Southern Housing Group Limited (202203359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203359

Southern Housing Group Limited

20 December 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
2. Repairs reported by the resident on moving in.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives with her husband in a mid-terraced house owned by the landlord, a housing association. The resident has a joint assured tenancy with her husband. The tenancy was assigned (passed) to the resident by way of mutual exchange. The original tenancy began on 1 November 2020 and was assigned on 14 February 2022.
The landlord informed this Service that the resident has no known vulnerabilities. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident disclosed to the landlord in 2022 that she was experiencing adverse mental health. She described herself at this time as ‘very ill with shingles and depression.’
The resident visited the property in October 2021 before submitting her application for mutual exchange. The landlord was not present at this viewing.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 17 December 2021 and noted multiple issues required action by the former resident before the mutual exchange took place:
1. damaged internal doors (kitchen and back bedroom)
2. broken back door surround/ fixture
3. damaged internal walls
4. missing kitchen cupboard door
5. damaged understairs cupboard door
6. untidy garden with waste items
Photographs were taken of the property condition including of missing ceiling skirting. A picture of the property from the outside displayed visible signs of damp to the guttering, fascia and soffits structures with moss growing on brickwork and the overhang directly below.
The landlord’s system data recorded sending a ‘mutual exchange pack’ on 6 January 2022. A copy letter of this date addressed to the resident referred to enclosed terms of the mutual exchange.
On 11 February 2022 the former resident signed a document confirming they would complete outstanding ‘tenant repairs’. The December 2021 inspection items were listed. The landlord’s approval to the tenancy exchange was recorded as conditional on this basis.
The resident provided an account of moving into the property on 12 February 2022, a Saturday. She advised this date was agreed with the former resident and landlord. She reported not receiving relevant tenancy paperwork in advance from the landlord, leading to concern being raised on her behalf by a support professional. The worker relayed assurances from the landlord that sign up documentation could be finalised the next working day.
The resident’s signature to tenancy related documents were recorded on the landlord’s online system on 14 February 2022, a Monday. The landlord’s subsequent email of 17 March 2022 made reference to sign up as follows, ‘..In regards to paperwork, DocuSign was used for the mutual exchange which was a rush on the day as I was informed of the wrong date initially.’

Scope of investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of her reports had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

The resident described finding the condition of the property at move in as considerably worse than at viewing, with multiple issues including no working electrics at ground floor level and damaged items across the property.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord recorded the need for urgent electrical and gas checks. The next day, it logged a report of broken lights and sockets. The date of completion of repair is unclear from its records. The resident recalled sending emails to the landlord around this time raising concern about the condition of her home at the point of exchange.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord noted completing work to a defective boiler at the property.
On 19 February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord a leak from a sink for urgent repair. The landlord acknowledged the report on 22 February 2022. It asked her if she had a repair appointment. She replied that she had received no contact from its contractor and was unable to use the sink.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property. On 22 February 2022 their email to its contractor recorded findings, marked ‘high importance’. It described ‘lots of repairs’ outstanding and that ‘some jobs’ had not been logged. A list of required repairs was detailed including broken sockets, defective guttering, broken sink, an urgent leak, damaged walls and coving, cupboard doors and internal doors. The surveyor raised tasks for the repairs to be done arising from their ‘rechargeable inspection’.
On 23 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord seeking an update about repairs to her home. She chased this contact the following day.
The landlord’s records referred to a failed plumbing appointment 24 February 2022. The resident arranged their own plumber to complete the sink repair.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s recent emails and said it had asked its property team to make contact. The resident replied raising concern that she received no responses to her other calls and contact.
On 1 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for its lack of communication. It requested details of repairs required and updated having referred her issues to the appropriate team for contact. The resident replied with a list of issues experienced at her home. The list included flooding caused by damaged external guttering and internal damage eg missing doors.
On 3 March 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident apologising for a lack of response. The resident was asked if she had raised issues with its repairs service and told her message had been passed to the property service. The landlord’s internal emails flagged the need for repairs. An internal email noted, ‘already had a surveyor out although there is no record of this on CD.’
The resident emailed the landlord on this date and referred to unanswered messages left with her housing officer about the condition of her home. She mentioned making numerous ‘complaints’ and expressed concern about the condition of her home at exchange.
On 4 March 2022 the landlord chased its contractor by email for an update about the previously ordered works and requested it contact the resident with a timetable. It asked to be copied into any email response.
On 7 March 2022 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord on their behalf. It set out the resident’s account of the property being in a state different to that which she had agreed before exchange. It expressed her view that the landlord had failed to complete appropriate prior checks. The MP listed condition issues and raised concern about the landlord’s response to fixing reported items. The MP’s office chased a reply by a further email of 14 March 2022.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord recorded a report by the resident of guttering causing flooding to the outside of the house.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident asking whether its contractor had made arrangements for the outstanding works. The email referred to a call of which there is no record. The landlord also emailed its contractor seeking an update. The resident replied the following day asking for an update on works. The landlord advised it would ask its contractor and told the resident to chase them directly. The resident later reported further flooding and asked for the landlord’s help reaching its contractor.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s MP, apologising for delayed contact. It said it would reply to the complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord also discussed the MP’s correspondence within internal emails. It referred to the resident arranging their own plumber to repair a leak. It was commented that ‘lots of old repairs’ and internal damage were left outstanding at the tenancy exchange. The landlord noted, ‘damages have clearly happened after the checks were completed and would have never been available to sign up the resident if we had known.’ On this date the resident also forwarded to the landlord a receipt for the February plumber attendance.
