Wandsworth Council (202116457)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116457

Wandsworth Council

24 April 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of (i) repairs and maintenance to the property (ii) the addition of the resident’s daughter to the tenancy (iii) the provision of information on the regeneration of the property.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a two bedroom purpose built flat on the third floor of a sixteen storey building. The resident’s tenancy of the property began in May 1985. The resident’s daughter, who lives in the property, has a disability.
3. On 9 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that there was a problem with broken taps. This was followed by an email on 11 May 2020 from the resident complaining that the plumber arrived unannounced. She complained that he would not wear his face mask properly and the bathroom was contaminated. Her daughter who was shielding was now at risk.
4. The resident submitted an online complaint on 11 May 2020. She complained about the conduct of a plumber undertaking repairs, highlighting her concerns for her daughter who was shielding. She also complained that he did not correctly complete the repairs and made two deep scratches in the bath. She complained that the property was in poor condition and derelict. She stated that she wanted to move to a property that was in good condition. She noted that her daughter had spent ten years on the housing waiting list before being “thrown off” four years before and “being told someone would contact [her] but no one ever did”.
5. The landlord responded on 14 May 2020. It apologised if the contractor had not been wearing the appropriate protective equipment and that the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability had not been noted on the order request. It requested further information on the damaged bath panel. Regarding the resident’s request to move, it referred her to making an application for a medical transfer.
6. The resident sent the landlord photos of the damaged bath panel on 18 May 2020. She stated that an apology was not enough and that she felt that the landlord’s response trivialised her major concerns. She reiterated her concerns about the plumber’s conduct in light of COVID concerns.
7. On 4 June 2020 the landlord responded. It stated that the contractor who attended was not aware of damage to the bath panel. It advised her that it had raised an order to replace the bath panel. The resident responded on 7 June 2020 saying that the response made her “feel sick”. She reiterated her concerns about her daughter, who was shielding. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
8. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 7 July 2020. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a contractor. It noted that the guidance regarding contractors’ access said that no work should be carried out unless to remedy a direct risk to safety. It noted that in the first stage complaint response the landlord had stated that the contractor should have been made aware of her daughter’s vulnerabilities. It said that, in light of the guidance, more thought should have been given as to whether there was a health and safety risk and whether the works should have been done at the time and a discussion should have been had about what precautions should be taken. The landlord apologised to the resident. It advised her that the contractors had put in place new procedures. It reiterated its request to the resident for further information about the bath panel so it could proceed with the replacement. It asked for further information about her complaint about the bathroom taps so appropriate repairs could be undertaken. It offered the resident £50 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. On 8 February 2021 the resident reported a problem with radiators. The landlord noted that it contacted the resident but she was “rude” on the phone and “terminated the call twice”. The landlord offered the resident an appointment the next day but the resident refused access due to her daughter shielding.
10. The intercom handset was replaced on 22 February 2021. It was tested on 11 March 2021 and no fault found.
11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 March 2021, following a visit from contractors to replace radiators and look at the water tank. She asked for an electrician to come urgently to fix a light which the contractors said had a short that could cause a house fire. The landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss this but was unable to.
12. During April and May 2021 there were a number of communications between the resident and the landlord about window repairs and the hot water unit, including arranging appointment times and clarifying the works needed. The resident raised her concerns about the importance of proper PPE being worn, the nature of the cleaning products being used and the appropriate conduct of the contractors.
13. On 4 April 2021 the resident asked that the matter be treated as a formal complaint. She set out a number of repairs that she was unhappy with, and reiterated that she was unhappy with the conduct of contractors. She emphasised her concerns about the impact on her shielding daughter. She asked for a mobility review of the shower to be undertaken for her disabled daughter and asked that her daughter be added to the tenancy.
14. On 9 May 2021 the resident requested that the landlord attend the property to attend to a number of listed repairs. She also asked that her daughter be added to her tenancy agreement. She noted that her daughter had complex issues and had lived there her whole life (35 years) and had no hope of being rehoused. She stated that her daughter had been on the housing list for ten years before being removed “with no good reason”. She also complained that she was not happy with the way that the landlord had handled repairs to the windows. The landlord responded specifically to this on 27 May 2021 asking for further information on the listed repairs the resident considered outstanding.
15. On 30 May 2021 the resident submitted a further online complaint. She referred to her complaint of 9 May 2021 and noted that she had not yet received a response. She complained that the repairs had not been fully completed.
