Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202107969)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107969

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

23 August 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 management and handling of:
1. a request to install a level access shower wet room in the property.
2. the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
3. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outbuildings.
4. the resident’s formal complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 February 2022.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Background

The resident lives alone in a 2-bedroom general needs house let by Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council.
The resident took up occupation at the address via a mutual exchange completed by Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (PHP) on behalf of the landlord in August 2020.
Poole Housing Partnership is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) that is wholly owned by BCP Council and manages the council housing stock within Poole. PHP uses capital funds to carry out disabled adaptations via its contractor arrangements, following recommendations from an occupational therapist (OT) at adult social care or children services at BCP Council.
A local government and social care ombudsman determination was issued in January 2022 related to the support and social care aspects of this case.
The landlord’s housing database records vulnerability information about the resident that indicate they have a visual impairment and mobility issues.
The resident received support from Shelter housing charity during this investigation. For the purposes of this report Shelter staff members are referred to as ‘advocate.’

Relevant policies and procedures

The resident’s secure tenancy agreement states:
1. As the landlord, we are responsible for the following:
  1. the structure and outside of the property, including floors, walls, roof, windows, drains, and gutters but excludes gardens, sheds and any other items not supplied by us,
  2. the repair and maintenance of sanitary equipment including baths and toilets,
2. As the tenant you are responsible for the following:
  1. repairing and maintaining your own household equipment such as cookers, washing machines and any improvements carried out to the property by you or a previous tenant,
  2. maintaining any improvements or alterations you have made to the property. You must always seek our written permission for any alterations or changes you make to the property,
Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985 and Schedule 14 of the Localism act 2011 both state “the property is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee and their household” as a reason for declining a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy document states:
1. the incoming tenant takes the property as they find it,”
2. “the resident will need to “sign an indemnity form agreeing to take on responsibility for any nonstandard items, tenant improvements or damage caused by the outgoing tenant,”
3. “if you are intending to move to a property with another landlord, you will need to check with them what your repairs and maintenance responsibilities will be after you move,”
4. “if you are exchanging to another landlord, we recommend that you ask about their adaptation policy to ensure you will get any adaptations that you need,”
5. “check the condition of the property you intend to move to thoroughly. This should include checking the inside of all cupboards, the loft or roof-space, (if applicable), the condition of the garden and any other attachments to the property, such as sheds or garages,”
6. “view the property more than once, and at different times of the day and week.”
The landlord’s incoming tenant indemnity form which is completed during a mutual exchange process states:
1. “this form identifies all non-standard item in the property,
2. I will take responsibility for all fixtures, fittings, appliances, alterations or defects, decorative conditions the garden condition and any rubbish or items to the property,
3. In doing so I indemnify [the landlord] from any liability.
The landlord’s disabled adaptation procedure states the landlord should:
1. establish if the tenant is under occupying the property,
  1. If yes, check if the tenant is eligible for moving assistance and the package of support and to establish if they are willing to move to more suitable alternative accommodation.
2. request additional medical information if it is too detrimental and unreasonable for the tenant to move,
  1. If medical evidence is obtained a discussion with the Senior Practitioner and Occupational Therapists will determine if the evidence is sufficient to agree to the adaptation.
The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy states:
1. routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days of the defect being reported,
2. [the landlord] will ensure that a proportion of responsive repairs are inspected once they have been completed,
3. the tenant is responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of certain minor items within the home, as set out in the Tenancy Agreement and the Tenants’ Handbook. This includes;
  1. Decorating the inside of their properties and keeping them in a good state of decoration,
  2. Completing minor repairs to woodwork and plaster,
  3. Maintaining and repairing garden fences and gates,
  4. Maintaining and repairing garden sheds and greenhouses.
4. we generally require applicants with an adaptation requirement to be visited in their home by an Occupational Therapist (OT), who will assess the work required to their home,
5. on taking into account whether the works are reasonable and practicable, we will consider the installation of major adaptations in under or over occupied homes. These will not be agreed unless there are exceptional circumstances that would prevent a move to a more suitable property.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy states:
1. if a customer’s dissatisfaction is with something that [the landlord] has done, or the customer thinks something should have been done but has not, then this should be deemed a complaint,
2. stage one complaints: provide a response within 10 working days of receipt,
3. stage two review complaints: provide a response within 14 working days of receipt,
4. all complaints will be acknowledged within two working days with advice about who will respond and when the customer can expect to receive a response,
5. when considering what action will put things right officers should carefully manage the expectations of residents, they should not promise anything that cannot be delivered or would cause unfairness to other customers,
6. when considering awarding compensation, the investigating officer should refer to [the landlord’s] compensation policy.
The landlord’s redress policy states [the landlord]:
1. may offer a gesture of goodwill where its actions have caused inconvenience or suffering,
2. may make a discretionary payment where a complainant has suffered a demonstrable financial loss as a result of a service failure,
3. may also consider other remedies to resolve the issues eg, expedited repairs, an apology.

