Lambeth Council (202219308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219308

Lambeth Council

27 October 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s move to the property.
2. Administration of the resident’s rent account.
3. Handling of repairs to the property.
4. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timeframe.”
In this case the resident has raised concerns about the circumstances under which she was offered her current property, in 2014, and its condition when she moved in. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, there is no evidence that the complaint has been raised with the landlord. Therefore, it has not been given the opportunity to investigate the issues through its own complaint procedure. For this reason, the complaint it is outside the jurisdiction of this investigation. Where a complaint has not exhausted the internal complaints process, the resident can consider making make a new complaint to the landlord. However, in this case she should be aware that due to the significant passing of time the landlord may reasonably decline to investigate a complaint about this issue.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.”
The assessment of applications for housing and subsequent allocation of property to applicants is carried out under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. All local housing authorities are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for housing.
In this case, the resident has complained about the landlord’s response to her request to be moved to 2 bedroom property. She is dissatisfied that the landlord has not included her daughter on her application and as such only considers her eligible for a 1 bedroom property. She is also concerned that it has said it cannot move her to another borough.
While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, this complaint falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), and is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can be contacted by visiting www.lgo.org.uk or by telephoning 0300 061 0614.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy started on 27 May 2013. The resident is the sole tenant and her daughter is listed on the tenancy agreement as an authorised occupant.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
The landlord’s records note that the resident’s vulnerabilities include mental health issues, physical disability and vision and hearing loss.
The resident’s representative has communicated with this service on her behalf. Both the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2021 to report issues with her windows. She said some were “broken, some did not open and some had chunks missing.”
The resident spoke to the landlord on 11 January 2022 to explain that she had to take her tenancy agreement into the job centre because the department of works and pensions (DWP) believed her property had 4 bedrooms when in fact it had 2. This had delayed payment of the housing element of her universal credit (UC).
On 2 February 2022 the landlord called the resident to advise that UC was now being paid but not at the full amount. The resident believed this was an error, again due to confusion around the size of the property. She said that her social worker was helping her to liaise with the DWP to resolve the issue. She said she would make a payment that day and set up a new monthly direct debit. The landlord said it would serve notice of seeking possession (NOSP) if the resident did not provide a further update, including making a payment, by the end of the week.
The landlord’s records dated 3 February 2022 note that the resident failed to make the payment so it intended to serve a NOSP.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord served the resident with a NOSP for rent arrears amounting to £2319.57.
The landlord completed a rent verification form via the landlord portal on 24 March 2022.
On 16 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to complain that although her property had 2 bedrooms, the landlord had informed the DWP that it had 3. The landlord visited the property the same day and confirmed in an internal email that it had 2 bedrooms.
The landlord’s internal records, dated 9 June 2022, confirmed that it would change the property details on its database. It noted that the resident would need to amend the details on the universal credit portal, which the landlord would then verify. It called the resident to advise her accordingly and to apologise for the error.
The resident made a further report to the landlord on 24 May 2022 to say that the windows in the kitchen, front room and bedroom had wooden frames which needed repairing. On 26 May 2022 the landlord raised an order to repair the timber windows and seal them where required throughout the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2022 to say that the rotten window from her bedroom had fallen into a neighbour’s back garden. An order was raised for immediate attendance.
The landlord’s records, dated 12 July 2022, show that the property was still recorded incorrectly as a 3 bedroom property on its database. The housing officer chased the alteration on 4 August.
