Aspire Housing Limited (202224728)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224728

Aspire Housing Limited

20 May 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the former property.
2. The landlord’s management of the rent account.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of issues encountered during the removal of her items from the former property.
4. Handling of outstanding repairs at the current property.
5. Handling of the resident’s request to move out of the current property.
6. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord at the former property from 2016 until 18 December 2022. This property was a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. She moved to the current 3 bedroom property by way of a direct let and her assured tenancy commenced on 25 July 2022. Her rent at the current property is £136.32 per week. The resident disclosed to the landlord that she suffers with depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. She lives with her five children including her 13 year old daughter.
The landlord’s direct let guidance sets out the circumstances where it will consider a direct let which includes domestic violence. It states that the resident must not have outstanding arrears for such a request to be approved. It states that if there are any arrears, a move can be considered in exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s rent payment and arrears recovery policy outlines as follows:
1. Residents owing a debt will not be considered for a new tenancy until the outstanding debt is cleared in full.
2. Non-essential repairs will only be carried out if the rent account is clear or a repayment arrangement has been kept for at least 3 months, except where there are serious health and safety issues in relation to the condition of the property.
The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and improvements policy outlines its four categories of repair; immediate, emergency, routine and major. These have response timeframes ranging from 4 hours to 28 calendar days. It advises however that for major repairs such as groundworks and fencing, more time may be needed and an inspection would usually be required for these works. As such the time within which major works are delivered may vary.
The Government’s DBS checks: guidance for employers states that an employer may request a DBS check as part of their recruitment process. Access to Standard, Enhanced, and Enhanced with Barred List(s) DBS checks is only available to employers who are entitled by law to ask an individual to reveal their full criminal history, including spent convictions. This applies when the individual will be working in specific occupations, covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975.
The landlord’s disclosure and barring service checks and criminal convictions policy says as follows:
1. It will use the DBS check process to assess the suitability of contractors and sub-contractors who must be assessed against the same criteria as those working directly for the landlord to see if a DBS check is required.
2. To determine whether a DBS check is required a manager should risk assess the activity that the individual will be undertaking. This should be done prior to any activity taking place.
The landlord’s safeguarding policy says as follows:
1. It will appropriately report alleged harm or abuse to the relevant investigating agency. Following such a report it will offer support.
2. Its staff who have specific and regular contact with children, and vulnerable adults will be appropriately checked following the DBS guidelines.
3. When visiting homes, its staff and contractors should avoid being left alone in a room with a child or adult with care and support needs at any time during the visit.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy sets out its two stage complaints process and says as follows:
1. Complaints will not be considered for issues which are raised more than six months after the relevant events (unless it was an on-going issue it was aware of).
2. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If it is not possible to meet these timeframes, it will agree a response date with the resident.

Summary of events

When the resident moved into the former property she removed the garden gravel and replaced it with turf. The resident subsequently complained to the landlord in 2017 that the garden was flooding which was impacting the property. The landlord found that the turf had been laid on top of a membrane which prevented water from draining away. It advised the resident to remove the membrane or to aerate the area to improve the drainage. It concluded that it was not responsible for the garden flooding.
This Service has not seen any evidence of reports of damp until March 2019 when the landlord raised a job to inspect damp and mould. Its internal records show that this was cancelled however it is not clear why. No further reports were made until January 2022 when the landlord attended to repair a leak under the sink.
Subsequently, in April 2022 the landlord noted as follows:
1. Water had got into electrical sockets.
2. The bath pipework seemed to be leaking.
3. The boiler programmer had never worked.
4. The gutters needed to be cleared.
5. The dampproof course had failed and repointing was required. It marked this job as urgent.
In May 2020 the landlord raised a job following reports that water was coming up through the kitchen and outhouse floors which could not be contained. It made an appointment for contractors to attend the following day but this was marked as cancelled. The following week it raised a job as the boiler was leaking.
The landlord inspected the former property in May 2020 during which it noted that there was condensation. Subsequently a gas safety check was carried out in July 2020 and no issues with the boiler programmer were identified.
No evidence has been provided to this Service of any further reports of repairs until 2022 nor of what further action the landlord took in relation to the issues previously reported by the resident.