On 18 March 2022, the resident told the landlord she was still awaiting an update about her guttering, reminded it of issues with internal doors and referred to leaks to bathroom fittings.
Between 21 March and 31 March 2022 the following events took place:
1. The landlord advised the resident it was chasing its contractor and further contact would be made about the plumber invoice.
2. The landlord raised jobs on its system for fencing and internal doors.
3. The resident informed the landlord of a failed visit by its contractors, subsequent bathroom works by its plumber and appointments made for the end of May.
4. The landlord asked the resident for an update about her contact with its contractors and a guttering repair.
5. The resident chased repairs and the landlord’s response to the invoice.
On 31 March 2022 the landlord recorded a call from the resident during which she raised concerns about outstanding repairs. It logged a complaint and noted the need for an action plan of works. The landlord acknowledged the complaint to the resident and said it would reply in 10 working days. It expressed regret that she did not receive acknowledgement sooner. The resident sent the landlord a list of issues outstanding.
On 5 and 6 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an update. The landlord chased its contractor and highlighted the urgency. It updated the resident and advised of guttering works due on 24 April 2022. It refused to reimburse the plumber invoice. The resident raised dissatisfaction with this decision in reply.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord contacted the resident asking whether its contractor had completed repairs. The resident replied she had received no contact or attendance. Later that day and twice the next, the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update on works due. The landlord emailed its contactor for an update.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident’s complaint that said:
1. As a mutual exchange, the property was accepted ‘as seen’. However, it had made arrangements to complete repairs reported.
2. A schedule of works had been arranged for between the end of April and start of May. This was said to be within the length of time it would ‘expect’ completion of repairs.
3. It accepted missing an appointment to repair a leak to the kitchen sink, for which it offered £25 compensation. It refused reimbursement of the plumber invoice because it had not given prior agreement for a private repair.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint the same day. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on the following basis:
1. The information given to her about the schedule of works was inconsistent.
2. The landlord had failed to treat the guttering issue as urgent given flooding.
3. The level of compensation offered was inadequate:
  1. She had been required to take time off work for failed attendances and would have to take further leave for upcoming repairs.
  2. She had been left with no option but to arrange her own plumber to stop an urgent leak.
  3. It did not account for the stress arising from the situation.
On 19 April 2022 the landlord logged a job for repair to the gas cupboard door.
On 23 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord by email. She provided update that a repair had been booked in for the gas cupboard the previous day, for which she took time off work. She reported chasing the appointment towards the end of the day, to be updated that someone had already attended outside at 8am and noted the need to order parts. She raised frustration from not being updated and that a further appointment and time off was needed.
On 28 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She described that trade persons were at the property seeking her guidance on what work was due. She relayed their update that the guttering would not be completed or the doors replaced that day for a number of reasons, including the need for prior measurements. She expressed frustration of taking time off work.
On 1 May 2022 the resident emailed to the landlord information provided by its contractor about works.
On 11 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord seeking an update with dates for the outstanding works to her home. She also raised the lack of update to her complaint. This was chased by the resident on 13 May 2022.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 May 2022 highlighting the lack of reply to her contact. She raised repairs and further inconvenience caused by flooding. The landlord replied and apologised for its late reply. It advised a manager would review her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord advised it would liaise internally about repairs and keep her updated.
On 18 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord seeking an update about works outstanding. The next day, she told the landlord the guttering issue caused further flooding outside and requested prioritisation of the repair.
On 23, 24 and 26 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord asking for a response to her emails. She provided further update of flooding from the broken guttering. She pleaded to the landlord to make contact with her.
On 27 May 2022, the resident’s MP’s office contacted the landlord. It raised the resident’s concerns about contact. It also highlighted it was still awaiting a reply to its correspondence of March 2022 and the resident as ‘very distressed’.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2022, repeating request for an update. The same date, the landlord emailed her MP. It apologised for delay, explaining it closed the original ‘enquiry’ after the resident raised complaint. It acknowledged failing to follow its procedure by its lack of response and advised it was reviewing how to improve its handling.
On 31 May 2022 the resident reported to landlord external flooding and asked for an update on repair. By further email of 5 June 2022 she said, ‘Please, I don’t know how much more flooding we can take due to the bad weather’.
On 14 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to advise she would be referring her concerns to the Ombudsman.
On 29 June 2022 the resident raised by email receiving no stage 2 complaint response and numerous repairs appointments being cancelled. On the following day the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and set out its understanding that it had failed to issue a stage 2 complaint response. It required the landlord to provide response to the resident by 1 August 2022.
On 5 July 2022 the landlord left the resident a voice message confirming that all outstanding work would be completed on 13 July 2022.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord issued to the resident its response at stage 2 of its complaint process. Its reply stated that:
1. Although it raised orders for the repairs reported on move in, many items remained outstanding. It accepted the resident had waited an unacceptable length of time. The delay was caused by contractor sickness.
2. It acknowledged ‘serious lapses’ in communication.
3. It accepted the resident had been told she would be reimbursed the plumber invoice.
4. A list of works had been scheduled for 13 July 2022.
5. The stage 2 case handler would act as a point of contact pending repairs.
6. It had identified learning from the complaint to monitor repair progress, better communication and issues with its contractor.
7. It offered compensation of £611 broken down as follows:
  1. £296 delay to repair at a rate of £2 per day (143 days) plus £10
  2. £135 reimbursement of the plumbing work invoice
  3. £130 loss of earnings at a rate of £65 per day for 23 March and 28 April 2023
  4. £50 lack of communication.