16. On 3 June 2021 a new hot water unit was installed and tested. The landlord also attended to assess or undertake several other repairs. The landlord attended the property on 17 June 2021 and following this raised a number of repair orders.
17. On 28 June 2021 the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident. It noted that, following an inspection on 17 June 2021, a number of repair orders had been raised for the property. Its position was that the repair issues were all being managed appropriately. Regarding the resident’s request for a mobility assessment it referred the resident to the Occupational Therapy Team, advising her to contact a named representative if she had difficulties arranging the assessment. With respect to the shower in the property, it observed that the shower – which had been privately fitted by the resident – was disconnected in April 2008 because it was found not to have been earthed correctly. It acknowledged that the resident had stated that the shower was essential for her disabled daughter and referred her the Occupational Therapy Team. It responded to the resident’s request for her daughter to be added to the tenancy stating that it would only offer “intergenerational transfers … in exceptional circumstances”. It advised the resident to contact the Estate Manager to discuss making an application. The landlord’s position is that the resident did not then contact the Estate Manager regarding an application. The complaint was not upheld.
18. The resident responded that she wished to escalate the matter to stage two of the complaints procedure. She stated that the complaint response offered no resolution. She stated that “all repairs remain outstanding” and no appointments have been made to arrange the repairs. She complained that the landlord had mishandled the matter in a number of ways – including failing to check works and disconnecting the shower. She also complained that contractors had failed to take steps regarding COVID risks and did not clean up after works. She also stated that she was not clear what the issue was with adding her daughter to the tenancy, noting that she is disabled and the resident is her carer. She stated that she had not been given a reason why her daughter had been removed from the Housing Register despite having complex health needs and a disability. She requested that her daughter be added to her tenancy She set out how the situation had a detrimental impact on her and her daughter, noting the impact of the pandemic in light of her daughter being clinically vulnerable. She set out a number of repairs that she wanted to be done and requested a mobility review of the bathroom due to her daughter’s disability. She also requested a “clear answer about the long term places” for the housing block. She noted that she had been told that the block would be refurbished but this was cancelled and there were rumours of being moved away. She requested compensation for stress, distress and risk to health.
19. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 July 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had first reported the issues on 9 May 2021, and on 27 and 30 May 2021 the landlord requested that the resident send in photos of the repair issues. The resident subsequently made an online complaint requesting that the landlord attend the property. The landlord visited on 17 June 2021. Later that day the resident emailed the landlord to state that there were further repair issues which she had not shown the landlord representative. The landlord returned to inspect these on 1 July 2021. The landlord set out that there were now works orders for a number of repairs. It advised the resident that a contractor would be in touch with her to make arrangements and also gave her email and telephone contact details of a named landlord representative if the resident wished to contact them. The landlord noted that the relevant contractor had contacted the resident to discuss the issues with the windows which she had raised, however she had told them that she did not wish to discuss the matter as she had raised a formal complaint. The landlord confirmed that the contractor needed to return to replace a pane of glass and it would look at any other issues that there might be with the windows at that time. The landlord went on to note that a contractor had attended on 30 May 2021 to resolve a reported problem of no hot water – which was resolved that day. A further check was carried out on 3 June 2021 and all was found to be in working order. It noted that the resident had not contacted the water repair contractors since but acknowledged that she had advised that there were still problems with the hot water. It advised that the contractor would be in contact to carry out a further inspection of the water system.
20. The landlord noted that a privately fitted shower had been disconnected in 2008 on the grounds that the electrics were unsafe and details of how to request an Occupational Therapist assessment had been provided in the stage one response. It said that the resident could contact the named representative if she required assistance with this. It confirmed that the details on the regeneration of the block given in the stage one complaint response were correct and referred the resident to the previous details given for the Regeneration Team. With respect to adding the resident’s daughter’s name to the tenancy, it reiterated its stage one response that it would only grant an intergenerational tenancy in exceptional circumstances. This is assessed on a case by case basis. It noted that the resident had been advised how to make an application. The landlord concluded that it did not uphold the complaint. It recommended that the resident work closely with the contractors and the named representative to have the works completed.
