Birmingham City Council (202309639)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309639

Birmingham City Council

15 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. Handling of the mutual exchange.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs following the mutual exchange.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 2 bedroom semi-detached property following a mutual exchange in early June 2023. The resident has anxiety, depression, agoraphobia, personality disorder and severe OCD. These are noted on the landlord’s file.
The resident’s tenancy states that the resident must keep appointments that have been agreed to complete repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. The following items will be provided at the start of the tenancy. Following this, the resident is responsible for such repairs:
  1. Door handles and latches.
  2. Sealant around basins, baths, showers.
  3. Glazed tiles around the bath, basin, shower and sink.
2. It categorises repairs as follows:
  1. Emergency repairs are where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property. It will respond within 2 hours.
  2. Urgent repairs are concerned with protecting health and safety or the security of the property. These will be completed between 1 and 7 working days.
  3. Routine repairs aim to be completed within 30 days.
  4. Some repairs are qualifying repairs under the right to repair. If the resident fails to provide access for a contractor to carry out the work, then right to repair does not apply.
Information on the landlord’s public facing website states that a resident must make sure they are happy with the property and the condition it is in before a mutual exchange. The landlord is not responsible for any property disrepairs that are discovered after the exchange.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states as follows:
1. Its housing officer must inspect the property and the subsequent report will be disclosed to the relevant parties. The purpose of the inspection is to make sure any tenancy breaches are put right and the structure and repair of the property is checked. It is also to make sure the resident is aware that they exchange property in the condition it is found in. This highlights the works which are the responsibility of the landlord, the incoming resident or the outgoing tenant.
2. The landlord does not accept responsibility for anything other than standard repairs, which are dealt with in line with its normal repair timescales.
3. The landlord must not incur any additional costs as a result of the exchange such as clearing rubbish.
4. If the condition of the property would not meet the required empty homes property standard, the exchange will be refused.
The landlord’s empty homes property standard states that properties must have the following (this is not an exhaustive list):
1. The kitchen floor, wall and worksurfaces will be clean and in good working order.
2. The toilet, sink and bath will be in good working order.
3. In the bathroom there will be a row of sealed tiles around the bath and sink.
4. All external and internal doors will be fitted, secure and in good working order.
5. All door handles, locks and fittings will be securely fixed and in good working order.
6. Outside of the property, any trip hazard to slabbing and pathways will be removed.
7. Roofs will be watertight. Any leaks found will be repaired.
The landlord’s compensation policy guidance for its staff which was in place until September 2023, (when an amended policy came into force), stated:
1. “DO NOT Make any payments that are ‘discretionary’ or ‘good will’. Any payments made where there is no liability are illegal and the person authorising such payments can be surcharged.”
2. Compensation is not to be paid for inconvenience or distress.
3. Compensation is not to be more than the resident claimed for on the claim form.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it aims to resolve a complaint straight away at stage 1. If this is not possible it will respond at stage 2 within 15 working days. Resident’s can subsequently escalate the complaint to stage 3. The landlord will respond at stage 3 within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Prior to moving to the property by way of a mutual exchange the landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection at the property on 8 March 2023. This report identified the following works as being required:
1. Overhaul lounge window casements and rehang.
2. Renew double glazing unit to front external door.
3. Remove mould growth to wall under the stairs, bathroom wall and bathroom ceiling with a fungicidal paint system.
4. Fit new handles to opening casement windows in the front bedroom.
5. Fit handles to cupboard doors in the rear bedroom.
6. Make good the pointing to the edges of the side elevation store roof.
7. Repair render to adjacent to side elevation store door.
8. Refix down pipe.
9. Renew broken paving slabs on front pathway.
It also noted as follows:
1. The outgoing tenant had advised that a contractor would fit a new kitchen sink base on 28 March 2023.
2. The outgoing tenant had stated they would remove all rubbish from the garden, shed and loft.
The date is not clear however in early June 2023 the resident moved into the property by way of mutual exchange. On 5 June 2023 the landlord contacted the previous landlord and noted that they had not disclosed details of the resident’s vulnerabilities within the application. It had since been contacted by the resident’s daughter who had advised that the resident suffered from anxiety, depression, agoraphobia, personality disorder and severe OCD. She also advised that he required carers.
The following day (6 June 2023) the resident asked the landlord to remove rubbish and household items which had been left by the previous tenant. The landlord advised that same day that it understood the resident had an arrangement with the outgoing tenant that they would leave behind furniture and fittings. It confirmed it would not remove the items or the rubbish.