Events post complaint process

The work scheduled for 13 July 2022 was not carried out on that date, save for work to a stair post. The works were later rescheduled for 4, 18 August and then 23 August 2022, for which the resident took 4 days off work. The works were not completed on these dates. The resident escalated the matter further to her MP, who raised further concerns on her behalf in August 2022 about delay to works.
The landlord provided a further apology for its communications, missed appointments and delay to repairs. It provided assurance an action plan would be prepared to resolve the issues.
The resident continued to contact the landlord seeking update of progress across September 2022. She expressed the situation was having an adverse impact to her mental health. The landlord replied to some of the emails, apologising and advised the matter was being chased. On 14 September 2022 the landlord asked the resident to confirm work outstanding, to which she provided a full list. She described the ongoing impact from flooding and the outstanding repairs making her ‘very ill with shingles and depression.’
On 28 September 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited the property and noted a list of works required. This was shared with resident. The landlord discussed the works needed to the resident’s home by internal emails of 3 and 4 October 2022. The landlord commented, ‘I feel we really let the tenant down on this, we have being visiting this property to carry out works from February when the tenant moved in. but not achieved a great deal….it looks like there’s been so many aborted visits..’ It resolved to action works with urgent priority.
An appointment made with the landlord’s contractor to fix the guttering on 4 October 2022 failed. An attendance was also made around this time by a decorator to assess work. The resident continued to raise concerns and seek updates by email across October 2022. The landlord apologised for its ongoing delay and advised it had involved a new contractor, however this would require further scoping assessment, conducted on 13 October 2022. It expressed assurance her experience would be improved. On 19 October 2022, the landlord asked the resident to confirm a list of works outstanding. The resident confirmed all matters remained incomplete.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord’s contractors failed to attend an appointment made for guttering repair. Work was completed the following day. Within days, the resident reported the repair as ineffective. The landlord confirmed it would arrange for return to fix.
The resident continued to chase progress from the landlord by multiple emails across November 2022. It provided further apology on 22 November 2022, citing the issues as caused by its contractor. The landlord described the time awaited by the resident as a ‘massive delay’ in a separate apology.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord’s contractor cancelled an appointment made with the resident to complete a further inspection. The resident emailed the landlord across December 2022 raising delay to repairs. A quote was prepared by its contractor mid-December for a list of works. The landlord approved the works and updated the resident she would be contacted with a start date.
The resident chased an update from the landlord across early to mid-January 2023. The landlord apologised for delay and advised it was awaiting a start date. It asked the resident to confirm a list of repairs outstanding. The resident sent further emails on 17, 23 January and 2 February 2023 requesting update. She was informed the contactor would be chased. It is evident some work was carried out to internal door in February 2023, the date is unclear.
The landlord wrote to the resident by email of 28 February 2023, apologising for the ongoing delay to works and promised a full update with an action plan by 10 March 2023. The records refer to works being booked in for March 2023, however it is not clear from records what, if any, works were done.
The landlord exchanged internal emails April 2023 discussing works outstanding. Many items were confirmed incomplete from the list of repairs record by the survey inspection of February 2022.
On 21 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It advised having completed a review of her case leading to a new compensation offer. It said:
1. It had identified significant delays to repairs and her requests for help and support. It acknowledged its stage 2 action plan response had failed.
2. It apologised for its poor communication, lack of answers and failure to progress repairs that lead to her frequently chasing updates, causing inconvenience.
3. It had chased its contractors and was ‘equally frustrated’ at their lack of response. It explained the contractor suffered a loss of data exacerbating the delays experienced by the resident.
4. Its contractor had contacted the resident the day prior and confirmed outstanding works to be arranged directly.
5. It advised of internal improvements and taking legal advice on action it may take against its contractor for poor communication and performance.
6. It made an offer of £1,412 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £562 further delay to repairs from 14 July 2023 up to 20 April 2023 at a rate of £2 per day.
  2. £700 recognition of the time, stress and effort incurred by the resident chasing the landlord at a rate of £50 per month from beginning of the tenancy (14 months).
  3. £150 Its failure to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s requests for further compensation.
The landlord’s internal correspondence about this offer made reference to the Ombudsman investigation. It commented, ‘we are hoping our last minute compensation offer will keep this one out of the press for severe maladministration…’
This resident sent emails to the landlord in May and July 2023 chasing works outstanding from the list of remedial work set out in the final response. On 3 July 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm a list of repairs needed. On 6 July 2023 the landlord’s contractor reported a visit during which it noted ‘quite a few jobs outstanding’ and identifying action to book in outstanding works.
The subsequent dates(s) of completion of further works is not entirely clear owing to the nature of the landlord’s repair logs. It is evident a number of repairs were completed from the remedial works list in August and September 2023. The resident provided account of further visits by work persons across September, October and November 2023 for which she booked time off work. The resident reports that numerous items remain incomplete from the list of works promised by the landlord’s final response including damage to walls.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Landlord obligations

Within the terms of the mutual exchange, the resident agreed to accept the property ‘as seen’ and responsibility for making good any outstanding ‘tenant repairs’ . Such repairs were described to include plaster patching and previous damage or neglect to fittings eg doors.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy outlined the following:
1. It would inspect the property before exchange to assess its condition and identify any repairs or damage/ neglect to require the outgoing tenant to action before exchange.
2. In ‘exceptional circumstances’, it would carry out repairs outside of its responsibility and then recharge the outgoing tenant for the costs of works.
The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in ‘good repair’ the structure and exterior of the property. This largely mirrored its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The exterior is considered to include the guttering. Internal plasterwork does not ordinarily fall within the definition of structural repair. A repair must be completed within a ‘reasonable’ period.
The operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord ensure its dwelling was fit for human habitation. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause the occupant(s) harm and include issues with damp, drainage and hygiene risks. Exception to the above legal obligations applied where works were necessary as a result of the tenant failing to use the property in a tenant like manner.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy said it could complete repairs that were usually the responsibility of a tenant in order to make the property fit for habitation, safe or where failure to act could have health implications for a resident. The policy also set out its service timescales for reported repairs:
1. 24 hours to repair or make safe repairs where there was an immediate risk to safety;
2. All other repairs would be completed ‘as quickly as possible’.
The landlord’s complaint policy defined a complaint in line with the Ombudsman guidance, as an ‘expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the Group, our own staff, or those acting on our behalf…’
The policy detailed a 2 stage complaint process:
1. At stage 1, the landlord would provide its formal response within 10 working days. If more time was needed to complete its investigation, it would update the customer and this would not exceed a further 10 working days.
2. At stage 2, it would issue response within 20 working days. Where this was not possible, the landlord committed to update its customer with reasons. It would not take more than a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy statement included a commitment to keep its customer updated for the duration of the complaint. It also said the landlord would keep a complaint case open until completion of any action plan required. It promised to contact the customer if it ran into difficulties actioning its plan and would revisit any compensation offer made at point of completion.
The landlord operated a separate compensation policy with an associated framework for the calculation of financial awards. It outlined making an offer of compensation where it had evidence its service failure had caused loss, damage or inconvenience. Examples included not following policies and procedures and failure and delays in repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.

It is clear from the resident’s account together with the landlord’s own records that the condition of the property at point of tenancy exchange was not of the standard anticipated by either party. Repairs raised on the landlord’s system within days of the exchange speak to some of the immediate issues, with work noted as urgent. The survey inspection completed shortly thereafter confirmed multiple issues existing. Internal correspondence of the landlord during the period of investigation acknowledged many repairs and internal damage had been left outstanding. It is not in dispute that many of issues discovered were the result of damage or neglect caused by the outgoing tenant.
This Service did not have sight of the landlord’s then mutual exchange procedure despite repeat requests. Its standard tenancy terms, mutual exchange policy and terms of exchange placed the onus on the outgoing tenant to complete all damages and report necessary repairs for the landlord’s attention. The landlord inspected the property mid-December 2022 and raised with the tenant multiple issues requiring their attention before exchange. This was a reasonable step by the landlord at that time to inform itself of the condition of the property and require its outgoing tenant to perform their obligations.
By the terms of the mutual exchange, the resident agreed to accept responsibility for certain obligations of the outgoing tenant, including for remedying damage of which they were aware and taking the property ‘as seen’. However, it is not evident from the landlord’s records that the terms of exchange were signed before or on the date that the resident moved into the property. Of greater significance is that neither the resident nor the landlord appear to have been aware of the extent of the issues at the property upon exchange.
On review of the events leading up to the exchange, it cannot reasonably be considered fair in all the circumstances that the resident ‘accepted’ the property condition or was aware of the outstanding tenant repairs. There was a significant delay between the resident’s viewing of the property in October 2021 and the mid-February 2022 exchange. The landlord itself became aware of numerous items of damage at its inspection in December 2022, however there is no record it made the resident aware of its findings ahead of the exchange paperwork. At exchange, the condition of the property was considered by the landlord to have worsened from its prior inspection with its internal commentary noting damages occurred after its earlier checks.
In these circumstances, regardless of the terms of exchange and when signed, it was not reasonable for the landlord to rely strictly on those terms. The resident was clearly unaware of the property’s condition. The landlord’s records show that it quickly adopted this position, raising works necessary to return the property to an acceptable condition as ‘rechargeable work’ at cost to the former tenant. By doing so, the landlord agreed to complete the works outside of the terms of exchange and in line with its discretion noted for ‘exceptional circumstances’ by its mutual exchange policy. This was an appropriate position for the landlord to take to produce a result fair to the resident’s situation.
However, while the landlord acted reasonably to exercise its discretion in this way, it failed to manage the risk of any deterioration in the property due to the length of time lapsed between initial viewing and exchange.
The risk of the conditions ‘accepted as seen’ by the resident differing by the point of exchange was inevitably increased by the time taken for the exchange to be processed, a period of several months. Further, the landlord was aware from its inspection that multiple issues existed with the condition of the property 2 months prior to the exchange. There is no evidence the landlord sought to proactively bring to the resident’s attention the issues it had found in December 2021. Nor is there any record of the landlord following up the requirements made of the outgoing tenant by further pre-move checks or inspection, chasers or enforcement contact or other actions. There is an absence of any apparent action taken by the landlord to seek to inform itself as to whether the outstanding items had been or would be resolved in time for the resident moving in.
The lack of reasonable steps taken by the landlord to inform itself so far as possible, as well as the incoming resident, of the conditions that would face the resident at exchange was a failure to effectively mitigate risk and keep the resident informed. This failure to adopt a proactive approach was inconsistent with the landlord’s obligation to ensure its property met fitness requirements.
From review of the information provided by the landlord, there was at the point of exchange no process or procedure guiding it to check or monitor compliance by its outgoing tenants with repairs required of them prior to a mutual exchange. This further hindered the landlord’s ability to implement a proactive risk based approach.