21. The contractor responded to the landlord’s query about the works on 6 August 2021. It stated that the overhauling works to the property had been completed in June. Snagging remained to replace a glass pane and clean the radiators. It had tried to book an appointment on 24 June 2021 but the resident had declined. It noted that it had dealt with issues raised by the resident. It also stated that before starting the works it had shown the resident all the cleaning and painting products and answered all her questions about the products. The resident had not raised an issue at the time. It acknowledged that there had been some dust when the window casements were opened which would be addressed at the next visit. This was the only dust.
22. On 24 August 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that she had not been contacted regarding outstanding repairs. She stated that there was an urgent repair needed to the hot water tap to the bath.
23. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2021 advising her that there was an existing order to renew the bath in its entirety, including the taps and that the contractor would be in touch with her. It further advised that a new order had been raised regarding the hand basin tap and the contractor had been advised to avoid having the same operative as previously.
24. The landlord advised internally on 7 September 2021 that it had tried to contact the resident on 27 August, 1 and 7 September and had not heard back from her. There were extensive discussions internally and with the contractor about how best to contact the resident and arrange the needed appointment. It was noted internally that a contractor who was in the area had “cold-called” the resident regarding the taps and she refused access and was “extremely rude” to the contractor. The landlord sent the resident an email on 7 September 2021 asking her to contact it. A further email was sent on 8 September 2021 noting that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident on a number of occasions but her phone did not have a voicemail. It noted that she had been provided with the contact details for the contractors to arrange the needed appointments and said that she should contact the landlord if she had any problems contacting them.
25. Between 7 September and 28 September 2021 there were a number of communications between the contractor and the resident which culminated in a date of 1 October 2021 being agreed for an appointment. This followed emails from the contractor to the resident seeking to arrange an appointment on 27 August 2021 and 1 September 2021.
26. On 22 September 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident requesting that she contact it to make arrangements for the outstanding repairs to be done. The resident responded to the landlord on 23 September 2021 She complained that the landlord had put the phone down on her because she had complained. She stated that it had no intention of completing the repairs. She complained about the conduct of contractors who had attended. She stated that she would refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
27. The landlord responded on 23 September 2021 advising that the call had cut out and it had been unable to contact her via her mobile phone. It asked for the resident to call it so the works could be arranged.
28. On 24 September 2021 the resident replied to the landlord stating that it had communicated with her inappropriately about the conduct of contractors. She stated that none of the repairs had been completed. She advised that she was raising the matter with the Ombudsman as there was “no point” in complaining to the landlord. She reiterated her complaints about the conduct of contractors, including that someone had entered her home “holding a drill”. She stated that she had closed the door in a contractor’s face because she had told him that she was in staff training. She complained that the landlord had failed to make an appointment, arrive at the agreed time, wear ID and take measurements.
29. The landlord responded that day assuring her that it had not put down the phone as this would be counterproductive to seeking a resolution. It advised that the Housing Manager intended to visit with the contractor so the outstanding works could be agreed and a suitable time arranged. It noted that the resident had agreed to call it the next day. On 27 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that it had not heard from her and asking that she contact it to arrange further repairs. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 29 September 2021 asking her to contact it as a matter of urgency.
30. In a further email of 29 September 2021 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had left a voicemail saying that she would not be contacting it again and she had no intention of arranging the outstanding works. The landlord reiterated that it would like to carry out the outstanding works. It acknowledged that the resident had said that she was taking the matter to the Ombudsman and stressed that it would like to resolve the matter.
31. Contractors confirmed to the resident on 30 September 2021 that all operatives would be wearing PPE. Contractors attended on 1 October 2021.
32. On 1 October 2021 the resident sent an email to the contractor stating that she was happy with the works undertaken.
33. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 October 2021 stating that there had been a number of visits as a prerequisite to completing repairs, but they had been mishandled. She stated that on one occasion a contractor arrived holding a hand drill and was abusive and threatening. The landlord responded noting her comments and confirming that if she wished the outstanding works to be done she should let it know. It noted that there was an active order and a contractor available to undertake the works when convenient for her.
34. In internal emails of 20 October 2021 the landlord noted that the work could not be done in two hour slots as the resident wanted. It further noted that a plumber had been refused access previously. The contractor advised that the resident would not give access for the work to be completed in a reasonable timeframe.