On 21 April 2022 the landlord inspected the former property and noted that the kitchen ceiling and right hand corner of the wall were wet. The relative humidity levels throughout the house ranged from 45% (good) to 48% (high). It concluded that damp and mould in the property was being caused by the repairs required and advised the resident to ventilate the property. It raised the following jobs:
1. Mould wash around the kitchen window.
2. Renew sealant to the door of outhouse and thermal board the rear wall to help prevent cold spot mould from forming.
3. Replace tiled windowsills with plastic to stop condensation from forming.
4. Check the kitchen humidity fan as it was not working.
5. Re-hang internal doors and replace hinges. The landlord attended to do this job on 19 May 2022 but the resident did not permit access.
6. Trace and repair leak from bath or associated pipework. This was completed on 30 May 2022.
7. Replace and box in kitchen stop tap. This was completed on 30 May 2022.
8. Replace double glazing units in living room and bedroom 1. The landlord noted internally that this had not been completed as it had been unable to contact the resident despite several attempts.
9. Replace the broken thermostat. The contractor noted internally that the resident had reported that the thermostat had “never worked”.
10. It noted that there were insufficient plug sockets and that several multi adapters were being used. It requested that additional sockets be installed. The landlord attended on 4 May 2022 however the resident declined to have this work done.
11. The gutters needed clearing and joints realigning as rainwater was cascading down the walls.
12. The dampproof coursing had perished and needed to be re-mortared.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord completed the boiler control and guttering jobs.
The landlord visited the property on 30 May 2022 to inspect the completed works (the damp coursing was outstanding). The resident explained that she was not satisfied with the work but declined to show the landlord the issue. The landlord noted that the work had been completed to a high standard. It made an internal record to say that the resident had sworn at its operative and had said that she would not permit contractors to attend until the landlord moved her.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord completed a direct let request for the resident which stated as follows:
1. The resident had arrears at the former property.
2. The resident could not remain at the property due to issues with an ex-partner and the involvement of Social Services. There were also reports of ASB in the area.
3. There were a number of maintenance issues at the property which the resident had declined to let the landlord complete.
4. She had agreed to move into a 3 bedroom property until the landlord could find her a 4 bedroom property. It would arrange another direct let for this once the resident had moved.
On 29 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had applied for discretionary housing payment to assist with her arrears at the former property. She set up a direct debit for these arrears on 4 July 2022 to pay £40 per month to clear the outstanding sum. She subsequently cancelled this and advised the landlord that she would set up a standing order instead. The landlord advised this Service that it had received no further payments and the standing order had not been set up. It also explained that since the account for the former property fell into arrears it had contacted the resident on more than 160 occasions to resolve this. It advised that during the tenancy at the former property it had made several arrangements with the resident to clear the debt but these were not adhered to.
On 21 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that that resident had agreed to move to the current property and it had agreed to pay for new carpets at the new property as a gesture of goodwill. It noted that it had agreed that the resident could move without clearing her arrears at the former property.
The landlord completed the damp coursing job at the former property on 5 August 2022.
Prior to the resident moving to the current property the landlord carried out a void inspection which identified works which were completed prior to the resident moving into the property:
1. Re-hang bedroom door.
2. Re-fix kitchen plinth.
3. Re-seal in bathroom where needed.
4. Mould treatment where needed.
5. Replace toilet seat.
6. Unblock bath.
7. Renew vinyl floor to kitchen and downstairs toilet.
The landlord completed the kitchen renewal at the current property in August 2022.
The resident moved to the current property in December 2022 and subsequently made a complaint to the landlord, which was undated. It said as follows:
1. Since moving into the former property in 2016 there had been ongoing issues with the lack of drainage in the garden. It had soaking wet carpets and damp walls and her belongings were destroyed. She also had to re-plaster at her own expense. She explained that living in a state of disrepair had impacted her health.
2. The landlord had agreed to complete works to the current property before she moved in which included fencing, a gate, the kitchen, and works to the garden which she described as a “jungle”. None of these agreed works had been completed.
3. The landlord had not advised her that her rent for the current property would be more that her rent had been for the former property. She said she only found this out an hour before collecting the keys.
4. The landlord did not conduct a DBS check on the removal company staff. The resident described one of its employees as a “well-known local paedophile” and said that after meeting her 13 year old daughter at the property during the move, he had made multiple attempts to contact her daughter via social media. This severely impacted her daughter who did not feel comfortable living at the current property and instead moved to live with her grandparents. She stated that the landlord had been aware of her vulnerabilities and mental health issues but did not consider these when it failed to safeguard her family.
5. The landlord had said it would submit a discretionary housing payment for her rent arrears at the former property. Due to an emergency with her children she could not attend the pre-arranged meeting and she had heard nothing further about this.
