. The delay in communicating that it felt she could move in was unreasonable and failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations over a prolonged period of time. The stage 2 response also failed to provide the resident with an action plan or schedule of works, and by doing so it failed to conclude her complaint.
As a result, the resident experienced further delays where repairs she reported from the start of her tenancy remained outstanding. For example, the landlord’s repair records show that loose floorboards to the first bedroom and landing were not raised on the system until 29 November 2021. This delay of over 6 months since it first became aware of the issue was unreasonable. Whilst the landlord considered that the repair did not prevent the resident from moving into the property, the conclusion of her concerns caused her distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
In relation to the failures identified, 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 considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord recognised that it was not proactive in engaging with the resident from the start of her tenancy, and she had to raise a formal complaint to have her concerns addressed. It also acknowledged that the resident had suffered inconvenience where she had experienced missed appointments, and arranged for its surveyors to attend within a reasonable timeframe. Its initial offer of compensation would have been reasonable had the landlord clearly communicated that she could commence living in the property and provided her with a schedule of works. However it did not do this, and ongoing delays to the resident moving back into the property were in part as a result of the landlord not sharing the outcome of the technical officer visits at an early stage.
Overall, it is recognised that the situation had a negative impact on the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to provide the resident with a full schedule of works and reassurance that she could safely move into the property with its support. Repairs to the floorboards continued to be delayed after the stage 2 response and the resident experienced further time and trouble in concluding her concerns.
It is noted that a year after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the landlord conducted a review of her case in July 2022. It instructed an in-house survey which highlighted additional issues not recorded in the timeline of its complaint handling. As a result, it formed a different view that the property was not up to lettable standard and made assurances it had learnt from outcomes and increased its offer of compensation. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress as they took place a year after the end of its complaint process. However the revised financial offer was reasonable to its more recent identified failures and the Ombudsman will not be making a further order of compensation.
Whilst it is encouraging to hear from the resident that there has been improved communication and she is happy with the current condition of the repairs, there were still failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs from the start of the tenancy which should be recognised. It should not have taken so long and a referral to this Service for the landlord to have reviewed her case.

The landlord’s record keeping

Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. Its records appear to be heavily reliant on the use of emails with several members of staff copied in. At least 307 emails were received by the Ombudsman to review as part of the investigation into the resident’s complaint. The volume of emails has contributed to the landlord being able to swiftly address all of the resident’s concerns. Of particular note is the surveyor’s comments on 7 June 2021 which noted that “nothing had been arranged as there had been quite a few emails and [they weren’t] quite sure what was happening”.
It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. Staff should not have to review several emails to understand what recent information is available. The landlord’s communication with the resident was affected where outcomes of visits were shared with several members of staff over email, but with no clear ownership of who would share the information with the resident. This contributed to delays and confusion as to what actions were being taken by whom.
Details of what was discussed with the resident about repairs required to her home was crucial to this case. The resident’s recollections of advice she had been given at visits have differed from the landlord’s email records. For example, on 29 April 2021 she reported that she had been told that the technical officer had said she could not use certain rooms in her home, and it should not have been let in its condition. Conversely, internal emails from around the same time noted that there was nothing to prevent the resident from moving into her home. This conflict of versions of events caused confusion for the person investigating the resident’s complaint. For example on 7 June 2021 they noted that they kept having to chase colleagues for updates in order to understand what was happening. The lack of transparency over what the landlord had advised the resident in this case was unreasonable.
The landlord’s call notes for the resident were provided to this Service but these are reflective of the level of contact that was had with the resident and lacked detail. For example an entry on 5 August 2021 recorded that it had a telephone conversation with the resident and it’s note simply state “repair raised”. There is no detail as to the nature of the call or what repair was raised. The lack of contemporaneous notes was inappropriate and contributed to delays in concluding repairs for the resident.
Overall gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident from the start of her tenancy. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs from the start of her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were significant failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident from the start of her tenancy. Though the landlord sent a technical officer and surveyors to the property within a reasonable timeframe, it failed to share the outcome and provide reassurance that she could live in the property. The stage 2 response failed to provide the resident with a schedule of works and records suggest that repairs to the floorboards were not raised for approximately a further 4 months after it had closed her complaint. The subsequent case review it conducted was a year after the conclusion of its complaint investigation and gave a conflicting view of the condition of her property from the start of the tenancy.
There was poor record keeping by the landlord. No evidence was seen of contemporaneous notes of conversations with the resident from its customer relationship management system. The landlord was heavily reliant on email chains as a form of communication between the resident and several of its staff. It caused confusion for specialist teams within the landlord including the surveyor and the complaints team, which impacted its ability to respond appropriately to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within six weeks. The review must include:
1. A review of its void process with consideration as to the use of photographs at pre-let stage
2. A review of how it records repairs and specialist inspections, including surveyors reports. Identify how these reports inform its repairs service in a timely manner
3. A review of its customer relationship management system and plan for improvement to ensure that the landlord is able to evidence all contact with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
4. An update with regards to its pest control policy, which the landlord advised was submitted for board approval in November 2022.