Summary of events

The resident held a conversation with the landlord a month after taking up occupation at their during a home visit on 2 September 2020. The resident reported repairs and adaptations at their property related to:
1. blown windows – downstairs back window, upstairs back window and upstairs front window,
2. blown windows – downstairs back window, upstairs back window and upstairs front window,
3. outside toilet – not plumbed in,
4. upstairs toilet – overflowing,
5. two side gates – difficulties closing and locking,
6. roof to an outside area (between gates) broken,
7. back door furniture loose, preventing door from closing properly,
8. fencing issues in the garden,
9. coving and skirting boards in front room missing,
10. grab rails required by front and back door,
11. driveway to be widened, as he is not able to get his Motability car onto the driveway,
12. a wet room because the resident cannot get in bath safely.
The landlord sent a series of internal emails between 2 September and 16 September 2020 in response to the resident’s request for repairs. The emails confirmed:
1. the resident was advised that adult social care and OT would be required to assess for any adaptation requests,
2. the resident moved to be closer to family and stated he expected the landlord to complete the works due to his disabilities,
3. it is unlikely the landlord would complete wet room and driveway widening adaptations as he is under occupied by 1 bedroom,
4. to minimise the risk of fails the landlord ordered grab rails in the bathroom, hallway, and front door,
5. the resident did not disclose his disabilities so would not have been advised regarding the landlord’s policy on adaptations before moving,
The landlord declined the resident requests for a level access shower on 15 September 2020 due to its policy on adaptations and under occupancy. The landlord subsequently spoke to the resident on 22 September 2021, about moving to more suitable property, but the resident declined.
The landlord held a disabled adaptation meeting on 8 December 2020, and it was noted that the resident had requested an over bath shower but was underoccupied and their request was declined due to the underoccupancy but that the resident could apply to self-fund.
The landlord and social services sent a joint response to the resident on an undisclosed date in January 2021 restating the reason the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations was declined related to their underoccupancy.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 10 March 2021 which referred to the resident as aggressive and rude when booking a works order for a loose rail in the property. The works order was categorised as VIP with a note for operatives to leave the resident’s premises if they feel threatened.
The landlord sent an internal email on 6 April 2021 stating the resident is disabled and it installed rails in the property, but no further works would be completed because he mutually exchanged into an underoccupied property.
The resident’s social services representative sent the resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord on 7 April 2021. The complaint stated:
1. the landlord should review its refusal to complete the bathroom adaptations recommended by an occupational therapist due to the underoccupancy of the property,
2. the landlord’s adaptations policy was not a blanket policy and if moving would be detrimental to health the matter could be discussed,
3. “the unresolved issues with my housing make me feel like ending my life,”
4. “I feel angry and frustrated that the only way I can receive the adaptation I need would be to move to another property when I have already put a significant amount of money into this property,”
5. when will the blown windows be fitted as they have been measured already,
6. the living room lights and security lights at the front and back of the property require a repair to reduce the risk of tripping related to the resident’s visual impairment,
7. new fence panels and posts are required in the front and back garden,
8. the driveway and garden required levelling to reduce trip hazards.
The landlord sent an internal email on 7 April 2021 advising that correspondence with the resident should be in large print and that a consent form was attached to allow a representative from social services to speak on his behalf. The landlord subsequently sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 8 April 2021. The target response date was stated as 22 April 2021.
The landlord raised works orders on 8 April 2021 to repair external lights and remove items from the resident’s shed and on 9 April 2021 raised a works order to remove and replace the shed roof.
The social services emailed the landlord between 9 and 12 April 2021 related to the resident’s request for the landlord to replace lights in the kitchen and living room when they come to fit external security lights. The resident had bought the lights and was advised by the contractor that he must request a works order for their installation to be completed.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 April 2021 related to the landlord’s decision not to install a level access shower in the property. The email stated the resident had been provided with an explanation in a joint response with the social services in January 2021.
The social services emailed the landlord on 12 April 2021 stating “I have discussed [the landlord’s decision with the resident] on many occasions. Unfortunately, he does not accept this explanation and so it continues to be a point of contention that we cannot move forward from.” “he would like to take this as far as he can via complaints and ultimately to the ombudsman.”
The landlord sent internal emails on 15 April 2021 to confirm scaffolding would be erected within 4 weeks to enable a repair the blown glass windows at the resident’s property.
The social services emailed the landlord on 19 April 2021 stating that OT has not made any recommendation regarding the fencing, driveway, and lighting. “With regards to the lighting in the living room, my understanding is the resident requires additional lighting, but a task [plug-in] light has been recommended for this by the sight and hearing team for him to purchase.”
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 20 April 2021. The response stated:
1. The request for a level access shower was declined because it “does not meet the criteria for major adaptions” in underoccupied properties where a move can reasonably take place.
2. “if moving would be detrimental to your health this would be discussed,
3. there doesn’t appear to be a reason a move cannot happen to somewhere more suited to the resident’s longer-term needs.
4. “there was no disclosure that adaptations would be required” but if the landlord “had been made aware then they would have informed [the resident] of the adaptation policy prior to exchanging properties.”
5. “The Occupational Therapist noted that [the resident] moved from an adapted property into a property that they were aware would not meet their needs.”
6. The resident put a stop on the blown windows being replaced and should “confirm that they are willing to have these 3 windows installed in order that an appointment can be arranged.”
7. The external light repair was arranged and completed.
8. The internal light recommended by the sight and hearing team was a plug in, light but the landlord would assist if installation were required,
9. “fencing is ordinarily tenant’s responsibility and unlikely to be considered an adaptation.
10. The occupational therapist assessed the footpath from public highway to the front door as adequate, but the landlord would complete a repair if an OT assessment confirmed it was required.
11. “the decision not to install the level-access shower was made collectively with social care based on existing policy but and there is an open review should medical evidence confirm it would be too detrimental for the resident to move.
12. The complaint was not upheld.
The landlord raised and completed a works order on 6 May 2021 to reinstall two internal doors and on 7 May 2021 it raised a works order to fix a sensor light which it completed on 12 May 2021.
An advocate sent an email to the landlord on 11 May 2021 stating that the resident reported several disrepair issues:
1. Work was started on the roof, but left half done,
2. builders rubbish left at the property which caused the resident to fall twice.
3. leaks in a number of windows,
4. refusal of a shower installation,
The landlord raised works orders on 13 May 2021 to repair a bonding cable, replace an internal dimmer switch, replace a plastic vent, reseal the worktop and repair the kickboards in the kitchen, replace seals to all windows. The landlord completed these repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord emailed an alteration request form to the resident’s occupational therapist on 18 May 2021 to assist with obtaining a grant as funding for a shower alteration at the property.
The landlord raised works order on 18, 19, 20 and 28 May 2021 to install grab rails in the bathroom, remove waste and install corrugated sheeting to the walkway between the house and the shed, remove and relay a new concrete path, wash down and stain block walls in the middle shed. The landlord completed these repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord raised a works order on 4 June 2021 to “put resident’s items back in the outhouse to avoid damage until works have been completed.” The works order was cancelled on an undisclosed date because “the resident turned the contractor away.”
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 July 2021 stating it had spoken to the resident the day before about outstanding repair orders and agreed to visit the resident in his home to assess the situation. The landlord confirmed its contractor attended but the resident declined access because works to the store were not finished.
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 July 2021 stating that the resident had called a member of the landlord’s staff a “f***ing idiot”, further that the resident advised contractors when a named member of staff attended his property the following week he was going to “take my f***ing head off.”
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 3 July 2021 to enquire when it would visit his address. The resident stated:
1. two surveyors that previously attended missed items inside the property,
2. repairs were not being completed correctly or half done,
3. two sheds had not been repaired just the smallest shed despite damp being present on the shed walls,
4. their white goods, furniture,and a hot tub were damaged,
5. their tools were left in the garden, are ruined, and remain left in the garden,
6. the property is affected by overgrown brambles from the private homes on either side of the property,