The resident completed a rent refund request form dated 27 October 2022, the amount requested was £7,500.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord raised an order to carry out an electrical installation condition report (EICR). A further order was raised on 23 November 2022 to test the electrics because the resident was concerned they had not been updated and the fuse board was from “1930s.”
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022, as follows:
1. Numerous surveyors had attended the property and concluded the windows needed replacing. They had also said the loft cavity needed insulating and that the electrics were “dangerously out of date.”
2. The outstanding repairs were having a significant effect on her mental and emotional well-being. The house was cold, even with the heating on constantly, which was a “serious financial burden.”
3. Her daughter was removed from her tenancy without her knowledge or prior approval which caused her “serious mental health issues.”
4. She had been repeatedly subjected to false variations to her rent and was threatened with eviction for rent arrears, only for the issue to be rectified and corrected at a later date. The implications of this had a “massive impact on her mental health and emotional state.” She had felt suicidal due to the “constant threat of being evicted through no fault of her own.”
5. The landlord had assessed the property as having 2 bedrooms, not 3. Therefore, she had been over-paying rent to the sum of nearly £8000. This caused her “serious mental and emotional issues.”
The landlord called the resident on 6 December 2022 to discuss the credit on her rent account. The resident was described as “very distressed, suicidal and depressed” due to repairs needed. The repairs teams were alerted accordingly.
On 13 December 2022 the resident made a stage 2 complaint, as follows:
1. She had not received a written apology from the landlord regarding the arrears. She still felt uneasy and under the threat of eviction.
2. While repairs had been logged, they had not been completed nor had she been provided with a date when they would be.
The resident’s son called the landlord on 13 December 2022 to report that the property was “freezing” due to the doors and windows needing to be replaced. He said the resident was feeling suicidal because she was unable to keep the property warm. He said that “urgent” repairs were needed.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord provided an update on the rent refund request to say it had been received and processed. Its records show that it refunded a total of £975.19.
The landlord called the resident on 15 December 2022 to say that all the adjustments had been carried out to its database and the property was recorded as having 2 bedrooms. It said it was waiting for UC to correct the monthly housing element and to provide an update on the bedroom tax situation. It also emailed UC that same day to say that the property size had recently been corrected from 3 to 2 bedrooms, adding “this was the fault from the Lambeth housing rent system.” The mistake meant that 14% bedroom tax had been deducted from her housing since the start of her UC claim. It confirmed it had updated her rent details but would like to request for the bedroom tax to be removed and backdated to 12 October 2021.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord raised an order to inspect the windows at the request of the resident who was noted as “vulnerable.”
The landlord’s records, dated 20 December 2022, confirm that the bedrooms had been amended, repairs reported and refund request authorised.
On 21 December 2022 the resident phoned this service to say a surveyor had attended the property that day and concluded the property was inhabitable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 December 2022 to say that it had escalated the issues raised with the relevant departments for them to investigate and respond accordingly.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023, as follows:
1. It had adjusted the rent account to reflect that the resident had been charged incorrect weekly rent rate from the beginning of her tenancy.
2. It had also actioned the adjustments so that the property was reflected in any future rent charge. With the adjustments, it was hopeful that no further issues would occur.
3. It acknowledged any inconvenience and stress caused by being served with notice it “profusely” apologised.
4. It said that due to issues with its system and setting up rent accounts, it was not always aware of the issues pertaining to the weekly rent charges as it did not usually control and/or adjust rent charges.
5. It said it had arranged to contact the resident in order to discuss her rent account and address any issues she may have. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.
6. A surveyor attended the property on 29 December 2022.
7. The electrics were tested on 16 December 2022. The electrician reported he notified UK Power Network that the main head required changing as it contained asbestos.
8. It would contact resident to discuss the outstanding repairs in more detail.
On 13 January 2023 the resident emailed ‘citizens advice’ to seek assistance with her complaint.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 16 January 2023, as follows:
1. None of the urgent repairs had been completed. The roof had a hole in it and the windows were not fit for purpose. These issues had caused the house to become “cold, damp and mouldy.” The resident said the temperature in the living room struggled to get above “7 degrees, even with the heating on.”
2. She was 60 years of age and had 2 dependants living with her; a child and a young adult. The cold and damp aggravated her rheumatoid arthritis.
3. She set out the “profound” impact the situation had had on her and the young people living with her. The threat of eviction for arrears, “accrued through no fault of her own”, caused them all “massive mental and emotional damage.”
4. They had been living in constant fear of being evicted. This affected her mental and physical health to the point where she felt suicidal and mental health services became involved. It also affected her daughter’s mental and physical health and her ability to attend her studies. Her foster daughter struggled to study for her GCSEs.
5. The landlord took responsibility for the damage and harm caused but had not offered compensation.
6. Her daughter had not been put back on the tenancy even though she did not want her removed.
7. The loft still had not been insulated and the electrical repairs had still not been resolved.
The resident reported a partial loss of power in the property on 18 January 2023 followed by a further report on 20 January when she experienced a total loss of power. The repair logs note that the resident was disabled and there was a young child in the property. The landlord raised a further report on 22 January in relation to a total loss of power.
On 20 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say she had been without electricity since 18 January. She said she was elderly with a child in the property but having reported the issue no one had attended. A further call had been made that day but still no one had been out. She had requested to be moved to emergency temporary accommodation until the problem was resolved but had been passed from one person to another only to be “cut off.”
On 21 January 2023 the resident contacted her MP in order to try to resolve her complaint.
On 23 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on her repairs, including the roof, loft insulation, electrics and windows. She said she had no electricity from Wednesday night through to Sunday evening.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 February 2023, as follows:
1. It offered its “sincerest” apologies for the outstanding repairs, and the impact this had had on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
2. The roof had been inspected and it was currently liaising with the contractor as to the outcome and the extent of any works required. Once it had received this information it would provide the resident with an update.
3. The windows were inspected in January 2023 and the findings submitted to its repairs team. It intended to supply and fit new UPVC casement windows in the property. The windows had been measured and were being manufactured which could take 12 weeks or more.
4. It had raised a works order to assess the condition of the loft and assess whether insulation was required. The contractor was to contact the resident directly to arrange access.
5. It attended the property on 23 January 2023 to make safe electrics as the resident had lost power. It found that a “defective” lead was being used. It also noted that works were required to the consumer control unit which had been raised.
6. It offered its “sincere and heartfelt” apologies for the “distress and upset” caused to the family by the error in respect of the rent account. It said that the adjustment to the account and other measures put in place are reasonable and an appropriate remedy to resolve the matter.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2023 to say she was still being charged for a 3 bedroom property.
The resident contacted this service on 21 February 2023 in response to the stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. The landlord’s response to the rent arrears issue did not reflect the harm caused to the resident, for example she had been prescribed strong anti-psychotic medication to help her cope at time. She had felt suicidal and required support from family members, including her daughter who had to drop out of college.
2. The landlord visited the property in the beginning of 2022 to confirm the property size yet it still took 9 months and numerous emails before the issue was resolved. To date it had not contacted DWP to confirm the size of the property so she was still being charged for a 3 bedroom property. The resident sought compensation as an appropriate remedy.
3. The repairs remained outstanding. A surveyor had attended the property more than once regarding the windows. The windows had been measured at least twice before to be replaced but nothing had ever been done. The resident said she was a “vulnerable, elderly disabled woman.” She had to keep the heating on “24/7” which caused financial difficulty resulting in her giving up her mobility car to be able to keep the heating on.
4. An electrician came out to inspect the electric box then left the resident without electric for a week. As a consequence, the resident had to borrow an extension lead to power her fridge. The extension lead would never have been there if there was not an issue with the electrics in the first place.

