Clarion Housing Association Limited (202208979)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208979

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and her request for reimbursement and compensation.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s safety concerns and reports of outstanding repairs on her return to her property.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its level of communication with her.

Background and summary of events

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord on her property since 1 October 2012. Since the tenancy commenced, she has lived in the property with her son who was 15 at the time of the complaint. The resident gave birth to a second son during the period of this complaint (early 2022) who also lived at the property with her.
The property was originally let to the resident as a 2 bed, but is now categorised as a 1-bedroom dwelling.
In its information gathered for the stage 2 complaint review, the landlord said it had been determined that the resident’s property was in a poor condition, a number of repair works had been identified and agreed. The landlord visited the resident prior to any work commencing (date not stated), and had concerns about the resident, the size of the property, her late term of pregnancy and the disruption the work would cause. The landlord says it offered to postpone the works, but the resident refused. It agreed to an emergency decant following discussions about the resident’s mental health issues. Apart from this investigation note, no other evidence of this conversation was provided by the landlord.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord called the resident to arrange the decant to temporary accommodation (TA), to carry out the works to her property. The resident advised the landlord that as she was due to give birth shortly, she would need a bigger property when her child was born, so would not be able to return. The landlord told her she would have to go back to the property when the works were completed. If she wanted a bigger property, she would have to look at other options on her return such as mutual exchange. The resident also told the landlord that she had a dog and would need a garden in the TA. The landlord said it would try, but if no garden was available, she would have to walk the dog as it was her responsibility.
The same day, the landlord called the accommodation booking service and asked for accommodation as close as possible to the resident’s son’s school or her home address. The booking company advised that there was not much availability; they booked via a third-party service and would email to find availability. The landlord rang the resident to update her.
The following day, the resident rang the landlord to find out about the TA and she told the landlord that her labour would be induced in four days’ time. The resident was not happy that the landlord was sourcing an apartment as she had seen an empty property belonging to the landlord nearby and she wanted to be housed in that. The landlord explained that this was a temporary decant for two weeks, the policy in these circumstances dictates a hotel or an apartment in special circumstances such as hers. The resident was advised to wait for the option of the apartment before she refused it.
The resident went into labour before the date she was due to be induced. Her baby was born by emergency caesarean, following which the resident said she was in pain and her movement and mobility had to be restricted.
The decant was booked for 15 February 2022. The landlord had booked the resident into a hotel that took dogs. A removals and storage company were booked to take the resident’s furniture and belongings. A large people carrier taxi was booked to take the resident’s family, dog, and belongings to the hotel. File notes specified this included 3 suitcases, pram, changing table, Moses basket and her son’s school holdalls. The resident’s circumstances were explained to the taxi company – they were aware the resident would need assistance getting herself and her belongings out of the taxi and into the hotel. The landlord arranged for its staff to be present at the start of the move for assistance and oversight.
On the day, the taxi driver sent was not helpful, he was angry about the dog and the amount of belongings the resident had. He said it was too much and that the landlord should have booked a removal van. He made three attempts to cancel the job through his company, but eventually took the resident to her destination. The removal men assisted with getting some of the resident’s belongings in the car.
When the resident tried to check in, the hotel said it did not accommodate dogs, it only allowed assistance dogs. The landlord went back to its booking system and confirmed it said it would take dogs. It looked for an alternative letting, but the locations of those available were not suitable for the resident to get her son to school. The landlord rang the general manager who also confirmed this was policy. The officer said she had previously recalled the resident had said she had mental health issues and anxiety, and her dog helped her with that. So, the landlord told the hotel it was an assistance dog. The following day on request, the resident’s social worker put this in writing, and the dog was allowed to stay.
The following day, 16 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she was not happy with her situation. On completion of the journey, the driver took all of her belongings out of the car and left them in the rain on the side of the road, he did not help her get them into the hotel and eventually the hotel staff assisted. As a result, her new baby’s clothes got wet and dirty. The resident complained that she had no washing facilities to clean the clothes. She was also not happy sharing a room with her 15-year-old son, especially when breast feeding and lying about having an assistance dog.