The landlord commented within internal correspondence that had it known of the condition, the property would not have been made available for the resident to move in. While the outgoing tenant was ultimately responsible for the damaged condition and the landlord appropriately exercised discretion to adopt repairs, this view fails to recognise the further steps it could reasonably have taken to inform itself of the presenting conditions. The landlord’s complaint response to the resident similarly failed to acknowledge any failing in its prior process that could have contributed to the situation arising or supported her awareness of issues already found. It did not provide any form of remedy or show learning. The landlord is accordingly found to be responsible for maladministration in its handling of the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
The resident was met with unfortunate conditions on arrival at what was to become her new home. The landlord was aware from the resident’s repeat expressions of dissatisfaction of the distress caused by these circumstances. There was clear detriment arising to her from the landlord’s failure to better manage the risk of this scenario arising and manage her expectations. This Service orders compensation be paid to the resident in recognition of the distress caused.

The landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident on moving in

From review of the landlord’s records, it is evident further exchanges occurred with the resident and its contractor but were not documented. Calls with the resident, chasers and calls to its contractor are referred to within internal and external correspondence, however no associated records were provided. For example, the landlord’s correspondence with the resident of 15 March 2022 refers to a call, however no record was discoverable. The landlord’s supplied repair tracking/ recording system records provide little detail as to the full history and progress of a repair. While this Service remained able to make a complete assessment of the landlord’s handling in oversight, the limitations in the landlord’s record keeping prevented a detailed analysis of events in relation to each and every item of repair reported. The records provided point to failures in the effectiveness of the landlord’s record keeping practices.
The landlord recorded multiple repairs required to the condition of the property from 14 February 2022 and as considered above, it appropriately agreed within days of the tenancy exchange to action all necessary works. This included ‘rechargeable’ agreed tenant repairs eg damaged doors and repairs for which the landlord had legal responsibility eg guttering. Its internal records suggest this work was raised for action by its surveyor the day following their property inspection and marked as high priority.
It is considered reasonable in the circumstances following the resident’s reports from move-in, that the landlord sought to inform itself of the condition by a person of relevant expertise. Further, it is noted the attending surveyor completed the December 2021 inspection. By assigning this check to the same surveyor, the landlord enabled consistency and gave the resident the opportunity for her concerns about updated condition to be fully explored. The inspection on 21 February 2022 took place within a reasonable timeframe. The repairs arising from the findings were raised in a timely manner and assigned appropriate priority.
The landlord is noted within its early correspondence to have communicated assurances to the resident of resolving the outstanding works, consistent with the internal raised actions. At this early stage in the period under investigation, the landlord took reasonable steps to seek to remedy the repairs reported by the resident at letting. However, what is clear from the landlord’s evidence and consistent with the resident’s account is that the promised works were not subsequently completed within a reasonable period of time. Almost all works were outstanding as at issue of the landlord’s final complaint response, 4.5 months later. This represents a significant delay to the landlord meeting the assurances it explicitly made to the resident, its legal repairing and fitness obligations and was contrary to the commitment made in its own repairs policy.
Across the period of investigation, the landlord raised repair orders of its contractor, chased requested works and flagged the urgency of certain items eg guttering. This approach to resolution of the resident’s reports repeatedly failed to lead to effective repairs. It is apparent from the sequence of events and review of the landlord’s internally expressed frustration that it was experiencing issues with its contractor’s performance and communication. However, the landlord remained ultimately responsible to the resident for its delay, its promises and legal obligations.
Where a landlord has contracted out performance of a vital service such as repairs, there are risks arising from non or poor performance that ultimately directly impact the resident to whom it is liable. It was reasonable that the landlord adopted proactive and appropriate performance and quality monitoring assurance process. Any issues, particular repeat patterns, would reasonably have triggered its attention and it is further reasonable to anticipate it would take swift steps to mitigate against or prevent any further associated harm.
There is little evidence in the period of investigation of any concerted effort by the landlord to manage the issues arising with its contractor impacting the resident’s repairs. It was on regularly and repeat notice over several months that repairs ordered were not completed, appointments missed or ineffective for complete repair and that it had failed to communicate appropriately with the resident. Despite this, the records show minimal mitigating or other steps taken by the landlord to seek to manage the risk of continuance of this pattern or the intervening impact to the resident. This is suggestive of inadequate oversight of a contractor and lack of effective quality assurance and/or monitoring process.
The landlord’s communications, internal and external to the resident, frequently seek to place responsibility for failed repairs with the contractor. While it is undoubted that issues arose in their performance, the landlord’s approach showed a lack of ownership of the obligations it owed directly to the resident. This is seen to follow through in its limited actions that amounted to simply chasing the contractor despite clear awareness of their repeat failings.
The landlord’s records suggest it did not have direct access to information about the progress or status of repairs reported as urgent. The landlord repeatedly relied on the resident’s updates. Its chasers to its contractor are seemingly largely ignored or failed to produce result. There is a lack of evidence showing effective 2 way communication channel or data sharing to ensure the landlord was aware of important information for its own compliance and for ensuring effective support to its resident. The landlord could not reasonably absolve itself of responsibility of awareness of repairs needed to one of its properties. It required an effective system of awareness to enable accountability. Its apparent lack of ongoing understanding of the state of its property and repairs requested by the resident carried a significant risk.
This issue of information management appears to have, at least in part, caused the landlord to place unfair expectations on the resident. She was required by the landlord to repeatedly chase its contractor, list repairs of which it was already on notice and continually inform it of the status of works and appointments. The burden of responsibility for keeping itself appropriately informed was largely, and unfairly, passed to her. This was consistent with the landlord’s overall lack of ownership for matters involving its contractor. This approach added significantly to the sustained inconvenience to which the resident was placed during the relevant period.