The resident contacted the landlord again that day (6 June 2023) and requested a surveyor to remedy a number of repairs at the property. That same day the landlord arranged the following works:
1. Electrical works for 12 June 2023.
2. Overhaul the lounge window casement and rehang. Date to be arranged within 30 days.
3. Renew double glazing unit to front external door. Date to be arranged within 7 days.
4. Remove mould growth to under stairs and from the ceiling and walls in the bathroom with fungicidal paint. Arranged for 19 June 2023.
5. Fit new window handles in the front bedroom. Date to be arranged within 30 days.
6. Fit cupboard door handles in the rear bedroom. Arranged for 18 July 2023.
7. Make good the pointing around the side elevation store roof and repair render. Arranged for 21 June 2023.
8. Refix down pipe to side elevation. Arranged for 16 June 2023.
9. Renew broken paving slabs in the front pathway. Arranged for 21 June 2023.
On 7 June 2023 the resident submitted a complaint, (referred to as complaint A). He stated that he had not been made aware of the mutual exchange inspection report, the required repairs or that rubbish that had been left. If he had known he would have declined the exchange. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and stated it would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord responded to complaint A at stage 1 on 13 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. There was a mandatory requirement for the resident to have viewed the property before proceeding with the mutual exchange. The resident and the outgoing tenant had been responsible for organising this prior to the exchange.
2. It had seen several WhatsApp exchanges between the resident and the outgoing tenant. The outgoing tenant had also sent the resident several videos of the property. The resident had not expressed any concerns based on the photos or videos provided. This included a message from the resident to the outgoing tenant stating “if I can’t view I will have to trust you are a honest person and just move […]”. The resident had accepted the property without visiting it or viewing it in person.
3. It had carried out a mutual exchange inspection of the property on 8 March 2023. It had sent the resident a copy of this report on 9 May 2023. It noted that the email address provided for the resident appeared to have been incorrect. (It is not clear how or when it was alerted to this). It had re-sent the report to his correct email address on 6 June 2023.
4. The works order had not been raised following the inspection. It apologised for this and stated that it had raised the outstanding works on 6 June 2023 (as noted above).
5. The quality of decoration and cleanliness of the property did not form part of the inspection process.
6. It had set conditions for the outgoing tenant that consisted of:
  1. The garden to be cut back and free of household waste. It had seen video footage that the garden was in a satisfactory condition.
  2. Any household items left in the loft space be emptied.
7. As part of the mutual exchange, each party accepted the condition of the property at the time including household waste. Any rubbish left behind was not the landlord’s responsibility.
8. Under the mutual exchange process, it only acted as a facilitator. The contractual obligation was between the resident and the outgoing tenant. It advised the resident of the option of pursuing the outgoing tenant for alleged breach of contract.
9. It acknowledged that when the property was vacated, issues around cleanliness, water ingress, damp and mould were discovered. This had been beyond its control. (It is not clear if this was during the mutual exchange inspection or at a later time).
10. The resident had reported a leak on 4 June 2023. It had raised an urgent 2 hour call out on 5 June 2023 in respect of this. The contractor attended and did not identify any risk to the property that would warrant a temporary move or decant. It established that water ingress caused by a leak from the bath had caused water damage to the ceiling. Once the water damage had dried, it would take steps to make good and remedy the bathroom tiles.
11. It concluded that it had acted in line with mutual exchange policy and procedure and at no time misled the resident. It provided escalation information.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord had an internal meeting in respect of the resident’s support needs, his concern about the property and “disproportionate email traffic”. It concluded that it would complete a safeguarding referral. It noted that the mould on the under stairs wall had been removed with fungicidal paint that day.
That same day (19 June 2023) the resident contacted this Service in respect of the landlord’s stage 1 response. He stated the outstanding repair issues were impacting his mental health.
On 21 June 2023 a contractor attended to repair the corrugated outbuilding roof. It noted that the job required a roofer and the work was rebooked for 27 September 2023.
That same day (21 June 2023) a contractor attended to repair the broken paving slabs. It noted that the path was “ok” and the job was marked as cancelled.
It is not clear when the resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint A, however the landlord responded at stage 2 on 26 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It reiterated the content of its stage 1 response.
2. Following the resident’s concern that there was possible asbestos present in the outbuilding roof, it had referred this to its repairs team. (The resident’s correspondence in respect of this concern has not been seen by this Service.)
3. It partially upheld the complaint on the basis that the resident had not received the original mutual exchange inspection report. It acknowledged that the resident had not been able to make an informed decision based on the report findings. It did however reiterate that the onus was on the resident to have viewed the property prior to the mutual exchange.
4. It signposted the resident to this Service.
That same day (26 June 2023) the landlord advised the resident that works had been arranged as follows:
1. Tile sealant on 30 June 2023.
2. Door repair on 13 July 2023.