Events post internal complaints process

In an email to this service on 23 February 2023 the resident said that windows were in a serious state of disrepair, meaning the property was “cold, damp and draughty.” After “numerous complaints and visits” from surveyors the landlord concluded that “urgent” repairs were required. The loft needed insulating, and the windows needed replacing but this had never been done. She said the situation with the rent arrears had had a detrimental impact on her mental health to the extent that her daughter had to leave college to support her. The landlord had apologised and returned the overpayments however, it has failed to take the detriment into account.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord raised an order to inspect the integrity of the entire roof and roof space and provide a detailed report.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 9 March 2023 to report that she was being charged an incorrect amount of rent. It replied on the same day to say that the database had been corrected in December 2022. However, UC was seeking evidence of the mistake before it would review her claim and backdate her entitlement. It confirmed that an email would need to be sent and its records show this was actioned on 15 March. On 15 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say despite its apology issued in November 2022, her UC was still being calculated on the basis that her property had 3 bedrooms.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord emailed universal credit to confirm that the resident is living in a 2 bedroom property. It requested that it remove the bedroom tax being applied and backdate it to the date of her claim for universal credit. On 24 May 2023 the landlord completed a verification form via the landlord portal.
On 13 September 2023 the landlord raised a works order to measure to renew and replace the timber framed windows with UPVC double glazed.
In a call to this service on 26 September 2023 the resident said that mentally, she was “done.” She said she was on a lot of medication. She said she was still being charged for a third bedroom. She said she does not know if she was in arrears, partly because she found the rent statements very confusing to read. She said she was sent a statement with the same date repeated over and over and she could not make any sense of it. She said that she said she had a 2 bedroom property on her original UC claim and showed her tenancy agreement to the job centre. She said she could not work out why she was in arrears and her mental health declined to the point where she had to have support.
She clarified that her complaint was not about her daughter being included on her tenancy, it was about her being considered as part of the household in terms of her bedroom eligibility on the housing register. Her updates on the repairs were as follows:
1. Loft insulation – there was none, it was just floorboards. The landlord inspected the loft and the subsequently came back out to measure up. That was about 3 months ago but she had not heard anything further since then.
2. Electrics – she said there was no outstanding issues and confirmed they had been inspected. However, she added that she believed there were works that need to be done but she was not sure what.
3. Hole in the roof – this was repaired about 3 months ago.
4. Windows – there had been no progress other than the landlord making safe the bathroom window so it cannot be opened. If it were opened it would fall out.
5. The property was still very cold.
On 13 October 2023 the landlord provided this service with a screen shot from its database showing the property is recorded as 2 bedrooms. It also confirmed that the housing officer had checked the resident’s UC claim on 17 May 2023 which showed she was the only person named on the claim. Given that the property has 2 bedrooms this explained why the 14% deduction was still being applied.
The resident advised this service that the windows were replaced on 23 October 2023. On 26 October she sent a further email to this service to say that she was still being overcharged. She said the landlord had contacted her to say it would resolve the matter, refunding any overpaid rent.

Assessment and findings

Although this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord must ensure that its homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, freedom from damp and ventilation, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s repairs manual says that vulnerable tenants have their repairs “prioritised for quicker action.” It sets out its standard response times as follows:
1. Urgent emergency repairs are attended within 2 hours and fixed within 24hours.
2. Emergency repairs, for example total loss of power, are fixed within 1 working day.
3. Routine repairs (R1) are fixed within 7 days and routine repairs (R2) within 28 working days.
4. Planned works are completed within 90 days.
Its repairs policy sets out 5 repairs classifications, each requiring a different priority in terms of its response.
Its rent arrears policy says:
1. It will tailor its rent recovery process to recognise the needs of vulnerable residents. Where appropriate it will make a recommendation to write-off arrears in cases where genuine hardship or vulnerability issues exist.
2. When mounting arrears are identified, assessing the accuracy of benefit claim and income support will be the first port of call. It will support individuals to claim for their entitlement to rectify arrears and to support residents in setting up APAs where necessary.
It has a 2 stage complaints process; aiming to respond to both stage 1 (local resolution) and stage 2 (the review) complaints within 20 working days. Receipt of complaints will be acknowledged in writing.
It will consider paying financial compensation to remedy a service failure that has had an adverse effect on the resident. It says that the investigating officer should take into account the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating the level of compensation. For example, “the investigating officer may find that the household contains a disabled person or elderly person who has been affected to a greater degree by the service failure.”
The Government’s guidance on UC states that if a social rented sector tenant has any spare bedrooms, their additional amount of housing costs will be reduced by 14% for 1 spare bedroom. If a landlord’s tenant has made a claim for UC it must verify their rent and eligible services. This will need to be done before the resident can receive any help towards their housing costs through UC.

