South Tyneside Council (202126406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126406

South Tyneside Homes

7 February 2024

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about being rushed to take up the tenancy of the property.
2. Reports about the condition of the property upon letting.
3. Concerns about the handling of the outstanding repairs and the decant.
4. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
5. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

An arms-length management organisation manages the council housing stock on behalf of the landlord, which is a local authority. This organisation will be referred to as the landlord throughout this report. The resident had a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord which started at the end of 2020; the tenancy ended in early June 2023. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The landlord did not give details of any vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is obliged to repair the structure and exterior of the property including, among other things, the internal walls, floors (excluding floor coverings), ceilings, doors and plasterwork. This reflects the obligations in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The tenancy agreement also says that the resident must give the landlord reasonable access to the property to carry out any repairs, improvements, servicing or inspections; it will take legal action if a resident unreasonably refuses to allow access into the property for these purposes. Under the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for plumbing in washing machines and must repair any damage caused to the landlord’s pipework.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy lists six different repair categories. These include:
1. Urgent repairs which affect the resident’s ability to live comfortably in the property and these repairs should be carried out within one to three working days by appointment.
2. Routine repairs which are day-to-day faults and repairs should be carried out within 20 working days.
The repairs policy sets out the response times for qualifying repairs. This includes leaking from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern where the response time is one working day.
The repairs policy also says that when a property becomes empty, it will carry out a repairs survey within five working days. It adds that all properties are let to its ‘lettable homes’ standard and new tenants will sign a lettable standard checklist at the offer viewing; it says all tenants will also receive advice on decorating and fuel suppliers.
The repairs policy also sets out the empty homes lettable standard. This includes that the property has been subject to repair work and all building debris will be removed and will be swept and cleaned; and the garden is clear of all bulky waste.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. They are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Typically, improvement works are the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent. The HHSRS also explains that excessive damp reduces thermal insulation which causes the property to be cold.
The landlord’s decant procedure says that a move into temporary accommodation with the intention for the resident to return is known as a decant. This may be necessary because of an emergency such as fire or flood damage, or because planned repair works mean that the property is uninhabitable. It says that the landlord will arrange a home visit with the resident to complete a property decant questionnaire at the earliest opportunity; each case will be decided on its own merit. Options that should be considered include:
1. Staying with friends and family.
2. Using a B&B/hotel (where it is only necessary to leave the property for a very short time, such as in an emergency); or
3. As a last resort moving to an alternative property belonging to the landlord.
The decant procedure says that there is a central pool of decant properties that can be used, however, not all areas are covered by this central pool. Where the decant is required by a resident in an area where there are no properties from the central pool and those in the central pool are not suitable, the landlord will liaise with the housing solutions service to identify a property or request the use of a temporary homeless unit that is suitable to be used as a decant.
The procedures explains that, where a property is refused, the landlord will establish why the property is unsuitable for the resident. The resident is to be made aware that it only has a limited number of properties that it uses as decants and, if another property is available in the same area, this is to be offered as an alternative. The resident will only be offered two decant properties. Where the decant is due to planned repairs work, if the tenant does not accept the property offered the landlord will consider involving the legal services team if a mutually acceptable outcome looks unlikely or the structural repair is very urgent. Legal action may be taken if it is deemed necessary.
At the time of the events initially complained about, the landlord had a three‑stage complaints procedure. At stage one the landlord would try to resolve the issue immediately; if it could not do so it would provide a complaint response within 15 working days; at review stage it would provide a response within 20 working days. The complaint procedure was revised to two stages in January 2021 and the time to respond at stage one was revised to 10 working days; it remained 20 working days at stage two.
In 2021 the Ombudsman published a report ‘Spotlight on Damp and Mould. It’s Not Lifestyle’. This encourages landlords to take a proactive approach to damp and mould. The landlord introduced a damp, mould and condensation policy in 2023. This says it will, among other things, undertake a property inspection when a repair is reported relating to suspected damp, mould and condensation; diagnose the cause correctly and, wherever possible, fix the problem first time; carry out remedial repairs and actions in accordance with the tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance policy; and ensure the customer’s home has a reasonable degree of thermal comfort in accordance with Decent Homes Standard to help reduce the likelihood of condensation occurring.