Following the disclosure about the member of staff from the removal company, the landlord contacted the police who later advised that no further action would be taken against the individual. The landlord confirmed to this Service that as part of its investigation and to support the resident and her daughter, it offered her access to its in-house support service. It is not clear if the resident or her daughter took up this offer.
The landlord met with the resident to discuss her complaint and followed this up with a written stage 1 response on 9 December 2022. It upheld her complaint and said as follows:
1. It had attended the current property and had seen that the fencing had been completed but not satisfactorily. It agreed to her request that a gate be put in. It would complete the rear fencing once the resident confirmed that she had removed the hedge stumps.
2. The resident had confirmed to the landlord that the rent for the current property was affordable. Following the resident’s concerns, it had referred the resident to its money advice team to see if there was any further financial advice or support it could offer.
3. It had learnt lessons from the experience the resident and her daughter went through with the removal company. Moving forward it would complete a preferred supplier exercise to ensure that one removal supplier would be employed and each individual working with residents would require a DBS certificate.
4. It acknowledged that it had mismanaged and misinformed the resident in relation to dual rent payments on both properties and that it had let the two run at the same time which resulted in the resident incurring arrears for the former property. It did however advise that there were already arrears on the former property before she moved out and explained that these needed to be paid. It advised that due to the nature of discretionary home payments it may not have supported her with her rent for the former property. It confirmed that it would remove the arrears that had accrued at the former property since 25 July 2022 (the date the tenancy at property two began.)
5. It agreed with the resident that it would cover the cost of a replacement tumble dryer. The resident had chosen a replacement make and model and the landlord had requested that this be ordered.
On 19 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and said as follows:
1. She appreciated that the gate had been scheduled for 10 January 2023 but other repairs were still outstanding with no completion dates.
2. Her legal representative had advised that she should not remove the tree roots as both boundaries would be affected and the landlord therefore needed to do this.
3. Repairs at the former property had been outstanding for extended and unnecessary periods of time. These repairs included poor drainage from the garden, which she could not use, causing water to seep through the floors. She also said that the property had been damp and had no damp proof coursing. She reiterated that she had to replace damaged items and re-plaster herself. The landlord had been aware of the damp since an inspection in 2020/2021. She believed that the damp and mould had impacted her and her daughter’s health and that the property had not been fit for purpose and did not meet housing standards.
4. She had agreed with the landlord that the rent increase was affordable based on its advice that it would be covered by housing benefit. The increased amount however was not covered.
5. She reiterated the lifetime impact of the situation with the removal company employee on her daughter and said that she had missed a large amount of her schooling due to the incident and was having ongoing counselling. The resident described her own health following the incident as being in “tatters”. She said that her medication had been increased due to severe anxiety which had been so bad she had blacked out.
6. Despite the landlord removing the rent arrears, these should not have been on her account to begin with. She said that her mental health had been impacted by the landlord pursuing her for the debt.
7. The landlord offering to replace the tumble dryer was not relevant as it should not have been broken during the move.
The landlord noted internally that the resident had raised the issue of items having been damaged at the former property but that she had not reported this at the time. It went on to discuss internally whether it should deal with this as a separate stage 1 complaint and whether it should consider it at all as the resident had not raised issue within 6 months of it occurring. It decided that it would be flexible with its policy and would consider the complaint and it would do so separately to avoid any confusion. It subsequently spoke to the resident and noted that she was happy for it to be investigated separately.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 to the original complaint and said as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the fencing works should have been completed prior to the resident moving into the current property. Although it had completed some work it had been unable to complete this as it was waiting for the resident to remove the tree stumps as had been agreed. As the resident had now requested that the landlord remove this, it would arrange for this to take place. As soon as the tree stumps were removed, it would complete the fencing.
2. It had discussed the rent for the current property with the resident and had carried out an affordability assessment. It had also discussed this with the resident during the sign-up. It acknowledged that the rent for the current property was higher than it had been at the previous property. It explained that the rent for the current property had been set at an affordable rent level. It had checked her account and noted that the housing costs were being covered in full by universal credit.
3. It completed a discretionary housing payment application with the resident on 17 August 2022 and the resident requested a payment of £1761.32. It subsequently spoke to her on 6 October 2022, and she asked for help completing and retuning housing benefit information. The landlord arranged to visit the resident to do so on 10 October 2022 however on the day, the resident was not available. It then made a further two calls to the resident over the course of the week and sent a text message requesting contact. The resident however failed to respond. As she failed to provide further information to the Housing Benefit Department, the discretionary housing payment application was not processed which resulted in arrears at the former property when the two tenancies were running. As a gesture of goodwill, it had already agreed to write off the arrears that accrued at the former property from the time the resident had moved into the current property, which totalled £2215.50.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had replaced the tumble drier herself and so it had offered her £270.00 to cover the cost of this.