Rent account

As set out in the government guidance, the landlord must verify the resident’s claim for UC before any payments will be made. On 11 January 2022 the resident advised the landlord that UC had the wrong amount of bedrooms for her property which had held up payment of the housing element of her claim. When the landlord contacted her on 2 February it said it was being paid, but not in full and therefore arrears were accruing on the account. The resident said again that she believed there was an error with the number of bedrooms recorded. The resident has told this service that she put 2 bedrooms down on her original UC application and took a copy of her tenancy agreement, confirming the same, with her to the job centre.
The arrears were significant, and it was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to consider serving a NOSP to ‘protect its own interests’. However, it was aware that there was a potential benefits issue, and that the resident was vulnerable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to meet with the resident to ensure that she fully understood:
1. Why a NOSP was being served, setting it in the context of the UC issue.
2. The likely outcome should that situation with UC be resolved.
3. How it could work with her to resolve the issue before taking any further legal steps.
4. That service of a NOSP did not automatically mean she would be evicted.
In doing so, the landlord would have approached the situation sympathetically. Instead, its approach lacked empathy and did not take into account its rent arrears policy. This is because it failed to recognise the resident’s particular needs due to her vulnerability, as set out in its policy. That it did not do so was a failing.
Furthermore, the landlord’s rent arrears policy says that where arrears are accruing its first port of call is to check the accuracy of the benefit claim. The resident flagged that there seemed to be a discrepancy regarding the number of bedrooms as early as January 2022. The landlord had to have completed its verification check in order for UC to have been paid. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to double check the information it was providing was accurate, in order to avoid any further confusion. Instead, the situation was exacerbated when it gave the number of bedrooms as 3 because it was captured incorrectly on its database. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this prior to serving a NOSP. In not doing so it caused further distress and frustration for the resident.
On 16 May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord because it had provided UC with inaccurate information. The landlord acknowledged its error in its reply of 9 June. It said it would resolve the discrepancy, however its internal notes show that this action was still outstanding in August. Its records show that the system was not amended until 15 December 2022, when it also contacted UC in an attempt to rectify the error.
Having been put on notice by the resident, the landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed. It took 19 days to respond to the resident and offer an apology for its error. Given the distress already caused to her by serving the NOSP this was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to make what was a relatively simple change to its database, and contact UC accordingly, until 6 months later.
There is no evidence that it provided support to the resident in the meantime. It would have been reasonable to reassure her that it understood the arrears were not her fault, and that it would not take possession action in relation to arrears arising from its error. Had it provided appropriate reassurance to the resident it would have alleviated her significant anxiety about the prospect of losing her home. That it did not do so was inappropriate and further demonstrated a lack of empathy.
Having seemingly rectified the matter, and provided a refund to the resident by 15 December 2022, on 17 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again to say that there was still an error, and she was still being charged for a 3 bedroom property. On 9 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that UC had requested further evidence from it to confirm the error which it had actioned on 15 March.
Having provided the refund to the resident, the landlord would have been aware that the rent account had once again fallen into arrears. Given the history, this should have reasonably triggered a proactive response from the landlord to consider whether the same problem may have occurred again. This was particularly important given the vulnerability of the resident and its own policy about considering the accuracy of benefit applications. Instead, it took a complaint from the resident to prompt it into action at which point it liaised with UC. Its slow response was unreasonable and once again delayed resolution, which took place on 15 March 2022.
In a call to this service on 26 September 2023 the resident said the deduction is still being applied to her UC. On 13 October 2023 the landlord advised this service that the UC claim is in the resident’s sole name so the problem is ongoing, for a different reason. An order has been made in regard to the landlord providing support to the resident to rectify this issue.
During her call to this service on the same date, the resident said that she does not know whether she is still in arrears. She says she cannot make sense of the rent statements sent to her because they sometimes contain a list of the same date over and over. This investigation has had sight of aa similar rent statement and it is not clear what information the landlord is trying to convey. This is because there are multiple entries against a specific date, 20 October 2022, which shows a significant credit on the account.
It is reasonable to conclude this is why the resident thought she was owed a significantly higher refund than the landlord paid. It is essential that rent statements are set out information in a clear, logical format to enable residents to understand their financial position. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review the format of its rent statements before issue.
In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 8 February 2023, the landlord offered its “sincere and heartfelt” apologised for the “distress and upset” caused to the family which was appropriate. It said that the adjustment to the account and other measures put in place were reasonable and an appropriate remedy to resolve the matter. Its compensation policy says it will consider paying financial compensation to remedy a service failure which has had an adverse effect on the resident. It says the investigating officer should take into account the vulnerability of the affected household, for example a disability.
The landlord acknowledged that its mistake had caused distress and upset, for which it apologised “profusely” in its stage 1 complaint response of 13 January 2023. It was also aware that the resident had a number of vulnerabilities which may mean she had been affected to a greater degree by the failure. Therefore, its failure to offer compensation was inappropriate and did not align with its compensation policy.
While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. We recognise that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s physical and mental health conditions) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Section 6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code) states that when ‘putting things right’ a remedy should reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. The landlord’s apology did not recognise the:
1. Extent of the detriment caused to the resident’s mental health, who reported feeling suicidal due to the threat of eviction.
2. Impact on the resident’s daughter who the residents said had dropped out of college to provide support to her mother.
3. Service and subsequent handling of the NOSP.
4. Delayed resolution.
Section 4 of the Code sets out that landlords should use complaint handling as part of a drive to encourage positive learning culture. The landlord failed to identify lessons learnt and what it would do differently in the future to prevent a reoccurrence of the same issue.
The landlord’s handling of the arrears demonstrated an approach which lacked empathy and did not align with the principles set out in its rent arrears policy. Its response did not reflect the requirements of the Code and did not go far enough to ‘put things right.’ The failures had a significant emotional impact on the resident amounting to severe maladministration for which the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800.