35. On 21 October 2021 the landlord wrote the resident advising her that a contractor it had sent had reported that she had told it that she would only provide access in two hour slots for the work to be completed over a number of days. It advised that it could not accommodate this and full day access was required. It asked her to contact the contractor to arrange such access or confirm that she did not want the works done. The resident responded confirming her position that she could only take Friday afternoon off work. She complained about having to explain the nature of her work to a stranger. She complained that the landlord did not appreciate that she worked full time and that she was not willing to lose her job because the landlord could not plan outstanding works. She stated that she was concerned about the damage that would be caused by works and that there was a plan to inconvenience her and daughter by leaving them without a bath. She complained about the home reorganisation that would be needed to undertake the works while she was trying to work from home. She advised that the matter had been referred to the Ombudsman and that she was seeking a resolution for the works to be “completed safely in a non-threatening way which does not place my daughter at risk of harm … or impact on her employment.”
36. The landlord responded confirming that the contractor worked for it and that it could make the necessary arrangements for the works to be completed if she could advise a full day.
37. On 25 October 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the work could be done on 20 December 2021. She asked that the workers wear PPE or they could not be allowed access. She asked that the landlord ensure that the workers did not bang the front door or damage any items in the home. She asked for confirmation in writing of all the works that would be undertaken so she could prepare.
38. The landlord responded on 1 November 2021 setting out details of the work and confirming that contractors would wear face masks and take care not to create additional repairs.
39. On the morning of 20 December 2021 the resident wrote that contractors had arrived who were polite and professional. They had said that they had only been contracted to replace the bath and bath panel. She raised concerns about the other repairs not being done. She complained that the bath installed was too big due to the size of the water tank in the property. She said that she would add this experience to her current complaint with the Ombudsman.
40. The landlord responded on 24 December 2021 noting that it had not been possible to complete the works fully in a day. It noted that the resident had discussed the outstanding works with the contractor who would be contacting her in the new year to arrange. It offered to inspect the hot water system the resident had complained about.
41. The resident sent the landlord a lengthy email on 11 January 2022 complaining that it was “gaslighting” her. She complained about a number of aspects of the contractors attendance on 20 December 2021. She complained that the outstanding works were still not completed. She complained that a contractor who attended to look at the water tank behaved in an inappropriate manner. She asked for a list of all the repairs undertaken since the start of her tenancy in May 1985 and a copy of her tenancy agreement. She noted that she was caring for her daughter who has complex needs. She complained that the water system needed to be replaced with a bigger one.
42. The landlord responded that day confirming that the contractor would contact her to progress the outstanding repairs. It stated that after the repairs were done it would like to visit the property to ensure that they were all completed to the landlord’s standards and to the resident’s satisfaction. It stated that the resident should not hesitate to contact it. It assured her that “no one is playing games or gaslighting and we simply wish to have all repairs in the property completed as soon as possible.” It followed this up in an email to the resident on 13 January 2022 saying that the contractor had advised that she had not responded to his messages about further works. It stated that it was extremely keen to get the works completed but could not do so without access. It proposed a new date.
43. On 18 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that she had arranged with the contractor for works to be done on 29 January and that it would contact the resident when works were done for a visit to inspect the works. Unfortunately this arranged date was missed due to the contractors’ personal circumstances and on 8 February 2022 the landlord sought to arrange an alternative date. The resident responded saying that she didn’t “have the strength for this game anymore” and stating that the Ombudsman would respond.
44. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 February 2022 stating that its intention was to complete the works as soon as possible and it was unclear as to why the resident felt it did not want to complete the works. It stated that it would assume from the resident’s email that she did not want any further works done until the Ombudsman determined the case. It told her to advise it if this was not the case and it would make suitable arrangements.
45. The resident sent the landlord an email on 8 February 2022. In this email the resident stated that the landlord “totally [got] off on this.” She stated that there had been abuse of power by the landlord for the last two years. She said that the landlord had completely ignored the contents of the email she had sent. It had asked her to take a day off work for repairs to be done and “they” had arrived with a bath panel. She stated that the kitchen floor was ruined. She finished by saying that “a further complaint will delay the Ombudsman response or is that what you are trying to achieve”.
46. On 20 March 2023 the landlord advised this service that it had understood from the last communication which the resident had with it – on 8 February 2022 – that she wanted the Ombudsman to make a decision prior to any work. The landlord understood her position to be that any further contact from the landlord may antagonise her. The landlord confirmed that its position had therefore been to wait for the Ombudsman to make a decision before taking any more action to resolve any issues. It noted that the resident contacted it in November 2022 about a broken pull cord in the bathroom which it repaired on 24 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Repairs and maintenance    