7. levelling of the back and front gardens was required,
The resident emailed the landlord again on 5 July 2021 requesting an urgent meeting because:
1. the resident is losing his furniture and garden tools which were becoming damaged,
2. the landlord’s staff was unaware of the resident’s disability,
3. a window contractor advised their windows were leaking from the walls,
4. “I need help as I feel suicidal” and described the impact his housing circumstances had on his anxiety with details of his medical situation and health.
5. there were outstanding repairs at the property. These were listed as:
  1. windows letting in dust and windows blown,
  2. electric faults,
  3. no roof,
  4. rotten walkway doors and frames,
  5. damaged fence panels on the sides and back of the garden,
  6. uneven ground on the front drive and back garden,
  7. overgrown trees hedges, brambles, and nettles in the front and back gardens,
  8. loose front garden gates,
  9. damage to furniture and tools,
  10. upstairs toilet keeps blocking and the flush is not strong,
  11. internal doors don’t close or lock in every room,
  12. skirting boards in the living room,
  13. the driveway was too small for the resident’s car,
The landlord sent an internal email on 6 July 2021 related to a conversation it held with the resident the same day. The landlord’s email stated:
1. it discussed the repairs and housing matters the resident reported,
2. it advised the resident that garden and fencing is the resident’s responsibility,
3. it suggested a move to alternative accommodation may be beneficial.
4. The resident advised the landlord:
  1. he needs a 2-bed property due to a court order made to facilitate his daughter staying with him,
  2. he was not given an advocate from social services.
5. The landlord relisted the repairs referred to by the resident adding:
  1. The resident’s tools were taken out of the shed and not put back in,
  2. The resident has a rusty tumble dryer and fridge freezers due to disrepair to the garages,
  3. back door panels and skirting boards were missing,
The landlord sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 6 July 2021. The letter stated a response would be provided within 10 working days by 20 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 11 July 2021 related to repairs conducted at the property. The resident stated:
1. tools were left in the garden and remained for 3 months,
2. works to the 2 sheds are not finished: flaunching was completed up to 6 inches where bricks should be which was a “bodged up job”,
3. inspectors have not checked the work,
4. the resident was sworn at over the phone and requested a record of the call, further than he received 3 threatening calls from his housing officer,
5. he swore to housing staff “because he swore at me first”,
6. guttering is leaking,
7. heating not working properly,
8. windows let in dust and don’t close properly,
9. toilets don’t flush properly,
10. doors have no handles and locks,
11. back fence panels and posts are rotten and the lean to has holes in,
12. brambles are overgrown,
13. the driveway and pathway is uneven,
The ALMO made a file note on 12 July 2021 stating it received a letter from this Service which was dated 2 July 2021 the same day. The letter related to the resident’s stage one complaint which was being investigated. The correspondence from this Service was sent directly to the council rather than the ALMO which delayed receipt by ten days.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 July 2021 related the resident’s stage one complaint of 5 July 2021. The email stated that the landlord had responded to a previous stage one complaint in April 2021 and did not receive a stage two escalation request. Further that as there were new elements to the complaint a new stage one complaint was registered.
The landlord sent a letter to this Service on 12 July 2021 in response to the complaint HOS raised on behalf of the resident dated 6 July 2021. The letter stated a new stage one response was logged from 6 July 2021 with a response due by 20 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 July 2021 related to their housing ombudsman complaint. The resident restated the matters described in their email of 11 July 2021 related to repairs conducted at the property. In addition the resident referred to the landlord’s request for a copy of the court order.
The landlord sent an internal email related to the resident’s concerns on 14 July stating, “Seems to me that this is escalating and whether this should be a safeguard matter.” The landlord confirmed its plans to attend an approaching multi-disciplinary team meeting to discuss the case with the resident’s GP and other senior staff members.
The landlord sent an internal email on 19 July 2021 to alert a member of staff that the resident “has a two-person alert against him, for being angry, aggressive and accusing.”
The landlord fixed the resident’s shed light, repaired a defective broken socket, located “DIY wiring” and installed temporary trunking on 21 July 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 July 2021 requesting a copy of the court order stipulated the resident is required to see his daughter every weekend “as this may support your application for some adaptations to the property,” The landlord offered to support the resident in obtaining a copy if required.
The landlord posted its stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 July 2021 and subsequently emailed it to the resident on 11th August 2021. The landlord’s response:
1. referred to a conversation it held with the resident on 19 July 2021 stating the resident confirmed:
  1. prior to the mutual exchange they attempted to visit the property but did not inform anyone of the visit and could not gain access,
  2. they did not request a further visit to view the property,
  3. they read the landlord’s mutual exchange policy document prior to agreeing the move.
  4. they did not report all the repairs listed in their complaint to the landlord via the repairs reporting process,
2. stated during the visit the landlord clarified:
  1. the resident’s responsibility under the repairs policy as set out in the tenant handbook.
  2. it would not undertake any repairs to the garden fences or undertake any gardening services, or work to the driveway except the path leading to the front door,
  3. the resident signed the assignment of tenancy accepting the property on the condition at the time of the exchange as per the mutual exchange policy and process,
  4. they signed the mutual exchange indemnity form stating there were no issues with the property,
3. provided comments on the reported repairs stating:
  1. there was no sign that the windows were letting in dust when the landlord visited the address,
  2. repairs to the blown windows were delayed because the contractor was refused entry, but the work was since completed,
  3. a broken walkway roof was replaced on 3 June 2021,
  4. an order was raised for the landlord to replace the front gate,
  5. rotten doors and frames on the lean-to are the resident’s responsibility and the landlord would not carry out these repairs,
  6. the responsibility for maintaining and replacing fencing is down to the occupants of the houses,
  7. “it is the tenants responsibility to maintain the driveway to the property and gardens, but we have instructed the works to improve the access path that leads to your front door,”
  8. garden maintenance and upkeep are the responsibility of the resident,
  9. Internal doors do not need to lock in all rooms but should close to frame, this is the responsibility of the resident,
  10. it will refix any skirting that has come away from the wall but replacing, repair or decoration is the resident’s responsibility,
  11. on street parking is available if there is a van or an additional vehicle at the property,
  12. it agreed to undertake the work on the middle shed only which has been completed,
  13. the only reported damp and mould issue related the external sheds and work was undertaken in the middle shed due to the severity of the problem there. Normally this would be the resident’s responsibility.
4. restated that a wet room would not be installed as this is not within the current policy the property is under occupied,
5. stated the resident has a bath lift that they were able to operate and use to enable them to manoeuvre inand out of the bath,
6. encouraged the resident to seek a move to alternative accommodation,
7. explained the resident’s previous stage one complaint dated April 2021 was investigated and responded to within the specified timescales and the complaint was closed because the resident did not respond further,
8. recommended a joint meeting with the resident and any representative to survey the property, identify and document all outstanding work/repair issues and determine who is responsible for each repair,
9. suggested the resident reconsider a move to more suitable accommodation scheme that will be more beneficial to their current and future needs especially around looking after the garden. Further that the landlord would provide help support for a move.
The landlord sent an email to the social services on 30 July 2021 in relation to the resident’s support. The landlord stated it had asked the resident to provide a copy of the court order and agreed to assist them in obtaining a copy from the relevant Birmingham Court.
The landlord raised works order on 3 August 2021 to rectify the toilet flush and repair leaking guttering. The works orders were completed within 5 working days. The landlord raised a subsequent works order on 8 August 2021 to repair skirting in the lounge and kitchen.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 August 2021 to advise them to contact their solicitor and provide consent for the landlord to assist in obtaining a copy of the court order as the social services could not locate the order when they searched the resident’s property.
The solicitor firm that represented the resident emailed the resident on 11 August 2021 stating “I attach the last order we received on the 8th of January 2018. This orders indirect contact by way of telephone calls every Saturday between you and [your child.]”
The resident emailed a copy of the court order to the landlord on 11 August 2021. The resident’s email stated, “I had orders from the judge to pick [my child] up from school at 3pm on Wednesdays take her home at 7pm Pick [my child] up from school Fridays at 3pm keep them at mine Friday and Saturday take them home Sundays at 4pm So I had every weekend staying and sleeping at my house, Friday, Friday night, Saturday and Saturday night and took them home Sunday afternoon 4pm,”