In response, the landlord apologised for the treatment by the taxi driver and suggested it could look into it through the booking system. It offered her a £10 per week laundry allowance, but the resident was not happy with this, as she did not drive and could not get to a laundrette. The landlord contacted the hotel about a separate room for the son and the hotel said it was policy that children stay with parents and the son was only 15 years old. It said if adjoining rooms became available it would consider moving her. The landlord also continued to look for an alternative decant property for the resident. It was restricted by location, as the property had to fall within the area for the resident’s midwife and within the location of the son’s school or school bus service area. It offered the resident the choice of two apartments or a travel lodge which catered for dogs, although it confirmed the dog could not be left in the room unattended the same as the existing hotel, but they would consider paying boarding fees for the dog as an option.
On 22 February 2022, the resident wrote a further email of complaint about her circumstances. She reported that her baby’s Moses basket stand had been damaged in the decant move. She said she had to leave the room for housekeeping, at which point they had to go outside and were constantly getting cold and wet. They had no clothes washing facilities and lots of washing with a new baby. She had had to buy more clothes for the children and ask her mother to do their washing. The family could not eat together because of the hotel’s dog policy; she had to eat separately to her 15-year-old son. They were all feeling isolated and stressed; she said she suffers with PTSD and psychosis and this accommodation was affecting their well-being.
The landlord made arrangements for the resident to move to one of the 2-bedroom self-contained apartments she had previously agreed to move to, on 24 February 2022. A taxi was booked to collect her from the hotel and a removal company was booked to take her belongings. One of the landlord’s officers was present for assistance and oversight. The apartment was available for the resident until 11am on 5 March 2022.
On 28 February 2022, an email was sent from the contractor to the landlord, advising that the land to the side of the house where the “Aco drainage” was situated was private property. It requested the landlord contact the homeowner to access the area. It also pointed out that the path installed by the neighbouring resident had bridged the damp course of the resident’s property. It confirmed all internal work had been completed and cleaners would be attending the next day so resident could move back in from 5pm onwards.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s social worker on 2 March 2022, advising that the resident’s home would be ready for her to move back into on Friday 4 March 2022, but it was having difficulty contacting her to arrange a taxi. It explained that a member of its staff would be there to help.
The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy about moving back the following day, as she did not believe all the works had been completed. The landlord contacted the resident’s social worker 3 March 2022 and told her that it had agreed to get someone from the maintenance team to call her back, but said a surveyor had confirmed it was ready. It also reminded her the TA apartment was due to expire on 5 March 2022 and the reason they wanted her to move the next day was so staff could help her move. At the weekend, they could not help her.
The surveyor from the landlord’s maintenance team sent an internal email the same day, to say it had spoken with the resident and confirmed all internal repairs had been completed. There were some additional external repairs to be carried out, but they could be done with the resident in occupation. She had been advised there was no reason why she could not move back and awaited a call to make the necessary arrangements.
An email from the removal company was sent to the landlord (the date is unclear). It said it had just spoken to the resident who had arrived back at her property following advice from the landlord that the property was ready. The house was empty. It said it had not been instructed to return her belongings. It said it was very concerned as she had a child and a 4-week-old baby and requested someone respond urgently.
The resident said that as she had no furniture, she had to go and stay with her mother, until she could contact the landlord and get her belongings out of storage.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord (received by it on 15 March 2022). In summary, she said:
1. The events of the decant and the problems that she had encountered, following the birth of her son via a C-section, made her feel she had been treated unfairly.
2. That on her return to the property following the temporary decant, the property was no longer suitable for her because the stairs were too steep and narrow, and they had no handrail or protective banister. This was not suitable for her with a newborn baby.
3. The front door had a gap around it which caused a draught, at a time when the cost of heating had increased substantially.
4. There were a number of outstanding repairs which included holes in the walls where the banister used to be, holes in the ceiling from which filler and rivets were falling, loose floorboards behind the fridge freezer and broken tiles in the bathroom.