Summary of events

The landlord provided an undated empty homes inspection sheet. It is reasonable to presume that this was completed after the property became vacant and before the resident moved in. This identified work to be undertaken in the property including the removing glass from the door in the entrance hall and boarding the panels. It noted no structural issues were identified.
On 18 December 2020 the resident reported rubbish in the garden left by the former tenant. He chased this up on 23 December 2020. Meanwhile, on 20 December 2021 the landlord noted a formal complaint from the resident. It concerned, among other things, the cleanliness of the property and boarded up panes of glass on the door. It noted the resident was seeking compensation for his belongings that had water damage.
On 24 December 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint by email saying that the contractors were scheduled to attend the property that day to empty the bins and clear any remaining waste from the garden. It apologised that the cleanliness of the property was not to the standard he expected when he moved in and for the repair issues he encountered in the first week of his tenancy. The landlord later referred to this email as the stage one complaint response.
The landlord spoke to the resident that day and explained it had revised the tenancy start date to 21 December 2020 to account for nicotine damage and spider webs in the property, as well as a burst pipe; it also gave him a £75 decoration voucher which it agreed he could use for household goods. The resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with the second clean as it had not been thorough and that the heating engineer had discovered a hole in the radiator pipe during the gas safety check and said that should have been identified and fixed when the property was empty. During that call the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
The repair log evidences that, following contact from the resident on 5 January 2021, an appointment was made for the front door to be inspected. The log notes that that appointment was cancelled by the resident.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. The main points were:
1. It should have given consideration to the fact the resident had to relocate from a distant part of the UK when the property was ready to let. It would ensure in the future that appropriate time is given to allow for such a move.
2. There was no indication from the virtual viewing that the property was in a poor decorative condition. This video was not edited in any way, and it used virtual viewings where appropriate to do so such as where a customer was not living in the area. The resident’s daughter had viewed the property on his behalf and confirmed she was happy with it, but did raise an issue with the boarding to the front porch, which it had raised as a repair. It acknowledged the property required further decoration and offered £125 decoration allowance which was increased to £200 to acknowledge the additional expense due to the nicotine staining.
3. It apologised that the standard of property clean and garden clear fell well below the expectations set out in its agreement with its contractors. It had immediately arranged for a further property clean and clearance of the garden when the resident raised concerns. It acknowledged that he was unhappy with the second property clean as he had expected this to deal with some of the staining on the walls and ceiling. It apologised that he was not aware that this would not be picked up as part of that clean. It had given a decoration allowance to account for that.
4. In relation to the garden clearance, its contractor had attended on 24 December 2020 but were unable to access the rear of the garden. It was unable to rearrange this until 6 January 2021 due to its services being reduced over the Christmas period. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused the resident. It added it would be carrying out an audit and review of the quality of the service offered by its contractors to ensure that these issues did not happen again in the future.
5. It acknowledged the level of service the resident received was not up to standard and offered £300 as compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience and difficulties he had faced as a result.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. He later confirmed he wanted compensation and decorating vouchers to resolve matters.
On 8 February 2021 the resident requested “substantial compensation”, plus a decoration allowance, not vouchers.
On 17 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that he would not allow the repairs to take place at that time as he was not allowing strangers into the property due to the pandemic.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord issued the final complaint response which included, among other things, the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property when it was let. In addition to the points in the stage two complaint response, the main points were:
1. The landlord agreed that the quality of the clean of the property before it was let was not adequate and an additional clean was carried out on 15 December 2020. The resident had confirmed he had cleaned the property using the allowance for household goods it had given him. The landlord said that it had identified that the current cleaning specification was to be reviewed with its cleaning provider and a new checklist would be introduced to ensure that their cleaning meets the specified standard before a property is signed off as ready to be let.
2. An inspection carried out whilst the property was empty revealed that the glass in the partition and internal door was not safety glass and, in line with its procedure, was removed and boarded over with ply board. The incoming resident was then able to paint the boards using the decoration allowance provided. It said in the stage two complaint response that the quality of the repair was not good and offered to look at options to repair or reglaze the internal door. The resident had refused that offer at the time. It noted that the boarded panes were not to the standard it would expect and, as a result of, where internal doors/windows did not meet safety standards, these would be replaced with Georgian glass.
3. It explained that some bridging work has been carried out in the front bedroom to remedy damp and, as nothing further had been mentioned by the resident, it presumed this was no longer an issue.