The landlord’s responsiveness to contact with the resident was inconsistent. While some of the resident’s emails received a relatively prompt reply, other correspondence from the resident and by her MP on her behalf was met with significantly delayed acknowledgement or left unanswered. This added further to the time and trouble to which the resident was placed chasing answers and seeking recourse to third party representation. The periods of delayed response are noted to have raised the resident’s expressions of distress and impacted the relationship of trust between landlord and tenant. She was at times observed pleading with the landlord for a reply and her MP described her as in distress. The landlord had no clear plan or approach to ensuring consistent and proactive communication with the resident. This was unchanged despite the repeat failure of its contractor and escalating concerns.
These issues in the landlord’s communications were part of a wider failing observed; that the landlord did not give appropriate regard to the particular impact on the resident of the failed repairs. Although the landlord did appropriately identify works required as of high priority, there is little other evidence it adopted a risk based response that took account of the resident’s specific circumstances.
Despite the length of delay and escalating distress evident in communications, there is no evidence the landlord gave any consideration to the reported impact to the resident’s wellbeing. Neither is there evidence the landlord had regard to or offered mitigation measures to respond to the physical impacts of outstanding repairs eg repeat flooding. The resident made the landlord aware on numerous occasions that she had taken time off work to enable access, for visits to be failed or used for repeat scoping only. There is very little evidence the landlord sought to minimise this impact and create a fully coordinated plan to try avoid the very circumstances arising eg multi-trade scoping visit and works scheduled together to avoid multiple days off. Little regard appears to have been given to the resulting disruption to the resident and her husband.
The full extent of failings identified by this investigation were not addressed by the landlord in its complaint response to the resident. The landlord’s stage one response failed to accept it had delayed unreasonably, despite 2 months having passed without effective repairs. It provided an inadequate reflection of its performance against the repairing obligations owed to the resident and the impact she had experienced. While it accepted having missed an appointment, it refused the resident’s reasonable request for financial assistance towards the cost of an urgent repair. It subsequently admitted having promised to cover the refused invoice. This initial response exacerbated the detriment experienced by the resident. Its failure to appropriately reflect on its failings led to the resident escalating her concerns to stage 2 at further time and trouble to her. It undermined the landlord resident relationship by seemingly going back on earlier promises made.
The landlord’s complaint reply at stage 2 went further by accepting a greater extent of failings. It accepted that its response to repairs had been significantly and unacceptably delayed and that many repairs reported on move in remained outstanding. However, consistent with its handling throughout, it failed to appropriately acknowledge its role in these failings. It placed the blame for delay with the contractor. It failed to identify and address its own lack of ownership during the period under review. This failure prevented the landlord appropriately reflecting on any wider learning points from review of its actions.
The landlord offered compensation for its delay to repair at a rate of £2 per day and offered an additional £10 as well as £130 for 2 days of lost earnings in line with its compensation framework. The level of financial remedy offered did not reflect the serious nature of the failings identified. Apart from acknowledging the length of delay and lost leave days, it failed to take account the impact on this specific resident. The breakdown or level of remedy showed inadequate account to have been taken of the significant distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to which she was repeatedly placed. There is no evidence the rate of £2 gave adequate regard to the ‘on the ground’ impact at the property and loss of enjoyment of home experienced by the resident. In particular, she had raised frequently to the landlord the impact of flooding having a repeated and distressing impact.
The stage 2 reply and the landlord’s contact during the relevant period did apologise for its poor communication. It was appropriate this failing was identified and a form of remedy offered. However, it gave little explanation and showed insufficient reflection on the cause to avoid repeat of the issues occurring. Further, the financial offer of £50 to account for the detriment arising from its poor communication was inconsistent with its own admission and the above findings that communication failings were significant.
While the landlord made assurances about works it would complete within a specified timeline and the learning taken that would improve the resident’s experience, it failed to act in line with its promises. It is of serious concern to this Service that review of the landlord’s records show the following features present across its handling of the promised remedial works:
1. further significant delay
2. multiple missed or pushed back appointments
3. some of the resident’s emails left unanswered or acknowledged
4. the resident expressed escalating personal impact, citing adverse health impacts
5. further intervention by the resident’s MP to seek update on the remedial works due to the above communication issues
6. The landlord repeatedly asked the resident to list or confirm the repairs that were still outstanding to her home.
The landlord’s handling of promises made to the resident of works in its final response exacerbated its overall failings. The same pattern of failings noted in the above assessment featured throughout the landlord’s efforts to complete the remedial actions promised. Rather than protect against or minimise ongoing impact, its failure to meet the promises made aggravated and added to the significant detriment already experienced by the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident from moving in displayed repeat patterns of failures in service. These failings were serious in nature particularly owing to the significant delay to repair and the onus placed unfairly on the resident to inform the landlord on matters of which it should reasonably have been aware.
The detriment to the resident from the failings was equally serious. The level of time and trouble to which she was placed chasing updates and repeatedly reminding the landlord of works needed was significant. Although some of the outstanding work was minor in nature, other items caused the resident frequent unpleasant impacts to their living environment eg flooding. The resident has described experiencing frequent distress and feeling helpless in the face of delayed visit, repeat ineffective visits to her home and her proactive attempts to communicate with her landlord. She explained to this Service that the circumstances took a negative toll on her mental health. She described being particularly impacted by taking so many days off work to enable access. She also recounted that the issues prevented her feeling at home and settled into her new address, describing the house exchange and what followed as ‘a nightmare’ and ‘soul destroying’.