5. She wanted a management transfer to a more suitable property and compensation for the delay in attending to the repairs and damage to personal possessions. She suggested £3,000.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response. In summary, it said:
1. Its surveyor and neighbourhood officer had attended the property on 31 March 2022, and agreed there were multiple repairs issues outstanding as stated in her complaint. A job ticket for all the repairs had been raised and the expected completion date was 29 April 2022.
2. Her request for a transfer had been passed to its available homes team, in line with its policy and they would contact her directly.
3. In recognition of the issues involved in her complaint, it offered the resident £150 in compensation.
The resident called the local council’s environmental health team, who attended her property on 13 April 2022 to inspect the condition.
On 24 April 2022, the resident (with the assistance of her social worker) composed and sent a letter of escalation to the landlord. In summary, she said:
1. The stage 1 complaint investigation did not address all the issues raised in the complaint.
2. In the last trimester of her pregnancy and two weeks after the birth of her son, she did not have a handrail to the staircase in the property.
3. Furthermore, the birth of her son was via caesarean section, following which the medical guidance was for her to not lift any weight heavier than a newborn baby. However, she was required to pack up her property and lift heavy suitcases; the taxi driver booked did not help her and left her in the rain. The clothes got wet and there were no facilities for washing, so they had to be replaced.
4. She was placed in a hotel with her dog which could not be left unattended and left her feeling isolated. The dog had to be walked every two hours, as there was no garden, which was not recommended by her midwife.
5. The food allowance was not enough, leaving her out of pocket.
6. There was a lack of communication throughout her stay in TA and particularly at checkout, which negatively impacted her mental health. She also had to pack up and move back with no assistance.
7. She returned to an empty property, her belongings had not been released from storage, the landlord was unavailable as it was the weekend, and she could not contact anyone until Monday.
8. There was no evidence that the electricity use in her absence was going to be paid as promised. Not all repairs had been completed during the decant as expected.
9. The removal company did not provide a satisfactory service and her Moses basket and bed were damaged. Boxes were stacked and left dangerously, and her mail had been placed in a bin bag outside.
10. Her multiple mental health problems had not been given consideration by the landlord and her treatment during this process had added to them.
11. The offer of £150 was not sufficient in her view; she wanted damaged items replaced and requested £3,000 compensation for the hardship of the decant she had experienced and the inconvenience she and her sons had been put to.
On 5 May 2022, the council’s environmental health officer (EHO) wrote to the landlord advising it that they had found Category 1 hazards at the premises which presented a serious threat to health and safety. These were in relation to the staircase where there was a risk of a fall, and the second bedroom was not suitable to be classified as a bedroom due to insufficient head height. It noted there was no other room for the son to sleep in. The EHO requested contact within 3 weeks (26 May 2022), or it would serve a Prohibition Order, prohibiting the use of all or part of the dwelling. It said this had been raised with the council’s housing options team, and it instructed the property was not to be advertised for reletting.
On 15 May 2022, after leaving several calls and voicemails, the landlord managed to get through to the resident to talk to her about a management transfer. The landlord said the resident declined a management transfer as she had already been offered a property through the local council’s choice-based lettings system. She would not give the landlord any details, but did not consider it beneficial as she already had high priority points on the housing needs register. The landlord suggested adding the additional management transfer points to her application in case the offer did not progress. The resident felt this would be a waste of time, she just wanted the landlord to urgently come to a decision on a fair compensation package.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord completed its stage 2 complaint investigation, identified as a peer review, and provided the resident with its response. In summary, it said:
1. At arrangement of the decant, there was a shortage of hotels to accommodate the resident and her dog. It had tried to be flexible and offered a hotel 7 minutes’ walk from her son’s school and in the catchment area of the midwife as requested. It had advised her it would be a family room and that dogs were accepted; permission was also granted for this to be discussed with the resident’s social worker.
2. It apologised for the confusion over the type of dogs accommodated at the hotel, but had taken on board the resident’s need to be with her dog to calm her PTSD and anxiety and had agreed with the hotel it could be classed as an assistance dog. It accepted there were challenges with the dog not being allowed to be left in the room but that was the policy in the majority of hotels.