4. It explained the garden waste would usually have been completed before the property was let, however, that did not happen as the contractor had a backlog. This matter was included in compensation in the stage two response. It added it would be reviewing its service level agreement with the contractor.
5. It explained the bins should have been emptied prior to the property being let. The garden was cleared on 6 January 2021 and a contractor emptied the bins the next day. This issue was included in the compensation offer at stage two.
6. It had told the resident that he could fill small holes in the ceiling such as those left by nails or screws, with decorative filler using the allowance provided.
7. It added that moving forward it would ensure appropriate time was given to allow for a move when residents were moving from another part of the country. It had revised the tenancy start dated from mid-December 2020 to mid-January 2021 to reflect that.
8. The repair to the hole in the storage cupboard should have been carried out before the property was let and it apologised that it was not picked up at the time. It had offered in the stage two complaint response to have these repaired, but the resident refused. It assured the resident that all of its operatives worked to the current pandemic guidelines and safety measures.
9. The resident had not accepted the offer to repair the radiator pipe in the bedroom at stage two. It had agreed that, as a service improvement, if a radiator was removed while the property was under repair, it would ensure that the piping was replaced and securely pinned to the skirting board. It understood the resident did not want workmen in the property at that time but asked him to consider this repair as it was concerning and could cause further damage.
10. The resident had refused its offer to repair the bedroom cupboards which it had made at stage two. It had agreed that going forward, as a service improvement, it would remove any redundant piping or boxes, whilst the property was empty and being repaired.
11. It had offered to inspect the brickwork at the rear of the building at stage two, but the resident had declined.
12. At stage one it was agreed that a painter would call to give the base of the window in the porch a coat of antimould paint. However, the painter could not gain access in December 2020 and the resident did not re‑arrange this appointment. At stage two, it had offered an inspection but the resident did not accept. It said that, going forward, where there was any indication of mould growth, it would ensure this was appropriately treated and painted prior to re-let.
The landlord gave the resident two options: option one was that he remained in the property, and it would carry out all repairs listed above and redecorate the property. It would give him £600 made up of £200 for the decoration vouchers and compensation of £400. Option two was to identify and offer the resident an alternative bungalow that met his requirements. It would assist with removals, decorate, provide carpets and connect appliances; however, should he choose that option, it would be unable to offer any monetary compensation. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 30 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord to pay the compensation plus remaining decorating allowance on to his rent account to clear the arrears so he could register for a mutual exchange. On the next day, the landlord told the resident it had credited his rent account with £475 (£400 compensation and £75, which was the remainder of the decoration cards).
Some three months later, on 22 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying the repairs needed doing and said he did not know how they would be carried out. In response the landlord said the resident had two options: a temporary decant or he remained in the property and the repairs were completed on a room-by-room basis. The resident asked for more detail about a decant.
On 24 June 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would facilitate both his storage and removal costs while he was decanted. It added that the removal would include his white goods which would then be placed into the decant property so he would not be without any of the basic essentials he required. It also confirmed the decant property would have flooring and blinds.
On 19 July 2021 the resident refused a decant and suggested a permanent move. On the same day the resident agreed to an inspection of the property on 22 July 2021; however, he cancelled it the next day.
Also on 20 July 2021, the resident told the landlord that the repairs should have been carried out before he moved in; therefore, a permanent move to an identical property in the same location was “the only viable option”. In response, the landlord asked the resident to consider the two options offered to him in its response of 9 March 2021.
On 24 July 2021 the resident told the landlord that the outstanding repairs needed doing as soon as possible as the property was not fit for purpose. He said the proposed decant was impractical and would exacerbate his already high anxiety levels. He said having the repairs while he remained in the property would be impractical due to the size of the property and the type of repairs which would lead to noise, dust and inconvenience. He added that he had a pet.
On 27 July 2021 the resident told the landlord that the rising damp in the property was “getting ridiculous and becoming a health hazard”. He asked for a permanent move. He also said that he would not allow any operatives in his home. In response to photos from the resident, the landlord said it was unclear what the issue was and offered a surveyor to inspect the property that week. It noted further that finding a suitable accommodation might take a while and it wanted to ensure he was comfortable in the property in the meantime. In a separate email the landlord told the resident it would see what bungalows it had available in a different area.
On 6 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that damp was still present and the damp smell was overwhelming; he added that water was now seeping through the kitchen floor. He said there was rising damp in the walls of the living room and hallway and damp in the carpet in both areas. On the same day a plumber resolved a leak from the washing machine.