47. The landlord has a clear obligation to maintain the property in reasonable condition and undertake repairs within a reasonable timeframe. What is a reasonable timeframe will depend on the nature of the repair. The Ombudsman would also expect any operatives involved in repair work to treat the resident with appropriate respect and courtesy. In this case, much of the repair work was undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in the very initial stages. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s daughter is vulnerable and was shielding. The Ombudsman understands that this was a matter of particular concern for the resident and has taken this into account in considering whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
48. The resident has been in the property since 1985. It is to be expected that a number of maintenance and repair issues would arise over the time. The resident’s position is that the property is now derelict and the landlord has mishandled a number of reported repairs.
49. The evidence indicates that a number of repairs have been required. However, in the circumstances the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the evidence indicates that the property is derelict or in a poor condition due to the landlord not having maintained it. The repairs which include window repairs, a new water tank, and new bathroom taps are not unusual for a property of this age. Whilst it is not disputed that repairs were needed, the evidence does not indicate that the overall condition of the property made it uninhabitable.
50. The Ombudsman also does not find that there has been any notable failings by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. It appears that there were some miscommunications about the contractor’s use of PPE and COVID-19 precautions with initial visits at the start of the pandemic. The landlord also had not made a note on the resident’s records and/or the repair order that the resident’s daughter was shielding, The Ombudsman emphasises that we understand the resident’s high levels of concern. However, the first incident which the resident complained about was on 11 May 2020. This was very early in the pandemic and it is unfortunate, but understandable, that the landlord had not yet implemented effective and comprehensive procedures for dealing with repair visits for shielding residents. The repair was undertaken as it was considered urgent, as at the time other repairs had been suspended. The evidence indicates that the contractor did take some precautions. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered the resident £50.00 compensation with respect to the plumber’s visit. This, in itself, does not mean that the Ombudsman would find that there was a service failure. In this case, whilst the resident’s distress is understandable in the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable to conclude that there was a service failure as the landlord acted reasonably given the context and circumstances at the time.
51. The Ombudsman also considers that the evidence does not indicate that there failings in the landlord’s handling of other repairs. The landlord contacted the resident on several occasions over an extensive period of time. There is no indication that the landlord unreasonably declined or was unreasonably tardy in seeking to arrange repairs. The landlord responded in a reasonable manner to the resident’s concerns about COVID-19 precautions (after the initial repair visit) and the resident’s queries about the nature of the cleaning products to be used. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s stress and concerns, however it appears that this did mean that the resident sometimes communicated in what the Ombudsman considers to have been an unreasonable manner with the landlord, which hampered efforts to arrange the repairs. The resident also sometimes proposed limited windows of time for repairs, which it was not reasonable to expect the landlord to be able to work around. The evidence does not indicate that the contractors conducted themselves in an inappropriate manner while undertaking repairs. The landlord was clearly prepared to attend again to look again at any repairs which the resident felt had not been done properly. It sought to replace the bath panel which the resident said had been scratched by a contractor.
52. The Ombudsman has given particular attention to the resident’s concerns about a lack of an accessible shower in the property. The Ombudsman understands that a privately installed one was removed in 2008 due to electrical concerns. The Ombudsman understands why an accessible shower would be important to the resident. When the resident raised the issue with the landlord, the landlord referred the resident to its Occupational Therapy assessment process and indicated that if this found that there was a need it would take appropriate steps. It referred her to a named representative if she required help progressing that. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
53. Ultimately, after extensive communications with the resident in January and February 2022 where it sought to arrange times for the completion of the outstanding repairs the landlord ceased further attempts on the basis of its understanding that the resident did not want it to take any further steps until this service had made a Determination. The Ombudsman has reviewed these communications. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was very upset by this stage. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable. The landlord’s tone was polite and understanding. It sought to move the matter forward and take into account the resident’s concerns where this could be achieved. The Ombudsman considers that, after such extensive communications which did not resolve the issues, the landlord was reasonable to cease pursuing the issue.
54. The Ombudsman understands that this has been a stressful experience for the resident. However, the Ombudsman finds that there has not been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its handling of maintenance and repairs.