The landlord’s response failed to account appropriately for the serious level of failings identified by this investigation nor the level of detriment experienced by the resident. Its attempts at remedial actions exacerbated the situation by prolonging this detriment and failed to show appropriate actions in practice to put matters right or learn. This Service has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident on moving in. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of over £1,000 in the circumstances of detriment considered above.
This Service considers it appropriate that the landlord provide a compensatory sum to recognise the conditions experienced by the resident during the course of the delay awaiting repairs. The £2 per day plus £10 offered by its final response was far from a figure that reasonably reflected the day to day physical experience lived by the resident, including frequent flooding. It is noted that the landlord’s compensation framework provided guidance to account for loss of enjoyment of home by loss of use of rooms, facilities or services with reference to the rent payable. It is reasonable given the impact from repeat flooding and that delay to multiple internal items affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home that an award with reference to net rent be made.
A percentage of 10% is considered appropriate in view of the nature of the items and considering the impact from flooding was not constant. The period of calculation for loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home has been taken to begin 28 days from the surveyor’s inspection of 21 February 2022. This was a reasonable period of time within which the landlord was able to progress effective repairs. By its correspondence of 21 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged its promised remedial works were incomplete as at that date and compensation due for its failings. The period ends at the date of completion of the items promised by the landlord’s final response of 6 July 2022. If the item/s are confirmed as outstanding, the award is to be calculated up to the date of this determination.
The landlord is also ordered to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience experienced and the time and trouble to which she was put as a result of its handling of the repairs reported, including over the period of delay completing promised remedial works. While no financial sum can take away the resident’s experience, it is appropriate a compensatory award recognises the nature of the detriment to which she was placed. An award of £1,700 is ordered to be paid to her.
As the status of completion of the remedial works promised by the landlord’s final response is unclear, the landlord is ordered to ensure and confirm all outstanding works are completed within a precise timescale.
This Service gave consideration to the landlord’s letter and financial offer of 21 April 2023. It offered helpful acknowledgement of matters outstanding from its final response and recognition of ongoing issues including poor communications. It was appropriate the landlord apologised again to the resident for her ongoing experiences. However, the communicated findings of failed to address the full extent of the above identified failings and its offer was disproportionately low with reference to the detriment caused. For example, £50 a month for the level of distress, time and trouble displayed insufficient regard to the level of impact experienced by this particular resident over such prolonged period. It was in substance insufficient to impact the severity and extent of the findings. Review of the landlord’s records also discovered that the outstanding remedial works was not completed within the timescales assured by the April 2023 letter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident in her contact across February and March 2022 raised repeated expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord that met the definition of a complaint as outlined by its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The resident herself referred to having made ‘complaints’ when discussing her previous contact in early March 2022. However, despite her clear and repeat attempts to raise complaint, her concerns were not logged or formally acknowledged by the landlord for review by its complaints process until 31 March 2022. This handling of the resident’s complaint was contrary to the landlord’s complaint’s policy and the Code.
This caused delay to the initiation of the complaint review process. A complaint response was not provided until 14 April 2022, at least 7 weeks after her first expressions of dissatisfaction to the landlord. The repeat failure to treat her complaints accordingly caused additional time and trouble to the resident. Without her persistence and determination to raise attention to her concerns, these would not have been subject to complaint review. However, the inevitable strain and inconvenience arising from such undertaking is advised by the resident to have taken a’ toll’ on her personally.
It is noted that the landlord logged as complaint on 17 March 2022 the correspondence sent by the resident’s MP on her behalf of 7 and 14 March 2022. Outside of the delayed acknowledgement, it was appropriate that the landlord did so in line with the Code requirement to handle any complaint submitted via a third party in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. However, this was the only stage at which the MP’s expressions of concern on behalf of the resident engaged with the landlord’s complaint process. The complaint case was seemingly cancelled or closed on the landlord’s system. There is no apparent record of a related complaint investigation arising from the MP’s contact. There was no response, even though the landlord had promised to issue a formal response to the MP within 10 days.
The landlord contacted the MP’s office on 30 May 2022 after they raised further concerns. It confirmed having closed their ‘enquiry’ following the resident raising a complaint. The explanation provided gives little insight into why the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint via her MP in this way and ‘closed’ the matter without contact to her supporting third party. It demonstrated further lack of compliance to policy and presented a confused external impression of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 14 April 2022. The resident was seen to chase the landlord for an update on the status of her request and response. The landlord acknowledged her complaint at stage 2 by email of 16 May 2022. Following a period of unanswered contact, the resident referred her concerns to this Service, leading to the intervention of 30 June 2022. The landlord’s subsequent final stage response was issued on 6 July 2022, 12 weeks from the resident’s escalation request. This exceeded its policy timeframe by 8 weeks, representing an additional delay experienced by the resident. The records do not point to any explanation, reasonable or otherwise, for the delayed investigation and response.
The landlord failed to keep the resident updated as to its expected timescale at stage 2. This was contrary to the engagement expected by its policy commitments. Its policy allowed for the landlord to liaise with the resident concerning an extension of time, however it simply allowed the response time to lapse without update to her. This failure in its engagement with the resident showed a lack of regard for her experience. The resident has described that the lapses in contact placed an onus on her to chase updates and this caused her distress. This is evident from the tone of her emails and the intervention from her MP at the end of May raising concern. This ultimately lead to the intervention of this Service, adding to the inconvenience, time and trouble to which the resident was further placed.