On 16 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident thanking him for allowing the survey to inspect the property. It said a plumber had resolved the leak from his washing machine, but it was unsure how long that leak had been ongoing for and how much water had been dispersed from the leak. The landlord noted the resident had cancelled a follow-up visit and asked that a surveyor could visit to confirm that things were drying out and to ensure there was no additional repairs as a result of the leak.
On 27 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that the surveyor’s final visit had taken place two days earlier and he hoped it agreed that he should be relocated permanently to a similar property in the same area with gardens. On the same day the landlord offered him a viewing of a bungalow in a different area for a permanent move.
On 1 September 2021 the landlord offered a viewing of a different bungalow. It was not clear if that was for a temporary or permanent move. On 8 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord following a viewing of the bungalow offered on 27 August 2021. He said it was unsuitable as it was “too isolated and too busy and noisy”.
On 11 September 2021 the resident chased progress saying he required an urgent move. On 13 September 2021 the landlord asked the resident about what type of property and location he would move to for a temporary decant. It also made an internal request for the current properties available.
On 14 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that it did not look like he would be decanted before winter so he would need financial assistance to keep the property warm. On the following day the resident chased progress. In response, the landlord told the resident that it did not have any bungalows in the location he had requested but did have some in other locations. It asked if he would be willing to be decanted to a different area; it said it would pay for taxis to the nearest station and to his doctors. The resident agreed to consider a different area.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord provided the resident with the surveyor’s report. This referred to a leak from the washing machine being resolved on 16 August 2021 (the evidence suggests this was resolved on 6 August 2021). In relation to damp, the reports said that on 25 August 2021 a comprehensive survey was carried out to all accessible walls with an electronic moisture meter. The readings from the meter indicated that moisture was present in the wall plaster at low level and the skirting boards indicating a probable wall floor junction failure that would allow moisture to “bridge” from the floor slab edges into the wall plaster and masonry.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord received a formal complaint from the resident. He said that the property should never have been allocated to him and he was seeking compensation for the anxiety this had caused him.
On the same day, the landlord noted in an email to its solicitors that its surveyor had identified rising damp in the property that was not picked up when the property was empty. It noted a decant was required and the work would take around six weeks.
On 21 September 2021 the resident asked for substantial compensation and a decant or permanent move describing the conditions as “squalid”. He provided the landlord with photos. In a separate email that day, the resident asked the landlord why the property was let when it was “never fit for habitation”. He said the condition of the property was affecting his physical and mental health. He added that the landlord was offering him decant properties in locations that were not suitable.
At about this time the landlord sought legal advice about the potential action it could in relation to the outstanding repairs.
The landlord logged a formal complaint that day about its response to the damp. It noted he had accepted £600 for his complaint about the other repairs and that he could take that complaint to this Service. It added that it was continuing with its efforts to find a decant property for him so that those repairs could be carried out.
On 23 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord asking for dehumidifiers to control the damp while he waited for a move and also for a contribution towards their running costs. On the same day the landlord arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered to him the next day and confirmed it would reimburse any electricity costs.
On 28 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord for a contribution to his gas and electricity bills so that he could keep the property warm.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 1 October 2021 and he confirmed that he had not been using the dehumidifier as the weather was dry; the landlord encouraged him to use it as it would make the property more comfortable.
On 1 October 2021 the landlord noted that the resident had agreed to an extension for the complaint response as it wanted further information on the decant.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that it was continuing with its efforts to find a decant property so the repairs set out in its final complaint response of 9 March 2021 could be carried out.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It had discussed the complaint with the resident on 23 September, 1 and 7 October 2021. The resident advised that repairs had been identified and he had had been told that, in order for work to be carried out, he would need to be decanted. He had been offered two decant properties, both of which he had found to be unsuitable.
2. On reviewing the surveyors’ report and following its discussions with them, there was no evidence of rising damp in the property.
3. The video the resident had provided showed a large amount of water under the kitchen tiles and this was not consistent with damp and mould but indicated a leak or spillage of water. On reviewing the repair history, it identified repair visits where leaks had been reported.
4. It had provided a dehumidifier to help with the removal of moisture within the property. It had agreed to reimburse additional energy costs and encouraged him to use it even when the weather was dry.
5. It had explained that a decant was necessary because work to the wall/floor junctions had been identified and that, following his decant, further investigations would be undertaken. It noted the resident did not agree to a move to a busier area for a short time. It noted it would ensure that the property was redecorated and floor coverings renewed where appropriate before he moved.