3. With regard to sharing a room with her son, it said it had contacted the hotel immediately to try and address this, but it was against hotel policy for anyone under the age of 18 to have a room alone.
4. It was sorry that she felt her welfare had not been considered in the decant. It had arranged for 2 members of staff to be present to lift and carry when she moved out of her home and arranged for a taxi service to assist at the hotel. It apologised that the taxi service failed to do this for her. It understood staff at the hotel assisted her with washing the baby’s clothes free of charge in the absence of laundry facilities.
5. It could re-imburse taxi costs to the shops on provision of receipts. It could not reimburse for fuel, but this had been considered in the compensation offered. The amount granted for food is the maximum the policy allows them to offer and it had not agreed to finance other purchases e.g. nappies.
6. At the end of the decant, both the resident and her social worker were informed that the TA ended on 5 March 2022. It offered to move her back the day before so that staff could be present to help with lifting and carrying. The resident was reluctant to return but the surveyor contacted her on 3 March 2022, and assured her works had been carried out and she could return to the property. As it did not receive any further communication from the resident, it did not arrange the removal of her belongings from storage as it was not clear if she was returning. It accepted it should have made attempts to contact her again to confirm.
7. On return, the resident had to stay with her mother; as such, the resident was offered £90 for 3 days’ family and friend decant allowance, in accordance with its decant policy.
8. It apologised that the removals company did not assist the resident to unpack as it had arranged. It agreed this was unacceptable and it would be taking this up with the removal company.
9. Whilst it had attempted to arrange sufficient help with her belongings, it accepted failings had occurred, and contractors had not followed through on assurances given. It apologised and offered £700 for the service failures and a further £1,300 discretionary payment for the recognised impact on the resident’s mental health and her recovery.
10. It apologised that items were damaged in the move, and that the resident was passed between itself and the removal company to resolve this. The decant paperwork referenced items being insured in the decant process – it explained that this meant it would ensure they used a removal company that had the appropriate insurance. As no responsibility or assistance had been given in claiming for damaged items, it offered a discretionary award of £1,000 for her financial loss and gave her details on how to claim on its insurance.
11. It apologised if she felt that the repairs had not been completed during the decant. It confirmed all works were completed with the exception of the French drain externally, which was because access was needed to the adjacent property, which was being pursued with the homeowner. It confirmed the following work had been completed:
  1. Installed a new handrail up the stairs.
  2. Mould treatment.
  3. Skirting boards removed.
  4. Patch repairs on the ceilings.
  5. Removed fireplace and made good.
  6. Re-fixed all loose floorboards.
  7. New bath panel.
  8. Overhauled toilet.
  9. Deep clean to the property.
12. It had awarded £20 discretionary compensation for top-up of her electricity.
13. It confirmed a boiler engineer had attended on 9 March 2022 and topped up the boiler, it could not however get to the radiators because of the packing boxes stored there. They made 4 further attempts to attend but could not gain access.
14. It understood that she had raised concerns with the environmental health team regarding the stairs. It had received their report and was working closely with them on it. The landlord had been advised to offer the resident a management transfer because of the staircase and low height of the 2nd bedroom. Its actions were compliant with the requirement of the council, and it was aware the resident had been offered a management transfer, but had declined as she had already accepted a property with the council.
15. It apologised for failings in the complaint handling and acknowledged that her vulnerabilities were not identified or addressed, concerns around the decant were not investigated and there were no clear explanations to the failing in the repairs and no learning identified. This has made it difficult to understand how compensation was calculated. For this, it awarded £250 compensation and an additional £100 for not meeting complaint response times at both stages of the complaint process.
16. This took the total compensation awarded to the resident to £3,610.

Post Complaint Summary

The resident had moved to alternative accommodation, provided through the local council, by July 2022.
The landlord reviewed its complaint outcome, in light of its insurers informing it that they would not consider the resident’s insurance claim as it had offered £1,000 for financial loss in its complaint response.