Addition of the resident’s daughter to the tenancy   

55. The resident has complained that the landlord has not added her daughter’s name to the tenancy for the property. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is concerned for her daughter’s residential security.
56. The landlord’s position is that the resident’s request is being treated in line with its tenancy policy and in the same manner as any other tenant making such a request would be. It states that a tenancy addition would only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”.
57. At this stage, a decision has not been made about whether the resident’s daughter would fall within the exceptional circumstances criteria, as the resident has not made an application in the manner required by the landlord.
58. It is reasonable for the landlord to have criteria for the addition of a person to a tenancy and an application process to be completed. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide reasonable information and support to a resident who wishes to add a person to a tenancy. In this case, where the resident’s daughter is vulnerable, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take this into account and provide additional appropriate support to make an application.
59. The resident requested that her daughter be added to the tenancy in an email to the landlord on 9 May 2021. In its stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 June 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would only grant such a request in “exceptional circumstances” and referred the resident to the Estate Manager to discuss an application. It reiterated this position in its stage two response of 20 July 2021.
60. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord handed the resident’s request in a reasonable manner. It explained that it would only grant the request in exceptional circumstances and explained how to make an application. It referred the resident to the appropriate person to discuss an application. The evidence does not show that the resident took further steps that the landlord did not support or handled unreasonably. The resident remains free to make an application and to contact the relevant landlord representative. The landlord has provided the appropriate information at this stage. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there has not been a service failure by the landlord with respect to the resident’s request in an email to add her daughter to the tenancy agreement.

The provision of information on the regeneration of the property  

61. The resident has understandable concerns about her long term security in the property. The block in which the property is situated has been the subject of a consultation regarding its future.
62. In its stage one and stage two complaint response the landlord referred the resident to the Regeneration Team for further queries about the future of regeneration plans for the property. This was reasonable and appropriate. The long term plans for the property are being dealt with separately to contemporary repairs and the Ombudsman would expect this to be managed by a different team. There is no indication that the resident contacted the Regeneration Team and the landlord failed to respond.
63. The Ombudsman finds that there has not been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its communications about the long term regeneration plans for the property.

Determination (decision)

64. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs and maintenance.
65. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to the addition of the resident’s daughter to the tenancy.
66. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to the provision of information on the regeneration of the property.

Reasons

67. There were some unfortunate miscommunications during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, the landlord has subsequently taken reasonable steps to undertake a number of repairs. The landlord contacted the resident on several occasions over an extensive period of time. There is no indication that the landlord unreasonably declined or was unreasonably tardy in seeking to arrange repairs. After such extensive communications which did not resolve the issues between the parties, including with arranging appointment times, the landlord was reasonable to cease pursuing the issue.
68. The landlord explained that it would only add the resident’s daughter to the tenancy in exceptional circumstances and explained how to make an application. It referred the resident to the appropriate person to discuss an application. The evidence does not show that the resident took further steps that the landlord did not support or handled unreasonably. The resident remains free to make an application and to contact the relevant landlord representative. The landlord has provided the appropriate information at this stage.
69. The landlord provided the appropriate contact details to the resident to discuss possible future regeneration plans.

Recommendation

70. The resident indicated that she did not want to make arrangements for further repairs to be completed until the Ombudsman had considered her complaint. As this case has now been investigated and determined, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination to confirm her agreement for any necessary repairs to now be undertaken.