5. In line with its disclosure and barring service checks and criminal convictions policy, it confirmed that only certain colleagues and contractors required a DBS check. It explained that removal contractors did not meet the criteria for such a check. It stated that it was a criminal offence to request such a check on roles that do not meet the set requirements. It confirmed that it had not previously been aware of any issues or concerns with the contractor. It apologised for the impact the incident had on the resident and her daughter and it said it would continue to work with her to provide support.
6. The landlord explained that if the resident wanted to move from the current property she would need to register as her application was no longer live following the move. It agreed that it would backdate any application to the original application date to give the resident an increased opportunity of being offered another property.
7. It concluded that there were areas where it had failed in its service and it took into account the impact of this on the resident and her family. It acknowledged that the resident had said she was not looking to receive compensation, however it felt it was appropriate to offer this to acknowledge the issues. It offered £450 compensation in addition to £270 to cover the cost of the new tumble dryer.
On 16 January 2022 the resident said that she was dissatisfied that the landlord had separated the part of her complaint about the former property. She said that her legal team believed the landlord had done so in order to minimise the impact of considering all matters together and to cover up the extent of the repair issues at the property. She also said as follows:
1. The landlord had not completed the fencing at the current property.
2. Even though she had not kept the appointment that the landlord had arranged to support her discretionary housing payment, it should not have taken the rent from her account and should not have permitted two rent accounts to run simultaneously. The threats of legal action had caused her unnecessary stress and inconvenience. The landlord saying that it had written off the arrears as a gesture of goodwill was not genuine as the arrears should not have been on the account to start with.
3. The landlord’s offer of £450 compensation was a “complete insult” and showed that it had not considered the harm caused to her or her family.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord visited the resident and agreed for the following work to be arranged at the current property:
1. Removal of hedge stumps followed by fencing work.
2. Repairs to the down pipes which were leaking and overflowing.
3. Repair or replace broken or missing radiator TRVs throughout the property.
4. Adjust the kitchen window which was difficult to open.
5. Replace the bathroom extractor fan.
6. Repair cracked concrete slab in rear garden.
7. Repair front step brickwork.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the outstanding complaint (the issues at the former property) and said as follows:
1. One repair at the former property had taken longer than the repair target date. All other repairs had been completed in line with its repairs policy.
2. It then addressed the current property and acknowledged that its communication about resolving the outstanding repairs at the current property could have been improved. It apologised and concluded that the complaint was partly upheld.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 9 February 2023 and said as follows:
1. The repairs to the current property were still outstanding.
2. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response about the removal company employee and that the landlord had “twisted” her words in implying that she was not seeking to be compensated. She wanted compensation for her daughter and a written apology.
3. She was unhappy that the landlord had dealt with her complaint about repairs to the former property separately.
4. The landlord had not considered the impact on her mental and physical health of the complaints and having to chase the landlord.
5. The landlord had not considered the financial loss of having to replace carpets and furniture and re-plaster the former property or that she had been living with mould for prolonged periods of time. Given the conditions she said she should not have been liable for full rent from 2016-2022 for the former property.
6. The landlord had inappropriately acted as if it was helping her by removing the rent arrears when the arrears should never have been on her account.
7. She had not known about the increased rent for the current property until she moved in.
8. She stated that she should not have to go onto the general bidding system as advised in the stage 2 response and should be offered any potential 4 bedroom properties as priority, as advised by the landlord prior to taking on the tenancy at the current property.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The landlord noted internally on 13 February 2023 that the resident had declined to allow a senior member of its staff to visit her at the current property as she felt that too many contractors had attended.
The landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 16 February 2023 and confirmed dates for the following work:
1. 20 February 2023, repair broken or missing radiator TRVs, repair cracked concrete slab in rear garden and step brickwork.
2. 22 February 2023, repairs to the down pipes.