To ensure a fair outcome was reached, it advised the resident that it was revising its offer to £2,177 plus an additional £100 for the time taken to resolve this issue and the inconvenience caused. This made a total of £2,277. It explained this had been calculated using the mid-cost range from a high street store similar to how the insurer would assess the claim, without taking into account depreciation as the insurers would have done. This bought the total compensation awarded to the resident by the landlord to £4,887.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the impact that the events of the decant, the move back to her property and the outstanding repairs had on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The resident said the recovery from the birth of her child, the emergency C-section and her mental health were all negatively impacted by these events, and she felt she should be entitled to compensation for this.
The Ombudsman does not question the resident’s assessment of the situation. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The Ombudsman has however considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s Legal and Policy Context.

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the home including any shared parts of the building which the home is a part of. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord has a decant policy and decant guidance. ‘Decants – a guide to temporary accommodation’ states that occasionally residents need to move into TA because of a problem that needs repairing at their home. It advises that if someone has to move out, it will be because the home is unsafe and commits to ensure that the property will be safe to live in before a residents return.
The guidance states that for short-term moves (up to 4 weeks), the landlord provides a hotel or bed and breakfast. Due to the limited availability of TA, residents will usually only be made one offer of alternative accommodation. Some costs residents incur can be refunded on the provision of receipts. The landlord will help with the cost of, or arrange, moving. If it cannot find accommodation that provides meals, it will pay reasonable costs towards meals (£15 per adult / £10 per child). It also commits to assisting with costs for living temporarily with friends or family.
The landlord’s decant policy has the discretion to provide additional assistance to those who are vulnerable – this includes those with a diagnosed mental health condition or other medical problems. Additional assistance may include a packing/unpacking service and other practical assistance such as contacting utility companies, temporary re–homing of pets, re–directing post, or procurement of carpets and curtains on behalf of the tenant. It commits to trying to re-home pets with their owners, but where a tenant is unable to take a pet to the TA due to restrictions placed on the property, it may reimburse reasonable temporary re–homing costs.
The landlord had a two stage complaints policy which required (prior to 17 June 2022) that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 escalation requests, peer reviews to be responded to within 20 working days. The policy also states that it does not consider liability and personal injury claims to fall within the complaint definition of this policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and her request for reimbursement and compensation.

It was appropriate for the landlord to make the decision to carry out the necessary repairs to the resident’s home in order to meet its repairing obligations under section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord acted reasonably in visiting the resident to discuss the repair works needed prior to any works commencing. At this meeting, concerns were identified about the feasibility of carrying out the works with the resident in situ, as she was so close to giving birth and shared that she had mental health issues. The landlord said that in mitigation, it offered to postpone the work for the resident, which was reasonable, but this was refused. Whilst the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the landlord’s claim to this offer of postponement, there was no evidence seen to support that this conversation had taken place.
An alternative arrangement was agreed for the resident to be decanted for 2 weeks whilst the works were completed to her home which, with the resident’s agreement, was reasonable.
There was evidence that the landlord’s decant process took into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. TA is always in short supply, due to a constant demand for it. As such, for a two-week temporary decant, its decant policy allows a resident to be provided with 1 offer of hotel accommodation that may be out of the area. It was evident that the landlord had made every effort to take the resident’s very limited location needs into account which included being close to the son’s school or school transport pick up area, as well as being in the catchment area for the resident’s midwife. The landlord also provided the resident with the option of 2 apartments and a hotel with separate boarding for the dog if required, which was reasonable. The hotel was accepted over the apartments as it was the closest to the son’s school.
The landlord used its discretionary ability within its decant policy to provide the additional support for residents with vulnerabilities. It arranged for a removal service to collect the resident’s furniture and belongings from her home to be placed into storage, and provided 2 members of staff to assist and oversee, which was appropriate. It ordered an extra-large taxi to transport the resident’s family and her necessary belongings from her home to the hotel. There was evidence that the landlord had discussed that the resident would require assistance from the taxi service to help her get her belongings from the taxi into the hotel, and this service was agreed by the taxi company at the booking.