6. The resident had agreed to extend the deadline for the complaint response so that it could explore the available decant properties and gave details of a bungalow in a quiet location which matched his requirements. It noted, however, the resident had turned this down as it was in a different location. It noted that staying in his current location limited the potential properties which would suit his preferences. It asked him to consider other areas and it would ensure that the decant period was as short as possible.
The landlord partly upheld the complaint in relation to the repair issues identified to the property, that is, the need for a decant shortly after he moved in. It apologised for any inconvenience this matter had caused. It did not uphold his complaint relating to the decant explaining that it had taken into account his preferences and requirements and worked to identify suitable properties to facilitate a short-term decant.
The landlord said it had identified some learning through its investigation of his complaint and had discussed its findings with its empty homes construction manager. This related to the surveyors’ inspections, when properties were empty, to ensure that awareness was raised to encourage additional investigations where moisture, condensation or mould was identified prior to properties being allocated. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that it had been almost eight months since the final response to his complaint about repairs and nothing had been done. In internal emails the landlord noted it had offered the resident a decant property that morning. It also noted that a decision needed to be made about how far it was willing to go for this resident outside of its procedure and policy as he had refused two previous decant properties.
The landlord wrote to the resident that day saying that waiting for a decant property to become available in the area he wanted might take some time and it was keen to carry out the outstanding repairs as soon as possible. It asked if he would allow the repairs team to access the property whilst he remained in it.
On 11 October 2021, in response to contact from the resident, the landlord told him that it was unable to assist him with a move outside of that local authority area as it had no jurisdiction in relation to the allocation of housing stock outside of the borough. It explained how he could bid on properties in a different area and, in response to his request that it did not contact him, explained it would still need to make reasonable contact with him concerning the management of his tenancy and the ongoing repairs he had brought to its attention. The landlord confirmed it was still looking for a temporary decant property for him so that the works could be carried out as soon as possible.
On 13 October 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he was unhappy with the condition of the property when it was let and gave details of that including nicotine-stained walls and ceilings; the bins outside the property were full of rubbish; and the front and back gardens were in a mess. He said the property was “in such poor condition”. The resident also said that he had been “rushed into taking the property”. He said all this was “impacting on his already fragile mental health”.
On 18 October 2021 the resident asked for financial contributions from the landlord towards the extra energy costs he would incur keeping the damp and mould “manageable” over winter.
On 27 October 2021 the resident told the landlord that water was still seeping through the floor of the kitchen; he said there was no leak from the washing machine connector. He asked where the water was coming from.
On 9 November 2021 the resident asked the landlord not to contact him because of the stress and anxiety he was suffering.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord issued its final complaint response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. On 16 August 2021, surveyors attended the property and carried out an inspection. They found a leak coming from the resident’s incorrectly plumbed washing machine. Although this was not the landlord’s responsibility. It agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, for a plumber attend to and fix this leak.
2. At a further visit on 25 August 2021, a comprehensive survey was carried out to all accessible walls with an electronic moisture meter. The readings from the meter indicated that moisture was present in the wall plaster at low level and the skirting boards which indicated a probable wall floor junction failure which was allowing will allow moisture to ‘bridge’ from the floor slab edges into the wall plaster and masonry.
3. Repair works were required in order to fix this wall floor junction failure, and these would only be possible once he had vacated the property into a temporary decant property.
4. It explained that after the repair works the property would be decorated and floor coverings renewed where appropriate, therefore, the resident would not suffer any financial detriment. It added offers of compensation could only be identified or offered – where applicable – once the repair works had commenced. It said that, at that stage, it would not be offering any additional compensation.
5. It confirmed it had offered the resident numerous properties which he had rejected without viewing. It said it had contacted him directly by post detailing a decant property which it considered suitable for his housing needs. It said it would continue with its efforts to find him a decant property.
6. In response to the resident’s request for a financial contribution to his heating bill because the damp was causing the property to be colder, the landlord said that any indication of damp would not affect the temperature of the property itself. Therefore, it would be unable to offer any contribution towards the heating of the property.
7. It was unable to determine how long the washing machine had been leaking prior to it being fixed or the volume of water which would have seeped below the tiles in the kitchen. The floor tiles in the kitchen would need to be lifted and removed to allow further inspection and for the water to fully dry out below the tiles from the historical leak caused by the washing machine. This again would only be possible once the resident had been decanted to allow for the repairs and further investigations to be carried out.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When he approached the Ombudsman, the resident said he wanted a written apology and compensation for the distress and anxiety that he suffered due to the landlord’s failure to identify and then remedy the defects within the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