3. Downpipe repair on 29 September 2023.
4. It could see from photographs that the front path slabs were a trip hazard. It had arranged for a contractor to attend within 3 days.
On 27 June 2023 the resident referred complaint A to this Service. He stated that if he had seen the inspection report he would not have gone ahead with the mutual exchange. He outlined that there were a number of repair issues as follows:
1. Water damage to the kitchen ceiling. Water had leaked into electrical sockets due to a lack of sealant around the bath.
2. Broken kitchen units.
3. Mould in the kitchen.
4. Broken light switches.
5. Broken paving slabs.
6. Lino soaked in dogs urine.
7. Water leaking through the damaged asbestos roofing of the outbuilding.
8. Broken front and side door locks.
On 12 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he wanted to make a complaint about works to the bathroom and the front path not having been completed. (This complaint is referred to as complaint B).
On 13 July 2023 the landlord marked the bathroom wall and ceiling mould treatment as complete.
The landlord acknowledged complaint B on 14 July 2023 and advised it would respond within 15 working days.
That same day (14 July 2023) an inspection of the property was carried out. The subsequent report noted as follows:
1. The understairs wall had been painted with a mould paint on 13 July 2023.
2. The window opener was locked shut and the lock appeared faulty.
3. A historical leak to the kitchen ceiling was observed but was now dry.
4. Some mould was visible behind the kitchen sink unit.
5. The kitchen double base unit doors did not close property due to an issue with the hinge.
6. The kitchen ceiling light did not function nor did the double socket.
7. The kitchen heater did not function. The gas team would need to attend.
8. Skirting board needed to be installed in the outhouse.
9. 2 bathroom fans were not working.
10. Sealant should be applied on top of the ceramic tiles (the bath line had already been sealed).
11. The main bedroom door needed adjusting as it dragged on the carpet.
12. In bedroom 2 the switch had been taped over.
13. Cupboard handles needed attaching in bedroom 2.
14. The side elevation outhouse roof needed sealing. This was booked for 27 September 2023.
15. Rendering was required to the outhouse.
16. The outhouse UPVC door handle repair had been completed on 13 July 2023.
17. The slabs of the front pathway needed renewal. This job should not have been closed down.
18. A downpipe repair had been booked for 29 September 2023.
On 18 July 2023 a contractor attended to fit cupboard door handles. It noted that the resident declined access. The following day (19 July 2023) a contractor attended to renew the front door double glazing unit. The landlord recorded that the resident had declined access.
On 25 July 2023 the resident cancelled the appointment for the lounge window which had been scheduled for the following day. The reason for this was not clear.
The resident chased the landlord for a stage 1 response to complaint B on 19 July, 31 August, 7 September and 23 September 2023.
On 25 September 2023 the works to the downpipe were marked as complete. Works to the corrugated roof were marked as complete on 27 September 2023.
The landlord queried the outstanding works with its contractor on 16 October 2023. The contractor advised that the front pathway job had been closed on 31 August 2023 as being “safe”. It noted that, having viewed photographs, the operative may not have attended the correct property. A job was raised for the front pathway for 23 October 2023.
The landlord responded to complaint B at stage 1 on 25 October 2023 and stated as follows:
1. Damp and mould works had been completed on 19 June 2023. It had identified a small amount of mould behind the kitchen sink unit on 14 July 2023, therefore, a new damp inspection had been booked for 14 November 2023.
2. It apologised that the works to the front path had been closed without having been carried out. It had re-booked this for 27 October 2023.
3. Kitchen repairs were booked for 31 October 2023.
4. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and for the inconvenience experienced. It concluded that the complaint was justified and provided escalation information.
On 27 October 2023 the works to repair the path slabs was marked as complete.
The resident escalated complaint B to stage 2 on 31 October 2023. He stated that the contractors were “incompetent and frustrating”. He stated that a contractor had attended that day but had been “unprepared”. He stated the lack of communication between the landlord and contractors was “unbelievable”. He advised that he was seeking compensation for the anxiety and the frustration caused.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 1 November 2023 and advised it would aim to respond within 20 working days.
On 16 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord that water was still leaking into the kitchen ceiling and electric socket.
The date is not clear but the resident chased the stage 2 response. The landlord advised him on 22 December 2023 that it required more time to respond at stage 2. The landlord noted internally that it had chased the contractor but had not heard from it since 29 November 2023.
On 19 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it was still investigating his complaint at stage 2.
On 25 January 2024 the resident advised the landlord that a plumber had attended and that an appointment was required to repair an insecure and leaking toilet pan. The landlord advised that its records showed the issue as having been resolved on 24 January 2024. The resident stated this was another failure which had caused him alarm and distress and water damage in the bathroom.
On 1 February 2024 an inspection of the outbuilding roof took place in respect to it containingasbestos and leaking. This Service has not seen this report however a follow on appointmentwas made for 19 April 2024.
On 22 February 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it had booked works to make good the bathroom tiles after a leak for 7 March 2024.