The level of service provided by the taxi driver did not that requested by the landlord. This was very stressful and distressing for the resident, but as it was an external contractor, and not one of the landlord’s own, its behaviour was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and acknowledged that she had not received the level of service it requested the company to provide. In its stage two complaint response in relation to the decant, it offered the resident financial redress with a sum of £700 for combined service failures identified and £1,300 for the impact these combined failings had on her. This was a significant compensation award within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a serious long-term impact on a resident and was therefore a proportionate offer and reasonable redress.
The resident had requested that the TA be provided for her family and her dog. A landlord is not obliged to accommodate pets, it often provides additional challenges when securing TA, as lots of emergency accommodation does not allow pets. Again, the landlord took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account and despite those challenges, it was reasonable in agreeing to find accommodation that would house her dog.
The external accommodation booking service that the landlord uses for emergency accommodation stated that the hotel offered to the resident allowed dogs. On arrival, the resident was told only assistance dogs were allowed to stay. This error was unfortunate, and undoubtedly added to the resident’s stress, but this again was outside of the landlord’s control; the landlord offered her this accommodation in good faith, believing it was available for her whole family and her dog.
The landlord immediately intervened by trying to negotiate with the hotel reception staff and then the general manager. It believed not having the dog with her would affect the resident’s wellbeing, as they understood the dog helped with the resident’s anxiety and PTSD. It advised the hotel of this which meant her dog qualified as an assistance dog and the resident’s social worker was happy to support this determination, providing evidence that allowed the dog to stay more than the one night.
The resident was faced with a number of challenges with her family living in the hotel. One was that the dog could not be left in the room unattended. She said this resulted in her having to spend a lot of time in the room, her and her son having to eat separately whilst one stayed in the room with the dog, and the family leaving the hotel whilst housekeeping was in the room. Whilst the Ombudsman agrees this was not an ideal situation, this was hotel policy and was not due to the landlord. The evidence supports that the landlord had done its best to meet a complex set of needs in temporarily housing the family, and from the limited accommodation available, this was agreed to be the best option.
A further challenge for the resident living in the hotel was having to share a room with her 15-year-old son, particularly when she was nursing a young baby. When the resident complained about this to the landlord, although it had previously advised her it would be one room for the family, it immediately contacted the hotel to try and arrange separate rooms, which was reasonable. Unfortunately, it was unable to do so because it was the hotel’s policy not to allow anyone under the age of 18 to stay in a room alone. The hotel said if the opportunity of adjoining rooms became available, it would move them and, in the meantime, the landlord continued to look for alternative accommodation that met all their needs, which was a reasonable approach.
The hotel had no laundry facilities for the family to wash their clothes and the landlord offered the resident a £10 laundry allowance per week for the two weeks, which was reasonable. Unfortunately, the resident could not accept as she could not get to a laundry under her current circumstances. The landlord continued to look for alternative temporary housing, which was reasonable, but it was restricted by availability in the right location which was outside of its control.
The landlord did eventually secure a 2-bed apartment where the resident could take the dog, and which met the location requirements. The landlord again took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account and appropriately arranged, and paid for, her family and their belongings to be transferred to the new apartment on 24 February 2022. A member of staff was made available to help with lifting and carrying which was again reasonable.
On 2 March 2022, unable to contact the resident, the landlord contacted her social worker to advise that her property would be ready for her to move back on Friday 4 March 2022. This was reasonable as the landlord had the required permission to liaise with the resident’s social worker. This date was in time for the expiry of the current TA which ended on the morning of 5 March 2022. The landlord wanted to move the resident back on 4 March 2022, as this enabled its staff to be present to oversee the proceedings and help the resident move her things back in. It was planning for the removal company to retrieve her belongings from storage and unpack them for the resident. This was appropriate preparation from the landlord as it accounted for the resident’s health challenges and was utilising its discretionary ability to provide assistance in accordance with its decant policy for someone with vulnerabilities.