3. 23 February 2023, adjust the kitchen window and replace the bathroom extractor fan.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident had said that the contractors who had attended that day had been unaware of the work to be done and that she was “extremely frustrated”. The landlord confirmed that the radiator valves had been replaced as planned and that the guttering repair was taking place that day.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 March 2023 it requested for the plumbing and joinery jobs to be done that week and that the brickwork was still outstanding. These were booked for around 14 March 2023 but did not take place. The landlord’s internal notes said that it thought the reason for this was that the resident had cancelled them. They were re-booked for 20 March 2023.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord called and spoke to the resident about the second stage 2 complaint and offered her compensation and to carry out the repairs. Its internal notes said that the resident was abusive towards the member of staff and hung up the phone.
The following day, the landlord responded to the outstanding complaint relating to the former property at stage 2 and acknowledged that the complaint should have been upheld at stage 1. It then addressed the outstanding works at the current property and advised that it had completed some works to the current property and others were scheduled for 20 March 2023. It offered £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused although it is not clear if this was for the works at the former property, the current property or for both properties. The landlord advised that the external works at the current property still needed to be booked in at the resident’s convenience.
On 20 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the stage 2 response did not address her complaint. She declined the offer of £500 compensation as she did not believe it was a fair amount and did not reflect the money she spent on rent whilst the former property was not fit for purpose. She also said that it did not reflect the harm caused to her daughter. That same day she declined entry to the landlord and its operatives to carry out works.
The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord about the former property in April 2023. She also reiterated aspects of the complaints considered in this investigation.
On 16 May 2023 the landlord agreed that the external works would be done on 25 May 2023. The turf however could not be laid as planned due to the weather conditions. The resident said she wanted it to proceed so the landlord asked her to sign to say she was happy to proceed against its contractor’s advice. She declined to do so. Following this she advised the landlord in July 2023 that she did not want it to do the works to the slabs or steps at that stage. The landlord advised this Service that it had completed the hedge removal work.
The resident told this Service that she wanted to be compensated for the cost of having to take her children out during the summer holidays as the garden was not usable. The landlord responded to this as a new complaint on 21 July 2023. The resident subsequently told this Service in October 2023 that the work to the garden had not been completed. On querying this with the landlord it advised this Service that it had attempted to complete the garden works and it could have been completed a number of weeks ago but the resident was unwilling for any of the current contractors to attend and requested that any contractor attending must have a current DBS check. To accommodate the resident’s request the landlord instructed a new contractor and asked that the staff have DBS clearance before it completes the works. The work is booked in for 30 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she believes that the damp and mould at the former property impacted on her health. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
For the same reasons as above this Service does not have the authority to assess the impact on the resident or her daughter from a health perspective on account of the alleged actions of the removals contractor.
Whilst this investigation cannot decide on the causation of health conditions, it has considered if any general distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident as a result of errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required at the former property

Since the issues at the former property were reported, the Housing Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021 which outlined how landlord should treat damp and mould reports seriously and action such repairs with urgency. It is noted that following this spotlight report the landlord conducted a self-assessment and established a dedicated damp and mould policy in 2023. These are positive steps and it is reassuring to see that the landlord has taken on board leaning from the spotlight report.
The landlord said in its response to this aspect of complaint that it had actioned all repairs at the former property in line with its repairs policy apart from one repair. It is not clear from the landlord’s response or records which repair it was referring to. It would have been helpful if the landlord had been clearer in its determination of this complaint as to what repair it was referring to.
From the repair records provided to this Service the repairs at the former property took the following timescales to be completed:
1. The repair of the dampproof course which the landlord classed as urgent in April 2022 was not completed until August 2022, a delay period of around 3 months and 2 weeks.
2. The leak under the sink took from January 2022 to March 2022 to be repaired, a delay period of just under 1 month.
3. The repair of the leaking bath pipework took from April 2022 to May 2022 to be fixed, a delay period of around 10 days which was not too significant.
4. The work to the guttering took from 21 April 2022 to 27 April 2022 to complete, this timeframe was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that for most non-major repairs, the maximum timeframe for completion is 28 days.
5. The landlord replaced the boiler thermostat within 5 days.
Although the resident had informed the landlord that the boiler thermostat had never worked, this Service has seen evidence that no issue were identified with it during the gas safety check in 2020. The issue was then not reported until April 2022 following which the landlord acted appropriately and fixed it within 5 days.
It is noted however that the landlord’s rent payment and arrears recovery policy states that it will only carry out non-essential repairs if the rent account is clear or a repayment arrangement has been kept for at least 3 months. From the records provided to this Service it is apparent that the resident’s account had been in arrears since at least 2017. Despite this, the landlord has an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in good repair the structure of the property and the installation for the provision of water. Section 12 of the Act does not allow landlords to disregard its obligations under the act via its policies. An order has been made for this policy to be reviewed below.