Repairs

Electrics

On 1 November 2022 the landlord raised an order to carry out an electrical installation condition report (EICR) as part of its planned works. In response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022 the landlord raised an order on the same day. The target date was 6 December however, it is unclear whether this was carried out because there are no further notes on the repair logs. This was inappropriate and a record keeping failure.
In its stage 1 response of 13 January 2023 the landlord said that the electrics were tested on 16 December 2022. The electrician reported he notified the supplier that the main head required changing as it contained asbestos. There is no record of this on the landlord’s repair logs which is inappropriate and evidence of a further record keeping failure.
The resident reported partial loss of power on 18 January 2023. The landlord appropriately raised an order to carry out the necessary repairs by the following day. The resident confirmed it had attended that same day because when she reported a total loss of power on 20 January, she said it occurred after the landlord’s visit 2 days prior.
The landlord raised a further works order on 20 January 2023 and on it, noted that the resident was disabled and there was a young child in the property. The target date was 23 January which was not line with its repairs manual which says “emergency repairs, for example total loss of power, are fixed within 1 working day.” A second report was raised on 22 January in relation to a total loss of power with a further target date of 24 January. This is further evidence that the landlord failed to comply with its response times. Furthermore, there are no notes against the works orders to say when the landlord attended and what works it carried out, if any which is a record keeping failure.
The resident told the landlord she had had no electricity from Wednesday night (18 January) through to Sunday evening (22 January). It its stage 2 complaint response of 8 February 2023 the landlord confirmed that it attended the property on 23 January to make safe electrics as the resident had lost power. It found that a “defective” lead was being used. It also noted that works were required to the consumer control unit which had been raised. It failed to recognise or acknowledge that it had not responded within 1 working day or that it had left the vulnerable resident and her child in the property without any power between 20 and 23 January. It therefore offered no form of redress, such as an apology and/or or compensation, to ‘put things right’ which was inappropriate.
The resident has told this service that the electrics have been inspected. She is unsure as to whether there are any outstanding works. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to clarify the position.