While the landlord acknowledged in correspondence to this Service that its final response was delayed, the stage 2 letter to the resident failed to address failings in its complaint handling or offer any form of remedy to seek to put these specific matters right. It offered no apology. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to make proactive efforts to try restore its relationship with the resident. By failing to identify failures in its own complaints handling expectations, it did not show any learning to avoid recurrence.
The Code required that remedies proposed by a landlord be followed through to completion. It was noted above that remedial actions promised by the landlord’s final complaint response were/ are significantly delayed. The landlord promised by its complaints policy to contact the customer if it ran into difficulty actioning its plan; there is minimal evidence of such proactive contact. The records show that the resident’s subsequent contact continued to provide the principal trigger for the landlord’s updates. The landlord repeatedly asked the resident to inform it of its own progress against the remedial works list. These issues raise concern as to the landlord’s process/es for tracking and monitoring its adherence to promises made as resolution to complaints.
The Code required the landlord to resolve a complaint at ‘the earliest possible opportunity’. While it was appropriate the landlord revisited its compensation offer in light of its continuing delay to repairs, further reflections upon its failings should reasonably have taken place within the complaints process to provide timely transparency to the resident.
The landlord was evidently aware of ongoing non-compliance with its remedial actions; it apologised and acknowledged for this on numerous occasions spanning the 9 months after its July 2022 final response. However, it was only following renewed contact with this Service regarding this investigation that it completed the review triggering the April 2023 letter. The landlord’s surrounding internal correspondence showed the updated compensation offer was driven by concerns about its external image.
It is of serious concern to this Service that the risk of reputational damage and not the experience of the resident was at the forefront of the landlord’s approach to dispute resolution. It demonstrated a position at odds with the accountability or transparency integral to a positive complaint handling culture. It also failed to show that the landlord acted in a way that was consistent and fair. A last minute offer motivated by avoidance of a higher level outcome by this Service is a factor that aggravates the level of complaint handling failings.
The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint, from her earlier expressions of dissatisfaction up to and including its promised remedial actions, was subject to a series of failings. These failings were, in their totality, serious. The time and trouble to which the resident was put seeking to have her voice heard was significant. The accumulation of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests financial redress of between £600 to £1,000 where a severe maladministration finding is made but where the impact was significant but not severe and long term. This Service places the appropriate award towards the higher end of this banding owing to the level of inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the period over which she chased progress and the number of failings she experienced.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs reported by the resident on moving in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Many of the condition issues discovered by the resident at mutual exchange were due to damage or neglect by the outgoing tenant. The landlord reasonably agreed to complete works outside of the ordinary terms of exchange. However, the landlord failed to manage the risk of any deterioration in the property during the time taken for the exchange to be processed. It also failed to adopt a proactive approach to keeping the resident informed.
The landlord’s records show it raised repair works to the property within a reasonable period of time after the resident’s reports on moving in. However, these works and subsequent items brought to the landlord’s attention were significantly delayed. While the landlord explained the delay by reference to its contractor, its handling of the repairs showed little proactive management or ownership consistent with its own responsibilities to the resident. It placed unfair expectation on the resident to inform its awareness of the status of repairs and its communication was inconsistent and at times delayed. These failings were compounded by the absence of appropriate consideration to the particular impact on the resident. In addition, the landlord’s information management failed to reflect appropriately all relevant contact and repairs or allow it sufficient awareness of matters arising in its property. The landlord’s failings were significant and placed the resident at serious detriment. Its response to the complaint did not address the full extent of its failings or have sufficient regard to the resident’s experience. Further, it failed to act in line with promises it offered as resolution to the complaint.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its associated remedial action were subject to a series of failings that were serious overall and placed the resident at significant time and trouble. The landlord failed to action the resident’s repeat expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints in line with its own requirements and those of the Code. Its final response at stage 2 of the complaints process was issued 8 weeks late. It did so without appropriate update, explanation or apology and only after the intervention of this Service highlighted its lack of reply. The evidence also demonstrated an internal complaints handling approach and attitude inconsistent with the requirements of the Code and good practice dispute resolution.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation as set out in paragraph 134 below.
3. Arrange for an inspection of the property at a time mutually agreed with the resident to assess what works, if any, are outstanding from the works promised in response to the resident’s complaint. If items are confirmed, a schedule of works with timescales for completion should be agreed with the resident. The landlord must carry out a post-inspection of any works within 2 weeks of conclusion to sign off completion of the scheduled items and quality.

The compensation payment

The landlord must pay the resident compensation based on:
1. £701.27 to compensate for the loss of enjoyment to home. This is comprised of net rent per day x 0.10 x 394 days (from 22 March 2022 up to 21 April 2023) based on weekly rent of £121.64 2021/22, £124.61 2022/23 and £133.33 2023/24).
2. Net rent per day x 0.10 x number of days from 22 April 2023 up to the date of completion of promised remedial works or this determination, whichever is the earliest, to compensate for the further loss of enjoyment to home.
3. Identification with the resident of any additional days off work. Compensation must be paid for any additional days in line with the landlord’s compensation framework at rate of £50 per day.
4. £1,700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its handling of repairs reported from moving in.
5. £400 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in handling concerning the property condition at the point of mutual exchange.
6. £625 to reflect the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord may deduct the total compensation of £2,023 previously offered if paid to the resident from the amount ordered above.
The landlord must outline the basis of the proposed sum calculated in accordance with paragraph 134 (b) and (c) above for approval by this Service prior to payment and within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation is looking at a number of individual complaints and will make recommendations for improvement where repeated failings are identified. The potential systemic issues noted in this case concerning the landlord’s exchange process, management of its contractor, record keeping and complaint handling are being reviewed as part of this ongoing process.