The resident contacted this Service in February 2024 in respect of complaint A and B. This Service contacted the landlord on 26 February 2024 and requested further information.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord noted internally:
1. Works to reseal the back of the bath, refix the hot tap, reseal around the taps and repair a leak on the cistern had been completed on 26 January 2024.
2. The loose toilet had been fixed on 24 January 2024.
3. Outbuilding roofing works were scheduled for 27 March 2024.
4. Kitchen unitrepairs, skirting and door latch were scheduled for 7 March 2024.
On 5 March 2024 the resident cancelled the works to the bathroom tiles (it is not clear why). The landlord advised this Service it did not hear further from him in respect of re-booking this.
On 7 March 2024 the landlord advised the resident of works scheduled as follows:
1. Overhaul front window casements and rehang. Scheduled for 16 April 2024.
2. Renew front door double glazing unit. Scheduled for 17 April 2024.
3. Fit new handles to windows in main bedroom. Scheduled for 17 April 2024.
4. Fit handles to cupboard doors in the rear bedroom. Scheduled for 17 April 2024.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response to complaint B on 7 March 2024. It stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding.
2. It acknowledged that there had been communication issues between it and its contractors and that this had resulted in a lack of service and had caused inconvenience to the resident. It also acknowledged that when an appointment was closed or cancelled without clear explanations, it caused frustration and left the resident feeling “neglected and uncertain” about the status of repairs.
3. It had raised a job in respect of damp and mould on 6 June 2023. This work had been completed on 19 June 2023 where treatment to the bathroom and hallway were carried out.
4. A new job for damp and mould had been raised on 12 July 2023. This was attended on 7 August 2023 when it was noted that works had already been completed.
5. On 19 October 2023 a job had been raised in respect of damp and mould in the base kitchen cupboard. An appointment was scheduled for 14 November 2023, however this was cancelled. Its contractor had been unable to provide a reason for this cancellation. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. It had spoken to its contractor about the importance of documenting reasons for cancellations and it was implementing measures to ensure this did not happen again. If works for this were still required, it asked the resident to contact its repairs team.
6. This aspect of the complaint was justified as there had been appointments that had not been communicated effectively to the resident and reasons for cancellation had not been provided.
7. It apologised for the delay in completing the work to the paving slabs.
8. It noted there were 2 “live” jobs:
  1. A multi trade job to look at the kitchen fittings and skirting and the bedroom door latch. An appointment had been arranged for 7 March 2023 (it appears this should have said 2024) and these works had been completed.
  2. Repairs in the roof/roof space/loft were scheduled for 27 March 2023 (it appears this should have said 2024).
9. It acknowledged that the resident had been caused distress and frustration but stated that compensation could only be provided if there was evidence of negligence or legal liability on its part. To assess the situation fully it asked the resident to complete a claim form which it attached.
10. The resident had reported an issue with the toilet cistern on 23 January 2024. This was attended the following day and marked as complete. The contractor advised the resident to make contact regarding the loose toilet pan which he did on 25 January 2024. This was attended on 26 January 2024 and fixed. Works were also completed that day to reseal the back of the bath, refix the hot tap, reseal around taps. The bathroom repairs were completed within the appropriate timeframe. This aspect of complaint was not justified.
11. It signposted the resident to this Service.
In April 2024 the landlord advised this Service that it had offered the resident £100 to acknowledge that he did not receive the initial copy of the mutual exchange inspection report. (This Service has not seen this offer). The landlord also advised this Service, that it had reviewed its compensation policy and it was now common practice to consider the issue of compensation alongside complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In order for this Service to be able to investigate matters, the landlord must have been given the opportunity to address the resident’s complaint via its internal complaints procedure. The resident’s complaints consisted of the following issues:
1. Compliant A – the mutual exchange and the rubbish left at the property.
2. Complaint B – the bathroom works and the broken front path slabs.
In addition to addressing these aspects, the landlord also addressed the following aspects within its complaint responses. These matters can therefore also be considered by this Service:
1. Compliant A – possible asbestos in the outbuilding roof.
2. Complaint B – mould behind the kitchen sink unit, kitchen repairs and the toilet cistern.
It is noted that in his contact with this Service, the resident raised concerns about a number of repair issues. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaints to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. A recommendation has been made below in this regard. The repair issues which were raised with this Service but which did not form part of the resident’s complaints to the landlord are as follows:
1. Broken kitchen units.
2. Broken light switches.
3. Lino soaked in dog urine.
4. Broken front and side door locks.
The landlord updated its compensation policy in September 2023. This was, at least in part, due to the HousingOmbudsman working with the landlord and expressing concerns about the content of the previous compensation policy. The compensation policy was updated during the events under investigation in this case and prior to the stage 2 response for complaint B.