Windows

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2021 to report her concerns about the condition of the windows. The entry on the repair log says “please attend and inspect and report back findings.” However, the status is cancelled and there is no evidence that the landlord attended which was inappropriate and a record keeping failure.
The resident was caused further time, trouble and inconvenience in making a further report about the windows on 24 May 2022. On this occasion the landlord appropriately raised an order on 26 May 2022 to “repair the timber windows and seal them where required throughout the property.” However, the are no notes setting out the landlord’s response which was inappropriate and a record keeping failure.
The resident was once again caused time and trouble when she contacted the landlord on 29 June 2022 to say that the rotten window from her bedroom had fallen into a neighbour’s back garden. An order was raised for immediate attendance but there is no confirmation if or when the work was carried out. This is further evidence of poor repairs record keeping and was particularly inappropriate given the serious nature of the repair.
The resident made another report to the landlord on 23 November 2022, requesting that the windows be replaced. She said that “numerous” surveyors had attended the property and concluded the windows needed replacing. The landlord does not dispute her comments however, there is no record of any such surveys recorded on its repair logs which is inappropriate.
In his phone call to the landlord on 13 December 2022 the resident’s son said that urgent repairs were needed. Having been contacted by the resident 4 times between May and December 2022, on 16 December the landlord raised an order to inspect the windows at the request of the resident who was noted as “vulnerable.” In it stage 2 complaint response, dated 8 February 2023, the landlord confirmed that the windows were inspected in January and the findings submitted to its repairs team. It intended to supply and fit new UPVC casement windows in the property. It said that the windows had been measured and were being manufactured which could take 12 weeks or more. However, on 13 September 2023 the landlord raised a further works order to replace the windows.
On 26 September 2023 the resident told this service that there has been no progress regarding the window replacement. She said the landlord ‘made safe’ her bathroom window so that it cannot be opened because if it is opened it will “fall out.” Although the landlord took appropriate steps to make safe the window, the permanent closure of the bathroom window could have increased the risk of moisture building up, causing damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the need to ensure an alternative source of ventilation until it was in a position to replace the windows.
It is unclear why there were such a significant delay in replacing the windows. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the external structure of the property, including window frames. By not doing so it has failed to meet its legal obligations which is a failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about the delay which is unreasonable.
The resident refers to surveys of the property which are not recorded on the repairs logs. The landlord’s repairs logs are sparse and do not adequately capture all the events relating to the repairs. There are repeated works orders to replace the windows, with no clear explanation as to why the work remains outstanding. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, including the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. This investigation has ordered that the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping.

Loft

In her stage 1 complaint, 23 November 2022, the resident said that the loft needed insulating. In its stage 1 complaint response of 8 February 2023 the landlord said it had raised a works order to assess the condition of the loft and assess whether insulation was required. It said the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange access.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord appropriately raised an order to inspect the integrity of the entire roof and roof space and provide a detailed report. The landlord inspected the loft and subsequently came back to measure up. The resident has told this service that this happened about 3 months ago but she has not heard anything since then. The resident first raised concerns about the absence of any loft insulation 10 months ago. It is unclear as to why the repair has not been completed, and the delay is therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided updates to the resident to keep her informed of the progress of works which is a failure in its communication.