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2021 to confirm it received the court order the resident provided. The landlord stated that the Judge would have issued specific conditions in relation to the [resident’s child’s] visiting rights but that it “states a telephone call on a Saturday” “nothing saying specific visiting or staying days or times.”
The resident emailed the resident on 17 August 2021 stating “I reject what you are saying regarding the court order, It seems to me you are not helping me even though it is very clear I need help and support. The court order states they stay with me from Friday until Sunday whether I’m in Birmingham or not, location is not the issue here it is you that is making an issue, I strongly suggest that you obtain the full court order.” The landlord replied to the resident’s email the same day stating it was intending to support of the resident’s housing application by obtaining further information from the solicitor that confirms the judge ordered visiting rights.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 August 2021 stating it intended to visit the property on 1 September 2021 to review and assess the repairs and discuss the repairing responsibilities related to the repairs the resident raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 September 2021 to provide summary notes of the conversation they held during the landlord’s visit to the property.
The landlord sent an internal email on 30 September 2021 to confirm the resident had agreed to a repair appointment on 15 October 2021 for repairs to flaunching and skirting boards. The landlord completed the skirting repairs and subsequently raised a works order to replace the first-floor toilet on 15 October 2021 which it completed on 10 November 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 13 October 2021 related to damage that the landlord contractor caused to a section of the resident’s flooring. The landlord stated the resident was not happy with the landlord’s suggestion to use wax to repair the floorboard or replace the damaged plank with a leftover plank the resident had, instead of offering compensation. The resident previously stated they had “burnt the planks” so the landlord would need to replace the flooring at its own expense. Further that he would “go out of his way to make everyone’s jobs harder, such as when the decorators are due, instead of clearing the room out, he will move more furniture in and refuse to move it.”
An advocate emailed the landlord on 15 October 2021 in relation to a conversation they held the same day. The advocate:
1. thanked the landlord for “finding a solution to the WC pan.”
2. advised they would help the resident obtain a test certificate for an external socket the resident installed,
3. said they would explore grant funding for a shower installation,
4. stated they had inspected the repair works to the outside sheds with the resident who agreed “they were making a good job of it,”
5. asked the landlord to keep the resident informed about the neighbour’s repairs to the right-side fence.
The landlord sent an internal email on 18 October 2021 stating that a surveyor that attended the property earlier in the year looked at three sheds at the residents address and agreed to paint the middle one as a goodwill gesture noting mould clearance and decoration would usually be the residents responsibility. The email stated, “Having [re]inspected the two end sheds on Friday, [the landlord] will not be painting all walls and will only be making good the flaunching now completed.”
The landlord emailed the resident’s advocate on 18 October 2021 stating:
1. it was not aware of any funding available to the resident for a shower installation,
2. the residents neighbour had been contacted in relation to the replacement of the adjoining fencing,
3. a works order for a new WC pan has been raised,
4. the resident thought that additional shed repairs would be completed, but this was not the landlord’s intention as the responsibility for their repairs is the resident’s and no agreement to complete more than the disturbed areas was made.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2021 stating “as requested, I confirm I do not intend to move from this property in the foreseeable future. Therefore I would be grateful if you could arrange for the necessary works to the walkway to proceed as soon as possible.”
The landlord replaced the resident’s first floor toilet on 10 November 2021. It reattended to repair plasterwork behind the cistern on 22 January 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident’s advocate on 11 November 2021 stating, “The contractor has agreed to [the resident’s] request for £150 and will pay this in full and final settlement of this claim.” This was in response to an email the landlord received from the resident’s advocate the same day stating the resident “is looking for the damaged board to be replaced and is not willing to accept a filler.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2021 stating, “I confirm my agreement to accept £150 compensation as full settlement for the floor damage caused by the heating engineer.”. The contractor confirmed the payment was made to the resident’s bank account on 30 November 2021.
The landlord contractor confirmed that flaunching paintwork to the resident’s shed was completed on 17 November 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 November 2021 stating they did not receive the landlord’s stage one complaint response. This Service emailed the landlord requesting it to provide a copy of the complaint response and to hold a discussion about escalating the complaint to stage two. The landlord subsequently emailed the resident on the same day attaching a further copy of its stage one complaint response along with a copy of its follow up letter dated 7 September 2021
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 November 2021 confirming works to re-lay the resident’s front footpath and repair a bend to the residents Kee Klamp rail would commence on 6 December 2021 and last for three days.
The landlord installed a new boiler in the resident’s property on 2 December 2021.
The resident’s advocate emailed the landlord on 6 December 2021 to find out if path works were still planned to commence the same day. The landlord replied to the advocate’s email advising that the weather was too poor to complete the pathway repair which would need to be moved from 6 to 9 December 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 9 December 2021 explaining its contractor arrived at the resident’s house the same day to complete works, but the resident declined the works as they needed access to his front door and could not wait 24/36 hours for the cement to dry. The landlord suggested the advocate should contact the resident to make arrangements to use a side gate and back door for the foot path repairs to be completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2022 with reference to their housing situation. The resident stated:
1. repairs remained outstanding. These were listed as:
  1. damaged flooring,
  2. skirting boards,
  3. interior doors which don’t close,
  4. sidewalk, front & back doors,
  5. an uneven front path,
  6. finishing damp proofing works to the sidewalk toilet and 2 brick sheds,
2. compensation was required for a loss of tools removed by the council,
3. the landlord is bothering about the house being unoccupied and not bothered about court orders related to family needs,
4. matters have been going on since 1 August 2020.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email the same day stating:
1. all matters the resident raised have been discussed in previous communications and the landlord’s position has been made clear,
2. a compensation payment for the damage floorboard was issued to the resident based upon their preference for a financial aware instead of a repair,
3. all repairs the landlord is responsible for have been completed, except the path which was delayed subject to permission being received from the resident for the works to be scheduled,
The resident made a stage two complaint via phone on 21 January 2022. The complaint stated:
1. the landlord has not replaced the external side door which has no locks, handles and is rotten and warped,
2. a rotten rear walkthrough door required replacement because the resident felt unsafe without garden fencing,
3. the resident was unhappy that it took 3 or 4 visits for the landlord to complete flaunching works,
4. only the middle of three sheds was painted which took 6 months,
5. the £150 compensation provided for damaged floorboard was not sufficient to cover the costs of the flooring repair,
6. no-one post inspected the repair work completed at the property,
7. the resident was unhappy that their wet room request was declined,
8. feels like the landlord is not supporting them which causes stress and anxiety,
The landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement letter to the resident on 26 January 2021 advising a response would be issued within 14 working days by 11 February 2022
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 10 February 2022. The landlord stated:
1. the resident had previously been provided with information about both the landlord’s and tenant’s responsibilities,
2. all the repairs issues have been investigated and actions taken where appropriate,
3. delays completing flaunching work occurred because initially the work was not completed to standard and subsequently the workmen had to leave the property due to the resident’s behaviour,
4. the middle shed was painted as a gesture of goodwill and based upon an agreement to clean and paint the shed that needed it most,
5. the remaining sheds were the residents responsibility to maintain.
6. the resident chose to accept a compensation payment for the damaged floorboard in place of accepting the landlord’s offer to complete a flooring repair. Therefore, any concern should have been discussed at that time,
7. the landlord understood all works were complete and some of the repairs were completed with managers present therefore post-inspection was not necessary,
8. if any repairs required further checks this could be arranged upon receipt of further advice,
9. the bathroom adaptations were not approved due to the landlord’s policy related to underoccupancy,
10. the court orders related to the residents circumstances did not confirm a requirement for the resident to need an additional room.
11. The landlord offered to help the resident move to a different area based their decision to move closer to their family.
12. The complaint was not upheld.
The landlord held an email conversation with the resident’s advocate on 18 May 2022 which confirmed the works to the pathway were completed on 16 May 2022 and the resident “was satisfied with the work.” Further that their advocate “would visit next week to carry on clearing the garden and painting the inside walls of the outbuildings.”