The landlord stated within the direct let application that one of the reasons for the resident’s move to the current property was her reluctance to allow it to do the required repairs. Although the resident’s reluctance understandably made the repairs more difficult to resolve, it did not absolve the landlord of its repair responsibilities. Whilst the repairs were delayed, it is noted that the landlord had made multiple attempts to complete works, but that these were obstructed by the resident not providing access. Whilst these access issues are appreciated and have been taken into account here as significant mitigating circumstances, it remains the case that the landlord could not demonstrate that it effectively dealt with the repairs and resolved them in timely manner.
There are a number of aggravating features in how the landlord responded to the repairs, namely:
1. The delay in completing some of the repairs.
2. The nature of the repairs which included water ingress and the resulting impact upon the household.
3. The resident’s vulnerabilities, including the presence of children at the property.
4. The landlord’s incorrect finding that it had acted according to its policy for all but one repair.
The dispute resolution principles set out that landlord’s should take steps to put things right when things have gone wrong. It is acknowledged that the landlord partly upheld the complaint at stage 1 and then upheld it at stage 2. At that point it offered £500 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused although it was not clear what aspect or aspects of the complaint this related to.
Although the landlord was not clear what repairs it offered compensation for, it acknowledged that there were delays and issues the resident had experienced living in its properties. Under the circumstances, as the delay period was not significant nor lengthy, this Service considers that the landlord’s offer of £500 is proportionate and reasonable when considering the length of the delay period and the failings outlined above.

The landlord’s management of the rent account

The landlord’s direct let guidance makes it clear that if a resident has arrears then it will only consider a move for a resident in exceptional circumstances. This is mirrored in its rent payment and arrears recovery policy which says that residents owing a debt will not be considered for a new tenancy until the outstanding debt is cleared. Despite this, the landlord used its discretion to arrange such a move in order to support the resident given her personal circumstances.
The landlord helped the resident to make an application for discretionary housing payment and she requested further help with providing the supporting information. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the resident’s request and arranged to visit her in order to help with the application. When the resident was not available for the pre-arranged visit, the landlord took reasonable steps to try to re-arrange this in that it called her on a number of occasions and sent a text message asking her to get in contact. Despite the landlord’s efforts to try to help the resident, she failed to engage with its offer. In the circumstances the landlord was limited in how else it could support her.
The residents failure to provide the required information resulted in further arrears at the former property as two tenancies were running at the same time. The landlord acknowledged this within its complaint response and apologised for mismanaging and misinforming the resident about the dual rent payments. It however took appropriate action and used its discretion to write off the arrears that had accrued at the former property since the resident moved, which totalled £2215.50.
It is clear that the landlord had contacted the resident a significant number of times about arrears at the former property since 2016. In order to try to help her it had agreed for the resident to pay £40 per month to clear the arrears but she failed to do so. Following the move, the landlord appropriately advised her that these arrears which totalled £1444.82 would need to be paid. This was appropriate as these arrears had accumulated over the years the resident resided at the former property.
The landlord confirmed that it had discussed the rent for the current property with the resident and had carried out an affordability assessment prior to her moving. It had also discussed the weekly rent with her during the sign-up stage. This Service has seen the affordability calculator completed by the landlord, which stated that the resident would be left with £8539.57 per year once her essential expenditure had been accounted for. This also showed that her weekly rent at the current property was covered by housing benefit. These were all appropriate actions for it to have taken to ensure the resident was aware of the financial implications of the move. The landlord confirmed to this Service that the resident’s rent was covered in full by universal credit.
The landlord acted appropriately in discussing the rent at the new property with the resident and her outstanding arrears. It also referred her to its money advice team to see if there was any further financial advice or support it could offer which was appropriate to support her after she had raised concerns. As such there was no maladministration in respect of this aspect of complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues encountered during the removal of her items from the former property.

The resident raised issues which she experienced during the removal of her items from the former to the current property, namely that her tumble dryer was damaged and the inappropriate actions of one of the removal contractors.
The landlord offered to replace the resident’s tumble dryer after it was damaged during the move. When the resident subsequently purchased her own replacement, the landlord said it would compensate her for the cost of the replacement. Although the resident’s views that the tumble dryer should not have been damaged in the first place are understandable, it must be acknowledged that sometimes items are damaged. The landlord followed the dispute resolution principles of putting things right and acted appropriately in offering to replace the item and then offering to compensate the resident for replacing it herself.