Handling of the mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and information available on its website make it clear that a resident must make sure they are happy with the property and the condition it is in prior to the mutual exchange. It also sets out that the landlord is not responsible for any property disrepairs that are discovered after the exchange.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange as it was required to do. It is not clear why the resident’s email address (where the report was sent) was incorrect or when the landlord became aware of this, however the landlord had followed its procedure in sharing the report with the resident. It is noted that the resident moved to the property on the basis of seeing pictures and videos provided by the outgoing tenant and that he had stated he would trust the tenant. However, the issues identified within the mutual exchange report were of a nature that the landlord should have considered whether to allow the mutual exchange before those repairs were completed as per its empty homes standard.
The mutual exchange policy make it clear that repairs identified in a mutual exchange survey will be completed in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The following works were identified within the mutual exchange report.

Outbuilding roof

The mutual exchange report (8 March 2023) advised of an issue with the pointing to the edges of the outbuilding roof. It took the landlord 3 months (until 21 June 2023) to arrange for a contractor to attend to this. On that occasion the works could not be completed as it was found that a roofer was required. It subsequently took the landlord another 3 months (until 27 September 2023) for a roofer to attend and for this work to be completed. This timeframe of over 6 months was not reasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord subsequently inspected the outbuilding roof in February 2024 and a leak was identified. It is not clear if this was connected to the previous works carried out to the outbuilding. There was a delay in the landlord arranging these works until 27 March 2024 and following this, another appointment as made for 19 April 2024. It is not clear if works were completed, however this timescale of 2 months for the works to be attended was not reasonable and was not in line with its repairs policy.