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s management and handling of a request to install a level access shower wet room in the property.

The resident took up occupation at their address following completion of a mutual exchange with a former tenant. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy refers to the repairing obligations of the tenant and the landlord as well as disabled adaptations. It is not clear to this Service when the resident had sight of this policy however, the landlord’s July 2021 complaint response confirms that the resident confirmed they reviewed the policy prior to completing the exchange.
Under housing legislation the landlord was able to refuse the mutual exchange if “the property is not reasonably suitable to the needs of the proposed assignee and their household.” However the resident did not disclose their disabilities or any associated needs to the landlord prior to, or during the mutual exchange process therefore the landlord was not expected to consider this factor prior to approving the mutual exchange. Had the landlord been made aware of the resident’s disabilities it would have been in a position to discuss the matter with the resident and therefore consider the suitability of the property.
The landlord approved the mutual exchange application on the basis of the application made by the resident. However, by relying on the resident’s application alone the landlord missed an opportunity to fully identify the resident’s needs. The later implications this had for the resident and landlord were therefore avoidable.
The resident met the landlord and first reported a requirement for a wet room at the property in September 2020 soon after taking up occupation at the property. The landlord was unaware of the resident’s disabilities prior to the meeting and advised the resident that this type of adaptation request would need to be supported by an OT assessment. Providing this advice to the resident was a reasonable response for the landlord to take to reflect the landlord’s policies and procedures. However, the landlord did not make reference to the resident’s underoccupancy at this meeting, which later became a barrier to completing the adaptations. This was a missed early opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
It is evident that the landlord declined the resident’s request for a bathroom adaptation, despite it being supported by an OT assessment, due to the resident’s underoccupancy at the address and this reason was stated in its adaptations policy. This was a decision that the landlord was entitled to make, and this Service recognises that its policies constitute the basis of its housing services. The landlord also stated that it made the decision collectively with social care thereby ensuring the support element to the request was addressed in addition to the practical repair aspect of the matter. By upholding the conditions of its policy the landlord demonstrated consistency and fairness to other residents that may also have been similarly impacted.
The landlord subsequently held a conversation with the resident on 22 September 2021 to discuss the possibility of moving to an alternative address. This discussion addressed the resident’s underoccupancy of the property and referenced the support it could provide in assisting the resident with a move to alternative accommodation. Addressing the resident’s underoccupancy and the impact it had on their request for adaptations was in line with its policies and was a reasonable response for the landlord to take.
The landlord reviewed its decision to decline the installation of a wet room in its December 2021 disabled adaptations core meeting. This review formed the basis of the joint response the landlord and social services provided to the resident in January 2021. Evidencing that the landlord was working with the social services in support of the resident’s needs was an appropriate response for the landlord to take insofar as it made clear that the landlord’s decision was shared. The joint response also stated that if the resident could provide supporting evidence that confirmed they could not move to an alternative property the decision could be reviewed. This response showed that a degree of flexibility was available where ‘need’ could be established.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the installation of a wet room again in its April 2021 stage one response during which it restated its policy and the impact this had on the decision it reached. The landlord also referred to the resident’s decision to move from an adapted property into an un-adapted property without disclosing their disabilities and this was an appropriate reference for the landlord to make.
The landlord advised the resident that they had the option to self-fund the wet room adaptations and a representative working with the resident explored funding and grant opportunities for this to proceed. The landlord supported the approach by providing the required adaptation request form which it used to consider adaptation requests. However, this Service is unclear why the landlord supported this approach if the resulting request conflicted with the landlord’s policy not to complete adaptations where under occupancy was present. This matter did not progress towards an application being made therefore the decision to approve or reject the resident’s request was never made. However, by entertaining the proposal that self-funding could result in the installation being approved the landlord raised the expectations of the resident which potentially stored up a later disappointment.
The landlord sought to obtain legal paperwork to confirm the resident’s view that they were required to live in the underoccupied accommodation to comply with legally instructed childcare arrangements. The landlord obtained consent from the resident to contact the resident’s solicitor to assist with obtaining legal paperwork to verify the resident’s custodial responsibility. By taking this approach the landlord evidenced that it considered the resident’s circumstances and flexibly tried to find a way to justify a reason to install a wet room in the resident’s home. The resulting paperwork did not uphold the resident’s previous statement and therefore the wet room decision did not change. Notwithstanding, the landlord was proactive and supportive in seeking ways to address the resident’s circumstances and find a solution it could use to overturn its own decision.
The landlord addressed the resident’s stated request for a wet room installation a final time in its stage two response during which it restated its previous policy-related decision. Further that it had sought and failed to evidence a requirement for the resident to remain in an underoccupied property. The landlord’s response to the matter was final and in keeping with its previous advice and policy.
Whilst it is suggested that the landlord could have completed checks that identified the impact the resident’s undisclosed disabilities would have on their occupation of the property, this was unrelated to the landlord’s later decision to decline the installation of bathroom adaptations. The resulting decisions were the landlord’s to make and its reliance on its agreed policies was a reasonable decision given the social services had made alternative bathing arrangements and verified the resident was able to move to alternative accommodation. Taking all actions both positive and negative into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of a request to install a level access shower wet room in the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs

When assessing the landlord’s response to a list of property repairs the resident raised this Service has had to consider the landlord and tenant repairing responsibilities referred to in the relevant policies and procedures alongside the resident’s physical disabilities.
The resident met with the landlord and reported a list of repairs required at the property in September 2020 after taking up occupation at the property. This Service has not seen any evidence that these matters were raised prior to this meeting such as during conversations held when completing the mutual exchange paperwork. It is evident to this Service that the resident confirmed there were no concerns with the condition of the property when they signed the mutual exchange indemnity form. The landlord was expected to discuss the tenancy terms and conditions with the resident as part of the mutual exchange process. Obtaining the resident’s signed confirmation of the discussion about the tenancy and property condition which the landlord later referred to in its communications was in line with its policy and therefore appropriate.
The landlord raised works orders to install grab rails in the property and to address window repairs and this was expected. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to repairs for example to address an upstairs toilet fault. Failing to complete repairs that the landlord was responsible for with no good reason caused detriment to the resident and this could have been avoided.
The resident referred to the outstanding repairs they had previously reported in their April 2021 stage one complaint which also listed additional lighting repairs that had not been raised with the landlord previously. The landlord subsequently raised a works order for the lighting repair request, and this was reasonable given the repair created a trip hazard for the resident.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for fencing repairs and a repair to the footpath during its investigation into the resident’s complaint and in doing so held conversations with the resident’s social worker in relation to a relevant OT assessment.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint by restating the resident’s responsibility to address some repairs and by referring to the resident’s decision to prevent the progress of the window repairs after they had been measured. The landlord stated it would progress the window repairs if the resident confirmed they were willing to allow the installations. The resident was expected to provide access to the landlord for the completion of repairs it was responsible for. Therefore, restating the resident’s repairing responsibilities was an appropriate response for the landlord take to manage the resident’s expectations and those of the landlord. Further, by offering to reapproach the completion of the window repairs the landlord evidenced that it was willing to engage with the resident in the pursuit of repairs it was responsible for, and this was reasonable.
It is not clear to this Service what conversations the landlord held about a number of additional repairs it completed in the resident’s home after the landlord issued its stage one response. However it is evident that the landlord subsequently completed repairs that in accordance with its policies were the resident’s responsibility such as repairs to internal doors, a sensor light, a dimmer switch, corrugated sheeting between the house and shed. By completing repairs it was not responsible for the landlord evidenced a degree of flexibility in the application of its policies and took a proactive approach that considered the living conditions the resident faced in their home and the impact it had on the resident’s wellbeing.
The landlord reapproached the outstanding repairs the resident referred to in its second stage one complaint response, once again explaining the repairing responsibilities associated with each repair. The landlord provided up to date information about the progress of the repairs which was appropriate and suitably detailed and was an approach the landlord was expected to take in line with its complaint handling and repair and maintenance responsibilities. The landlord took the opportunity to state the resident had not reported some of repairs to the landlord via the “repairs reporting process” and this was a reasonable comment given these repairs were listed in the stage one complaint as outstanding. The landlord was not expected to complete repairs it had not been made aware of, however it did address these with a commitment to resolve those it was responsible for within the complaint response.
It is evident that during the course of the handling of repairs the resident’s garden tools were removed from the outbuilding, left on the grass, and not returned. This was unacceptable. The landlord visited the resident’s home to discuss the matter with the resident and later confirmed the resident stated they did not want the tools returned because the repair was not finished. Further that they would “put in a separate claim.” The landlord raised a works order to return the tools to the shed but later made a file note stating the resident “turned the contractor away.” By discussing the matter with the resident and raising a works order to return the tools the landlord took appropriate steps to put right the detriment it caused. The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s decision to decline the resolution the landlord put in place. Notwithstanding, this remedy was arranged after the tools had already been damaged, and therefore was not sufficient to put right this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This Service considers some compensation may be due in light of this if an alternative resolution has not already been reached.
In the course of completing a repair the landlord’s contractor damaged a floorboard in the resident’s home. By taking steps to arrange suitable redress the landlord sought to put right the detriment it caused. The resident’s preference to receive financial compensation for the damage, rather than a repair was accepted by the landlord. Its decision to increase its initial offer of £100 compensation to meet the resident’s request for £150 compensation was reasonable. This Service considers the landlord’s approach to remedy the matter to be appropriate in that it prioritised the resident’s preferred resolution over its own.
The landlord agreed to complete works to lay a new path at the resident’s home in December 2021, but these works were initially delayed by bad weather and delayed further by the need for alternative arrangements to be made for the resident to access their home. The landlord failed to adequately advise the resident of the access implications of the repair, or to provide an alternative access arrangement such as providing a temporary raised platform. This resulted in the resident declining the works until access was arranged in May 2022.
This Service has seen evidence that the resident and landlord engaged in further heated discussion that led to the use swear words during a visit at the resident’s home on 2 July 2021 and during a telephone call later that month. This Service has not seen any evidence of the cause of these disagreements, beyond statements contained within emails that refer to the use of swear words related to the progress of repairs. This Service accepts that there are times when communication and decisions reached can lead to heated frustrations being expressed verbally.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had completed all of the repairs it was responsible for, in addition to a number of repairs this Service recognises it had instigated itself or completed outside of its policy and repairing obligations. This landlord’s advice with reference to its obligations was balanced and explained clearly. The landlord also referred to its limited obligation to post-inspect repairs works and offered to complete further checks if required and this clarification of its policy was reasonable. By offering to visit the resident’s home to complete further checks the landlord took a transparent approach to the repairs it completed thereby suggesting an ongoing openness to respond to the resident’s repairs and this was expected.
It is evident to this Service that the landlord recognised and communicated its own repairing responsibilities and that of the resident during conversations it held with the resident and in its complaint responses. The landlord established the resident’s understanding of their responsibilities during the mutual exchange process. Further it worked with the social services and the resident’s advocate to address repair and support-related matters cohesively. However, the landlord failed to address some of the repairs it was responsible for in line with its policy timescales, such as the skirting boards and the upstairs toilet and this was unreasonable. Further the landlord provided a ‘stop and start’ approach to the completion and assessment of repairs at the resident’s property and this was unnecessary and caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. The landlord would have benefitted from seeking alternative ways to engage with the resident about their repair responsibilities so as to manage their expectations and thereby improve the resident’s perception of the landlord. Taking all actions both positive and negative into account this Service finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s report of outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outbuildings.