This report considers two separate complaints made by the resident which were considered by the landlord under its formal complaint procedures; the first dealt with the condition of the property when it was let and resident’s concerns that he was rushed into taking the tenancy; the second complaint concerned the reports of damp. This report has focused on the events complained about until the date of the final complaint response to the second complaint, which was 22 November 2021.
The resident mentions that he was caused anxiety and the events complained about affected his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Concerns about being rushed to take up the tenancy of the property

The landlord addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its complaint handling. It reached the view that there had been a reasonable period of time prior to the offer. It explained this time had allowed for a virtual viewing by the resident as well as a face-to-face viewing by his daughter who expressed that she was happy with the property. It added that at no point did the resident indicate that he was unable to start the tenancy on the date set.
As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord revised the tenancy start date from 14 December 2020 to 11 January 2021 to reflect the fact he was reallocating from a different area. Although evidence of this has not been seen, it is presumed that rent was waived for that period. It also took learning from this and explained in the future it would ensure that it allowed appropriate time for a move when residents were moving into one of its properties from a different part of the country. The landlord’s explanations, the amendment of the tenancy start date and the learning taken forward was reasonable response to this aspect of the complaint.

Reports of the condition of the property upon letting

It is reasonable to conclude that the property was not let in an appropriate condition. This is evidenced by the list of repairs identified by the final complaint response of March 2021.
In recognition of this, the landlord gave the resident two options: a Permanent move and no compensation; or compensation of £400 plus decoration/cleaning allowance of £200 and he would remain in the property while the works took place. As the resident specified he wanted to remain in the property, the landlord offered to decant him whilst the works took place.
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 Ombudsman considers that the sum of £400 was a proportionate sum for the inconvenience and distress the resident had experienced since moving into the property less than three months previously. The offer of decorating vouchers to the value of £200 was also reasonable and the landlord acted fairly by extending the use of these for cleaning/household goods.
The resident requested to stay in the property and the landlord paid £400 plus the outstanding decoration/cleaning allowance on to his rent account to offset arrears at the resident’s request so that he could register for a mutual exchange. That was a reasonable step to take. This offer of compensation was broadly proportionate to its initial failures.

Handling of the outstanding repairs and the decant

By March 2021 the resident had refused a decant and would not allow workmen into his property to carry out the identified repairs. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take any action at that time as it did not consider any of the repairs as urgent; it encouraged the resident to allow it to attend to resolve the leaking radiator pipe and reassured him that its operatives operated within the pandemic guidelines and safety measures.
When the resident contacted the landlord some months later, it said there were two options– a temporary decant or allowing it to do the repairs room-by room. It acted reasonably in arranging an inspection of the property; however, the resident cancelled that appointment.
The resident rejected the landlord doing the repairs while he remained in the property and, at the end of July 2021, requested a permanent move. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a property decant questionnaire in line with its procedures or that it considered any other decant option such as a B&B or hotel or staying with family. Had the landlord explored these options with the resident it is possible (but not definite) that a temporary decant might have been agreed at an early opportunity.
The landlord acted appropriately by managing the resident’s expectations about the length of time either a temporary or permanent move would take if he was to remain in a bungalow in the same area because such properties did not become available very often. The landlord also acted fairly when it suggested a decant property outside the area the resident wanted, by offering him taxis to make such a decant easier for him.
The evidence suggests that at that time the landlord offered the resident at least three properties, which he did not take up. It referred to a further property in its final complaint response of 22 November 2021. The number of properties offered as a decant was more than the number of properties referred to in its decant procedure and this Service considers that demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to seek a resolution to the matters complained about. When none of the properties offered had not been taken up by the resident, the landlord sought legal advice. That was an appropriate step to take given its obligations to keep the property in a good state of repair and was in line with its decant procedure.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in trying to carry out the repairs following the final response of March 2021. Where a resident refuses access as the resident did in February and July 2021, the landlord’s liability under section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is suspended until access is granted.
While this report has identified a failing in relation to its actions in relation to the decant, this Service cannot say with any certainty that discussing the decant options with the resident at an earlier stage would have resulted in an decant. Therefore, the likely impact on the resident was minimal. Accordingly, financial compensation is not appropriate in this instance.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