Front path

It is noted that the landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it will refuse such an exchange if the property does not meet its empty homes property standard. To meet this standard the policy states that any trip hazard to slabbing and pathways will be removed.
The issue with the cracked front path slabs was identified in the mutual exchange report of 8 March 2023 before the resident moved in. The landlord did not take appropriate action in respect of the pathway leading to the front door prior to the mutual exchange and so it did not ensure that the property met the property standard.
The landlord arranged the work to the path to be completed on 21 June 2023, this was over 3 months later. When this appointment took place the contractor closed it down on the basis that work was not required. The landlord acknowledged on 26 June 2023 that this had been an error and that the slabs were a trip hazard. It advised that a contractor would attend within 3 days. This did not happen and the landlord did not chase this work until 16 October 2023, almost 4 months later. This delay was unreasonable, particularly in light of the nature of the repair issue. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had ben proactive in monitoring the work to ensure it was completed.
It is noted that this work to the front path was completed on 27 October 2023, just under 8 months after it had been identified. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the health and safety risk to the resident of the path to his front door being a trip hazard. It demonstrated no acknowledgement of the impact his vulnerability had on the hazard this created for him. Knowing that the resident’s vulnerabilities were to the extent where his daughter had advised he required carers, the landlord’s delay in removing this hazard, was a significant failing. It is however noted that the landlord acknowledged that the failure in record keeping in respect of this issue led to a delay in this being resolved. It endeavoured to improve its repairs handling and logs going forward.
It is noted that the landlord advised this Service that it had reviewed its compensation policy and had since offered the resident £100 compensation (subsequent to the completion of the internal complaints procedure) to acknowledge that he did not receive the inspection report. A copy of a revised compensation policy was not provided to this Service, nor was it available on the landlord’s public facing website.
This Service published a special report on the landlord on 17 January 2023. This report noted that the landlord’s complaints and compensation policies did not allow for compensation to be paid for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The compensation policy also said that the landlord could not make payments where it had decided there was no liability. This policy was updated in September 2023 to remove the requirement for negligence to be shown before compensation will be considered. Despite the landlord appropriately updating its compensation policy, the landlord inappropriately relied on its previous compensation policy to advise (at stage 2 for complaint B), stating that compensation could only be provided if there was evidence of negligence or legal liability on its part. This was not in line with its policy at the time and demonstrated a lack of awareness of its amended policy.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies
It is not clear if the landlord would have reconsidered redress and offered compensation to the resident had this Service not become involved. Such redress should have been considered and offered as part of the internal complaint procedure. The landlord’s failure in respect of the mutual exchangerepairs and its lack of consideration of redress amounts to maladministration. The failure of the landlord in respect of this was considerable as following the mutual exchange inspection report, the landlord should have completed the repairs to bring the property up to its empty property standard or not permitted the mutual exchange. It failed to follow its policy and additionally, the completion of the identified works were was delayed considerably. This was not reasonable given that the path repair was a hazard.
This Service has ordered £500 compensation to acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failure had on the resident. This is in line with theHousing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a failure has had a detrimental impacted a resident.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs following the mutual exchange

After moving into the property the resident notified the landlord of a number of repair issues. These have been considered separately for clarity.

Mould in the unit under the kitchen sink

The landlord identified mould during an inspection of the property on 14 July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action in respect of the mould found until October 2023 (when it was responding to complaint B at stage 1). The landlord raised a further damp and mould inspection on 19 October 2023 and this was arranged to take place on 14 November 2023. This did not go ahead and was cancelled by the contractor for an unknown reason. This timeframe of 3 months for the damp and mould inspection to be arranged was not reasonable and was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord provided no explanation or apology for the delay in arranging this work.
Following the cancelled inspection, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord took steps to rearrange this damp and mould inspection or any follow on works after it had become aware that this had been cancelled by its contractor. This was not appropriate as the landlord was aware that the issue had not been resolved. This Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould in 2021 which outlined how landlord’s are expected to respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner, monitor the matter and keep the resident updated on any plan of works. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to this issue despite knowing that damp and mould could potentially present a health risk to the resident.

Kitchen repairs

The landlord identified repairs required to the kitchen unit hinge, light, socket and heater on 14 July 2023. The landlord scheduled kitchen repairs (it was not clear what repairs this referred to) for 31 October 2023. It subsequently arranged for a kitchen unit repair for 7 March 2024. It is not clear if the kitchen repairs were fixed on either of these occasions, however the delay of 3 months for the landlord to raise an appointment in respect of this was not appropriate and not in line with its repairs policy.

Toilet cistern

The resident had reported an issue with the toilet cistern on 23 January 2024 and the landlord appropriately arranged for this to be inspected the following day. Works were subsequently marked as complete. When the resident reported that the toilet pan was loose on 25 Janaury 2024, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attended on 26 January 2024. This was an appropriate timeframe for the toilet repair to have been responded to.