This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm how works to address damp and mould at the property were initiated however it is evident that the landlord inspected the property in April 2021 and located damp in three outbuildings, otherwise referred to as ‘sheds.’ This Service has not seen evidence that the matter was referenced in email conversations between the landlord and resident, or internally until a works order was raised in May 2021. It is possible that this was an oversight when compiling documentation for this Service, or evidence of a failure to keep contemporaneous notes of activity. This Service expects the landlord to ensure full information is provided to this Service and/or records of discussions it held about repairs was retained.
The resident referred to repair works to the sheds in their email dated 3 July 2021 during which they complained that the landlord’s contractor painted and sealed the smallest shed only. Further that damp was “all over the wall in the larger shed.” It is evident to this Service that the landlord inspected the outbuildings and explained that the resident was responsible for repairing the sheds prior to agreeing to complete works to the middle shed, which it stated was in need of most repair as a gesture of goodwill. The advice the landlord provided to the resident was reasonable and reflected the landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy and information contained in the mutual exchange paperwork. The landlord’s subsequent decision to complete works to the shed which it was not obliged to do is considered by this Service as a reasonable step towards maintaining a positive relationship with the resident.
The landlord addressed the works it completed to the middle shed in its complaint responses and again stated the repairing responsibility was the resident’s own and the works were a gesture of goodwill. Reminding the resident that the works were over and above the landlord’s obligation was an appropriate way to manage the resident’s expectations related to works required to the remaining sheds.
This Service recognises that the resident expected the landlord to undertake further work to the outbuildings than it did. It is also evident that the resident’s expectations did not align with the repairing obligations contained within the landlord’s policies and tenancy agreement. The landlord completed inspections at the property to verify whether damp and mould was present inside the home, and this was expected to assess the severity and potential detriment the matter may have caused the resident. The landlord subsequently concluded that as the damp was present in the outbuildings the matter was the resident’s to handle and explained these repairing obligations to the resident. However, the Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on damp and mould explains “Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents.” Further it states, “Landlords should be more transparent with residents involved in mutual exchanges and make the most of every opportunity to identify and address damp and mould.”
It could be argued that the outbuildings do not have a significant impact on the day to day living conditions of the resident, further that the potential impact on their health and wellbeing was limited as a result. It is understandable therefore that the landlord considered its responsibilities to respond to the matter were limited. However, the presence of damp in any of the property let under the tenancy was prevalent and was likely to have an increasing impact on the condition and usability of the buildings if left untreated. Transferring the maintenance responsibility for the outbuildings to the resident in line with its policies was a decision for the landlord to make. But it is this Service’s view that it is in the landlord’s interest to ensure that the condition of the entirety of its housing stock meets decent state of repair.
Taking all factors into account related to this complaint element and in particular with note to the landlord’s policies this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outbuildings.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s formal complaints