Concerns about the property being damp and cold

Throughout the complaints process the resident has repeatedly raised concerns about her home being “cold and damp.” She has reported that the house is always cold and she “struggles to raise the temperature above 7 degrees even with the heating on 24/7.” She says the situation has had a significant effect on her “physical and mental health”, and “aggravated her rheumatoid arthritis.” It had also put a “serious financial burden” on her because she had to release her mobility car to be able to pay for her heating. Her distress was evident in her call to the landlord on 6 December 2022 when, following a call to the resident about her rent account, the landlord described her as “very distressed, suicidal and depressed due to repairs needed.”
There is evidence that the thermal levels within the property are compromised. The windows are rotten and have lost integrity, with the windows from the bedroom and bathroom having fallen or been on the verge of falling out. There is no loft insulation. There was a hole in the roof which the landlord repaired after it was reported by the resident in her stage 2 complaint of 16 January 2023. The resident advises it was fixed approximately 3 months ago having been inspected by the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 8 February 2023. This is further evidence of the landlord’s delayed response to resolving essential repairs, given that routine repairs are to be completed within 28 days.
Taking into account the extent of the issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a full survey of the property. This would have an opportunity for the landlord to satisfy itself that the property met the Decent Homes Standard by providing a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. It could have used the feedback to develop a clear action plan, with timescales, which it could have communicated to the resident. This would have reassured her that the landlord took her welfare seriously and would have ensured she was fully aware of and what steps it would take to remedy the issues and when.
Section 4 of the Code say that complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord should consider what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required. The resident has set out clearly the detriment caused to both her and her daughter as a result of these issues. However, despite the landlord being aware of the extent of the situation, and the significant impact on the resident, it failed to use the complaints process to expedite the remedial works which was inappropriate. There is also no evidence that the landlord prioritised the resident’s repairs for “quicker action”, taking into her account her vulnerabilities, as set out in its repairs manual. That it did not follow its own procedure was a failure.
As a consequence, the resident was put to the time, trouble and inconvenience of repeatedly chasing the landlord for updates. She also contacted her MP and citizens advice to seek their assistance in resolving the outstanding repairs. She has told this service that she continues to be adversely affected by the conditions within the property due a lack of response from the landlord. This is particularly concerning as the colder months approach.
Section 6 of the Code sets out the ways in which a landlord can ‘put things right’. This can include provision of a financial remedy. Despite the clear delays, which are acknowledged by the landlord, it has failed to consider compensation as a means of putting things right which is inappropriate.
Taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to pay £1656.87 compensation which recognises the impact of the failures on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the entire property. The period considered for this calculation is June 2021 to September 2023, which is 121 weeks. A 10% reduction has been applied to the weekly rent, as follows:
1. 2021/2022 43 weeks at 10% of £131.50 per week = £565.45.
2. 2022/2023 52 weeks at 10% of £136.89 per week = £711.82.
3. 2023/2024 26 weeks at 10% of £146.47 per week = £379.60.
Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
There were significant delays in resolving the substantive issue. There is also evidence of repair record keeping and poor communication failures. The landlord’s failings caused additional distress, time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in excess of £1000 should be awarded where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord failed to adhere to its repairs response times when the resident lost all power at the property. It failed to resolve the resident’s complaint about the windows which has been ongoing since May 2021. It failed to resolve the long-standing concerns regarding the loft insulation and the property being damp and cold. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1200 for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022. The landlord had 20 working days to reply to the complaint, which expired on 21 December. However, it failed to respond to the complaint and did not issue a written acknowledgement. This was inappropriate because it did not adhere to its policy. Furthermore, having received no response, and having no idea if her complaint had been acted upon, the resident went to the time and trouble of making a stage 2 complaint on 13 December 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023, 42 working days after the complaint was made which was 22 days out of time. It failed to acknowledge the delayed response both in terms of the frustration caused to the resident and the inconvenience caused by making a stage 2 complaint to elicit a response. That it did not do so was a failure.
The delay and the landlord’s failure to acknowledge it amounts to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her move to the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account lacked empathy and had a significant emotional impact on the resident. The landlord’s response was delayed and did not align with its rent arrears policy.
The landlord failed to resolve the substantive repair issues which has had an emotional and physical adverse effect on the resident. There were record keeping and communication failures.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was out of time causing time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and its effect on the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £3756.87:
  1. £800 for the landlord’s administration of the resident’s rent account, which caused considerable distress to the resident.
  2. £1656.87 for the effect of the failures on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
  3. £1200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to resolve the substantive repairs issue, the delayed responses, poor communication and record keeping failures.
  4. £100 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint and the failure to acknowledge the error.
2. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failings in this case.
  2. Confirm the current balance on her rent account, offering her the opportunity to discuss it in person should she find that beneficial. It should set out how it can support her to finally resolve the ongoing issue with her rent account to ensure that her UC claim accurately reflects the correct number of occupants within the household and that it does not charge her for a 3 bedroom property.
  3. Confirm whether there are any outstanding electrical works at the property and if so, set out what they are and when they will be resolved.
3. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
4. Carry out a full survey of the property. It should provide the resident with a detailed schedule of any necessary works, setting out the nature of the works and the expected completion date. The landlord should provide a copy to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review:
1. The method used to log repairs to ensure it captures all relevant information relating to property repairs to include:
  1. The details of the resident’s report including the date it was made.
  2. Its response in terms of who attended when, and what works are completed until the repair is resolved including the date the repair was completed.
2. The format of its rent statements prior to issue.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that its repairs response times set out in its repairs manual marry up with those in its repairs policy.