It is evident that following the report of improper behaviour by one of the removal company staff towards the resident’s daughter that the landlord acted in accordance with its safeguarding policy and notified the police. In addition, and in line with its policy it offered both the resident and her daughter support with the impact of the incident.
It demonstrated that it had taken the report seriously and outlined the learning it had taken from the situation. It explained that going forward it would complete a preferred supplier exercise to ensure that one removal supplier would be used as a way to prevent such instances occurring in the future.
It is noted that there was a discrepancy between the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses when it addressed the requirements for a DBS check. At stage 1 it advised the resident that in the future each individual working with residents would require a DBS certificate. At stage 2 it explained that in line with its policy, only certain colleagues and contractors required a DBS check and that removal contractors did not meet the criteria.
The information provided at stage 2 was not accurate interpretation of the Governments DBS guidance which states that there is no eligibility requirement for a basic DBS check. However if the landlord was considering asking for a standard or enhanced DBS check, it would only legally be able to do so if the role was eligible under The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The landlord was correct in advising that a removal contractor is not on this list, and therefore it could not legally ask for a standard or enhanced DBS check however it could have asked for a basic DBS check.
This Service acknowledges the significant impact this situation had on the resident and her daughter and has consider the distress caused. Whilst the landlord could have requested a DBS check, it was not legally required to do so and therefore acted appropriately.
The landlord has told this Service that prior to this incident it had already commenced a review which included the consideration and use of basic DBS checks. It advised that the review was close to conclusion and a decision would be made as to whether it will introduce basic DBS checks for employees and/or contractors moving forward. In addition it said that as part of its procurement process, it would be introducing a Supplier Code of Conduct and Supplier “toolkit”. It also advised that it takes safeguarding seriously and it complies fully with the DBS code of practice. These are appropriate steps and demonstrate the landlord’s desire to avoid such an incident again.
It is unfortunate that the stage 2 response did not accurately reflect the landlord’s ability to have requested a DBS check and instead it incorrectly told the resident that it would have been illegal for it to do so. In respect of how the landlord responded to the impact the resident described it was only at stage 2 that it offered an apology. It did however take the matter seriously in that it worked with the police and put things in place to improve the process in the future. The landlord’s lack of an apology at stage 1 and the contradictory advice amounts to a service failure. To acknowledge the impact of the failings on the resident, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the maximum compensation available for a service failure as per the remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs at the current property

The exact date the resident moved into the current property is not clear, however it appears it was during December 2022 after works had been identified in the void report. After the resident moved in the landlord visited the current property in January 2023 and identified additional works required. It subsequently completed them as follows:
1. Repairing the radiator valves took from 26 January to 20 February 2023, a total of 26 days.
2. Repairing to the down pipes took from 26 January to 22 February 2023, a total of 28 days.
3. Adjusting the kitchen window and replacing the bathroom extractor fan took from 26 January to 23 February 2023, a total of 29 days.
As stated in the landlord’s repairs policy these repairs would be classed as routine repairs and therefore the landlord had 28 days to complete them. Although two of these repairs were completed one day over its stated timeframe this was not unreasonable given the number of contractors the landlord had to coordinate at the property. It is noted that the landlord attended during this time to review the works but the resident had declined entry. It is apparent that the landlord acted reasonably in actioning these repairs and tried to ensure they were competed as agreed.
The repairs to the fence and paving are classed as major works under the landlord’s repairs policy. The policy states that such works may take longer than 28 days. The landlord acknowledged that these works needed doing in January 2023. It however could not action the fence repair as tree stumps were in the way and the resident had advised that she would move them. When the resident later said that she wanted the landlord to remove them it did so and subsequently the fence was repaired. Although the exact date is not clear, it was completed by May 2023, which was reasonable given the circumstances.
It is clear from the repair logs that work to the paving and garden did not go ahead as planned in February 2023 although it is not clear why. It appears the next appointment in March 2023 was cancelled at the residents request. When it was rebooked for the following week the resident declined entry. Another appointment was booked for May 2023 but the weather conditions prevented the turf being laid. The resident advised that she wanted it to go ahead but declined to sign to confirm that she wanted the works to go ahead against the contractors advice. Following this the resident told the landlord that she did not want to work doing to the paving in July 2023.