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its’ complaint and compensation procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord’s complaint policy clearly set out the expectations for handling complaints at stage one and at a stage two review. The policy states complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days at stage one and 14 working days at stage two.
The landlord registered, acknowledged, and responded to the resident’s April 2021 stage one complaint in line with its policy timescales and with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. The response the landlord issued addressed the complaint elements in clearly laid out paragraphs and were investigated thoroughly. The stage one response was of good quality and complied with the service standards this Service expects to see.
The landlord received a further complaint from the resident in July 2021 and held an internal email conversation about how to register the complaint given it had responded to similar elements in a previous complaint response. The landlord’s decision to register a new stage one complaint to incorporate the additional complaint elements as well as revisit the previous complaint elements was an appropriate assessment to have made, especially given the stated timescale for a stage two escalation to be made had passed. The resulting decision to register a new complaint ensured all elements of the resident’s complaint were fully addressed and this was an effective complaint handling decision.
There was an evident delay in the flow of communication between the landlord and the ALMO related to a contact this Service made with the landlord on 2 July 2021. The letter issued was not received by the ALMO until 12 July 2021, ten days later. It is important that effective channels of communication are in place to avoid delays and a recommendation is made in respect of this.
The landlord’s response to the second stage one complaint was detailed however, the letter failed to confirm if the complaint was upheld in line the complaint handling code. It is apparent that there were over 20 repair elements to the complaint in different stages of repair. Where this is apparent this Service would expect to see the landlord determine the complaint was partially upheld, although the substantive issues were addressed. The response was issued two days later than the expected response timescale and as such did not fully comply with the landlord’s policy, and this was a failing.
The resident raised their stage two escalation by phone and the landlord retained detailed notes of the conversation it held with the resident about the complaint, and this was evidence of good record keeping. The landlord was expected to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within two days, but failed to meet this target which was not in keeping with the landlord’s policy and this was expected. This failure further resulted in the stage two response being issued late, although it is noted it was issued in line with the incorrect due date the landlord stated on its acknowledgement letter. Notwithstanding, the landlord’s stage two response evidenced that it investigated the resident’s concerns and provided up to date information to the matters the resident raised. Further the letter showed empathy with the resident and evidenced that a conversation with the resident had been held prior to completing the response which was in line with its policy and a positive complaint handling practise.
In reviewing its response to the resident the landlord did not fully consider compensation as a means of redress, despite it having policies that enabled it to do so. This Service considers that the landlord was aware of the impact and frustration the coordination of repairs had on the resident over a sustained period of time. Further it was aware that it had left the resident’s belongings exposed to the weather which caused damage and that time and trouble had been caused to the resident in pursuing a resolution to the matters. This Service therefore considers that some financial compensation is due to the resident as reasonable redress for the adverse impact the landlord’s response to the matter had on the resident.
When all the factors in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and consideration of compensation are considered, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. a request to install a level access shower wet room in the property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

b. the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

c. the residents reports of damp and mould in the outbuildings.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to:

d. the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord considered the resident’s request for a level access shower wet room in partnership with the social services. The landlord’s decision to decline the request complied with its own policies as did its subsequent offer to assist the resident in moving to alternative accommodation. The landlord reviewed its decision at subsequent core disabled adaptation meeting and confirmed the resident could bathe using an over bath lift installed by the social services. The resident’s preference for a wet room was considered fairly and this decision was explained clearly and consistently to the resident in complaint responses and informal discussions.
The landlord failed to complete some repairs it was responsible for within its policy timescales and manage the expectations of the resident sufficiently to facilitate a positive landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord agreed to take on some repairs it was not responsible for which was positive but the reasons for doing so were not clearly stated and blurred lines of repairing responsibility. The landlord completed all the repairs it was required to complete but some were completed outside of its policy timescales.
The landlord visited the resident’s property to verify the extent of damp and mould and the impact and likely detriment it may have caused to the resident. The landlord located damp and mould in outbuildings only and determined that this was the resident’s responsibility and explained this clearly to the resident. The landlord subsequently completed some work to damp proof one of the outbuildings as a gesture of goodwill but was not under an obligation to do so.
The landlord provided detailed complaint responses at all stages of its complaint procedure and addressed all aspects of the resident’s complaint fairly and with up-to-date information and clear explanation. The landlord chose to register a new stage one complaint to address additional complaint elements it received after verifying that a previous escalation request had not been submitted and this was effective complaint management. However, the landlord failed to consistently meet the expected timescales for complaint handling contained within the complaint handling code and landlord’s policy as it was expected to do. Further it did not consider using compensation as a redress for some elements of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in the management of repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
In addition to any compensation already offered and within 28 days of its receipt of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £150 for the landlord’s repair handling failures,
2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures,
3. £150 for time and trouble its failings required the resident to spend in the pursuit of a remedy in this matter.
The landlord is ordered to apply learning from this case and advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order in respect of complaint handling by ensuring correspondence received by the council is forwarded to the ALMO within a reasonable timeframe so as to ensure the complaint handling code principles are upheld and responses issued to residents within accepted timescales. The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions and planned actions, including timescales within 28 days of receipt of this report.
The landlord is ordered to review its current mutual exchange policy and disabled adaptations policy so as to ensure that any reference to adaptations and self-funded improvements does not conflict with the landlord’s preference to facilitate rehousing. Further to ensure the mutual exchange policy and policies related to disabled adaptations and repairing obligations are made easily accessible to prospective residents as part of its mutual exchange documentation pack. The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions and planned actions, including timescales within 28 days of receipt of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to engage with the resident to reconcile the damage to their tools either by means of an insurance claim or other methodology.
The landlord is recommended to take reasonable measures to ensure its staff and contractors are clear about behavioural expectations and capable of managing difficult conversations. Further that the landlord has in place policies that ensure residents are aware of acceptable standards or behaviour.
The landlord is recommended to reconsider whether works to address the presence of damp and mould in the outbuildings of the property are required and whether alternative arrangements such as the use of a recharge procedure could be employed to balance the resident’s expectations of the condition of the outbuildings with their repair and maintenance obligations.
The landlord is recommended to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of damp and mould. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould into the provision of its housing services.