The resident reported rising damp in the property at the end of July 2021. In early August 2021 the resident reported water seeping onto the floor. The landlord identified this leak was coming from the washing machine and, while it was not responsible for this repair, resolved it the same day. That was a goodwill gesture by the landlord to resolve matters and prevent further damage to the property by this leak.
Later that month, a surveyor inspected and identified rising damp in the property. The landlord acknowledged this rising damp to its solicitors in September 2021; however, in its stage one complaint response a few weeks later denied there was such damp. Similarly, the stage two complaint response did not confirm damp in the property.
Within the first response dated 7 October 2021, it specifically advised that there was no rising damp within the property. Whilst the information detailed in the stage two response indicates moisture present in wall plaster at low level and probable failure to the wall floor junction, this information would have not provided clarity to the resident due to the wording, particularly relating to rising damp. The Ombudsman would have expected to see that the landlord clearly confirmed that there was rising damp within the stage two response, particularly as it advised there was no rising damp in the stage one response. Nevertheless, it is clear from the landlord’s attempts to move the resident permanently or to a decant, that major investigations and works were needed to be carried out in the property and the resident was aware of this.
As such, whilst the landlord could have made it clearer regarding the rising damp, it did advise of the surveyor’s findings and what it needed to do in order to make the necessary repairs in the property. As such, I feel the decision of maladministration is not a fair outcome in this instance and I have amended this to service failure as the landlord did not provide a sufficient apology to the resident for its failing to provide a clear and cohesive response regarding the rising damp within the complaint.

Complaint handling

The initial case was received on 21 December 2020 and the stage one response was issued on 24 December 2020, within four working days. The resident’s escalation request was received on 4 January 2021 and the stage 2 response was issued on 26 January 2021, 14 working days later. The case was escalated on 28 January 2021 and the case handler discussed and agreed a new target date of 5 March 2021 on 24 February 2021. On 5 March a new target date of 10 March 2021 was agreed due to ongoing discussions with the resident. The response was sent on 9 March 2021, with a further amended response sent on 29 March 2021.
The second complaint was received on 21 September 2021 and acknowledged the same day. On 4 October 2021 the case handler spoke with the resident about the complaint and agreed on 4 October 2021 that the response would be issued by 18 October 2021. The response was issued on 7 October 2021, which was 12 working days from when the complaint was raised. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 13 October 2021 and acknowledged the same day. A holding letter was sent on 11 November 2021 advising that the target date was amended from 11 November 2021 to 25 November 2021. The second stage response was issued on 22 November 2021, 28 working days later.
There were delays in issuing the complaint responses as per above, however the landlord did communicate with the resident regarding the delays. The stage two response within the first complaint was four days later than the specified 10 working day timescale without updating the resident, however, a delay of four days would not be considered a significant failing against the landlord. Complexities within the case have been considered as these contributed to the delays in issuing responses to the resident. As such, no maladministration has been found with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the handling of the outstanding repairs and the decant.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its:
1. The resident’s concerns about being rushed to take up the tenancy of the property.
1. Reports about the condition of the property upon letting.

Reasons

The landlord gave conflicting information to the resident about the issue of damp in the property. However, it acknowledged that there was work to be done to the property that would require him to move out.
The landlord did keep the resident updated following the delays it issuing complaint responses.
The landlord acted appropriately by trying to carry out the repairs and offering the resident a decant. While the landlord did not act fully in accordance with its decant procedures, this Service cannot say with any certainty that, had it done so, this have resulted in a decant.
The landlord acted reasonably by amending the tenancy start date to reflect the fact that the resident had moved from another part of the UK and said it would consider this in similar cases in the future.
The landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s concern about the condition of the property of letting by offering £400 compensation and £200 vouchers for decorating/household goods.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the impact of giving him conflicting information about damp in the property.
As the resident is no longer a tenant of the landlord, it should contact to arrange to apologise and to make this payment which can be done via a cheque if his bank details are not available.