Bathroom leak into the kitchen

The landlord identified that the bath was not sealed on 5 June 2023 and arranged for this work to be carried out on 30 June2023. This timeframe was appropriateand was in line with its repairs policy. It is noted however that the landlord’s empty homes property standard required that any bath be sealed prior to the mutual exchange.It is not clear if this repair issue was present at the time of the mutual exchange inspection in March 2023. It is noted that further works to reseal around the bath were completed on 26 January 2024, suggesting that the earlier repair in June 2023 had not resolved the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord had been proactive in checking the standard of the work which had been completed or whether the leak had been resolved by the new sealant.
Following another inspection on 14 July 2023 it was noted that the bathroom tiles required sealing. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out this repair at the time. The resident subsequently reported a further leak into the kitchen on 16 November 2023. The landlord did not respond to this report until 22 February 2024, when it advised that it had arranged for works to the bathroom tiles to be completed on 7 March 2024. It is noted that this appointment was cancelled by the resident. The landlord has however been aware since June 2023 that this repair may be contributing to water damage in the kitchen. Despite this, the landlord took no proactive action to try to rearrange this work following the cancellation by the resident. This was not appropriate.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its repairs policy in actioning the repair issues. This amounts to maladministration. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities however, it did not demonstrate that it appropriately considered this in respect of improving communication with contractors or that it proactively monitoring the situation. To acknowledge the impact of this failure on the resident, compensation of £500 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident has been impacted by a failure of the landlord. This takes into account the multiple repair issues, the time and trouble of the number of contractor appointments and the resident’s vulnerability.

Complaints handling

It is noted that the timeframes in the landlord’s complaints procedure are not in line with those outlined in the Housing Ombudsman complaints handling code (the Code). An order has been made for this to be reviewed below.
In respect of complaint A, it responded in an appropriate timeframe,with the stage 1 response being sent within 5 working days and the stage 2 response within a further 9 working days. Within its stage 2 response to complaint A, it partially upheld the complaint, on the basis that the resident had not received the original mutual exchange inspection report, which had impacted on his ability to make an informed decision.The landlord’s acknowledgment of its failure was appropriate, however when a failure is identified, this Service expects landlords to take steps to put things right. In this instance it did not offer any compensation or consider redress to acknowledge the impact of its failure on the residentor follow up on its stage 2 response to resolve the repair.
Both of the landlord’s responses to complaint B were significantly outside of the timeframe of its complaints procedure. The stage 1 response took 76 working days (12 July to 25 October 2023) and the stage 2 response took 90 working days (31 October 2023 to 7 March 2024). The landlord apologised for the delays however it offered no redress to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident. It also failed to demonstrate learning as to how it would prevent such delays with its responses in the future.
The resident had specifically requested that the landlord consider compensation for the issues raised in his complaint. This was a reasonable request and was in line with the Housing Ombudsman dispute resolution principes. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation did not reflect these dispute resolution principles.
Although the landlord had updated its compensation policy, it did not offer redress to acknowledgethe impact of the significant delays in responding to complaint B, this complaint taking 8 months to compete the landlord’s complaints process. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration. In order to acknowledge thedistress and inconvenience this delay had on the resident, compensation of £300 had been ordered. This is in line with the remedies guidance where distresshas been caused to a resident due to a failure of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs following the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not action the repairs identified as part of the mutual exchange in line with its repairs policy. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in responding or being proactive in ensuring these repairs were completed.
The landlord did not carry out the repairs in line with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. It was not proactive in ensuring repair issues were resolved.
The landlord partly upheld complaint A but did not offer redress to the resident. It significantly delayed responding to complaint B at both stages of its complaints procedure. Although it apologised for this it did not offer compensation to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. A senior member of staff is to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1300 compensation (this is inclusive of the £100 offered after the completion of the internal complaints process, if not already paid,) made up as follows:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the failures in respect of the mutual exchange.
  2. £500 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the delays in carrying out repairs.
  3. £300 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the complaint handling failures.
3. Carry out a full inspection of the property including damp and mould. The outcome of this inspection and any recommendations are to be provided to the resident and this Service, together with a schedule of works including timeframes of completion.
4. Under 54 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord it to review the events in this case to understand why it did not apply its revised compensation policy, and identify what steps it needs to take to prevent this happening in the future, such as staff training and monitoring.