It is clear that the landlord took appropriate steps to assess the work required and that it arranged for the works to be carried out in line with its repairs policy. Whilst it is understandable that the resident was not satisfied with the garden, the landlord took steps to try to remedy this. The landlord was not clear in its response to the residents complaint whether its offer of compensation of £500 included the repairs at the current property, or whether this sum reflected its acknowledged failures for repair issues at the former property only. However the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord did appropriately address the issues at the current property and therefore a finding of no maladministration has been identified here.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move out of the current property

The direct let request completed by the landlord in June 2022 stated that the resident agreed to move into a 3 bedroom property until the landlord could find her a 4 bedroom property. It went on to say that the landlord would arrange another direct let for the resident once she had moved. Given that this was the condition under which the resident accepted the move it was not reasonable for the landlord to say that she would need to re-register as her application was no longer live.
Although the landlord said it would backdate the application, it had led the resident to believe prior to the move that it would be proactive in finding her a 4 bedroom property. The landlord’s lack of action in following through on this and subsequently placing the responsibility on the resident to restart the application was not appropriate and amounts to a service failure. To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident of this, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the maximum compensation available for a service failure as per the remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The repair issues at the former property were identified in April 2020. As stated in the landlord’s complaints policy, it expects residents to raise a complaint within 6 months of the issue occurring. There is no evidence that the resident raised this as a complaint prior to December 2022. Despite not being required to consider this aspect of the complaint the landlord discussed whether it should do so and concluded that it would be flexible with its policy to address the resident’s concerns. Its decision to accept the complaint for consideration was reasonable given that one of the reasons for the move was the resident’s apparent reluctance for the repairs to be done.
Despite the resident clearly referencing the complaint about repairs at the former property within her stage 1 complaint, the landlord failed to address this within its stage 1 response. When the resident queried this, the landlord advised that it would deal with it as a separate complaint to avoid confusion. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the complaint handling code which says that all aspects of complaint should be responded to. It appears that the landlord had not realised that this had formed part of the resident’s original complaint.
This decision led to confusion, a delay in receiving a response to this aspect of the complaint and to the resident feeling that it benefitted the landlord to consider the complaints separately. Whilst the resident’s belief is acknowledged there is no evidence that this was the reason behind the landlord’s decision. The landlord’s records show that it was in fact trying to make things simper for the resident. Unfortunately this was not the outcome and instead separating the complaint led to frustration for the resident and prolonged the internal complaints procedure. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its complaints process. The dispute resolution principles outline that the landlord should acknowledge where things have gone wrong. The landlord however did not acknowledge its failure to follow its complaints process at any point, even when the resident challenged this.
Having accepted the complaint for investigation, it was essential that the landlord provided a fair and timely complaints process that enabled the case to progress towards a resolution. Instead, the landlord’s complaints process lacked clarity and led to confusion and further deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. Whilst its decision to accept the complaint is to be commended, the subsequent failures have led to an overall conclusion of service failure on this aspect of the complaint, with an order to pay compensation to reflect the detriment that resulted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service considers that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the former property satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of issues encountered during the removal of her items from the former property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request to move out of the current property.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Management of the rent account.
2. Handling of outstanding repairs at the current property.

Reasons

Although the landlord did not action the outstanding repairs at the former property in line with its repairs policy, it offered suitable compensation for the period of delay considered.
While the landlord took appropriate action following the report of the incident, it did not provide clear information on the Government requirements. It was not until its stage 2 response that it offered an apology to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident the direct move to the current property and told her that once she had moved it would look to find her a 4 bedroom property. Following the move however it did not do so and instead told her she would have to re-commence an application if she wanted to move. This was not reasonable.
Th landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
The landlord took appropriate steps to support the resident with the completion of the discretionary housing payment application and in completing the affordability calculator for the current property. It took appropriate action in regards to the rent arrears at the former property.
The landlord handled the works at the current property in line with its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £300 compensation to the resident. This is made up of the following amounts:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the impact to the resident of the conflicting and incorrect advice being given about the landlord’s inability to DBS check staff and the delayed apology.
  2. £100 to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident of the landlord not following through on its agreement to find her a 4 bedroom property and instead putting the onus on the resident to do so.
  3. £100 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenient caused to the resident by the landlord not having followed its complaints procedure.
3. Confirm to the resident the action it will take to support her with a move to a four bedroom property as per the assurance given to her in the direct let application.
4. Review its rent payment and arrears recovery policy to ensure it reflects the landlord’s statutory obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pay the £500 as offered by it in its stage 2 response, to acknowledge the impact on the resident of its failings to appropriately action the outstanding repairs.