However, this fell through following the resident expressing her reluctance to return to the property because she did not believe all the works had been completed. The landlord asked its maintenance team to contact her to reassure her the property was ready for her return, which it did on 3 March 2022. The surveyor, in an internal email the next day, confirmed that she had spoken to the resident, and asked the decant officer to call her to make the arrangements. However, the landlord failed to do this, and the preparations were not followed through which was a service failure. The resident left the TA on its expiry (Saturday 5 March 2022) and returned to her property to find no furniture or belongings, which was not acceptable.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did apportion the responsibility for this to the resident not getting back to them. This was not appropriate as the internal email from the surveyor had clearly agreed with the resident in the email of 4 March 2022 that the landlord would call back to make the arrangements. The landlord, however, did accept in its stage 2 response that it probably should have done more to confirm arrangements with the resident and acknowledged this as a failure in service. Financial redress for this was also included in the compensation figures previously mentioned for the decant service failings, which was appropriate.
The resident, as a result of having no furniture and belongings, made arrangements to stay with her family for the weekend. This was at short notice and was inconvenient for both the resident and her family. The landlord acknowledged this, apologised and, in accordance with its decant policy, offered the resident the ‘staying with friends and family allowance’ of £90 for three days, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends landlords have a two-stage complaint process to prevent any unnecessary delay in resolution. On 15 September 2022, a third stage response was provided by the landlord. As part of its stage two complaint process, the landlord had referred the resident to its insurance team to make a claim for her damaged belongings. It also offered the resident a discretionary payment £1,000 towards the financial loss for her damaged belongings – this would have enabled a quicker payment for the resident to replace the most essential items which was reasonable. When the resident submitted her insurance claim, the insurers contacted the landlord and advised that as it had offered a £1,000 discretionary payment to the resident in relation to damaged goods, it was unable to consider the claim. The landlord completed a further review of the case after the internal complaints process (ICP), and revised its compensation offer for damaged goods from £1,000 to £2,177.
Its findings and the solution offered post–ICP are considered to meet this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress. However, when looking to determine whether this is ‘reasonable redress’, the Ombudsman must establish what initiated the landlord to re–open the case and whether it would do so consistently, as well as the redress itself. In this instance, the decision made by the insurer not to consider the resident’s claim because of the landlord’s offer of compensation negatively impacted the outcome for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged that this was not fair on the resident and made the decision to compensate the resident itself using the same method to calculate compensation that the insurers would, but without adding depreciation. Its approach in this case demonstrated to this Service that the landlord has the ability to act fairly and consistently in its future handling of complaints, and as such this outcome did provide reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s safety concerns and reports of outstanding repairs on her return to her property.

The landlord assured the resident on her return to the property that all works internally had been completed although there was some external work still needed to install a French drain that had been delayed and could be completed whilst she was in situ.
Part of the work involved a French drain to be fitted externally; the resident told us that this was part of a solution to resolve a damp issue. Once the works had started, the contractor advised the landlord that part of the area which was needed for installing it did not belong to the property; it was part of the property next door, so permission was needed from the homeowner for access. There was some delay as access was needed from the neighbouring homeowners, and there were some problems making contact with them, which at this point was outside of the landlord’s control.
However, in the Ombudsman’s view this was something that should have been identified in the landlord’s survey for the works to be done, and attempts should have been made to engage with the neighbour much earlier. The contractor also advised that the neighbouring homeowner had laid a path over this area and bridged the damp course to the resident’s property. A bridged damp course is something that could contribute to damp in the resident’s property, but this was only picked up by the contractor when works commenced and not by the landlord’s surveyor when they were investigating a damp problem – this was unreasonable.
However, within 2 weeks of the resident’s return, the landlord had to acknowledge, in its formal stage one complaint response, that there were multiple repairs issues still outstanding internally at the property which was not reasonable.
Whilst the landlord ordered the internal repairs and gave the resident an expected completion date of 29 April 2022 through the stage 1 investigation, the resident had already been decanted from her property under very difficult circumstances so that the work could be completed. It was not appropriate that she was told to move back in to find repairs still outstanding, and then expected to wait a further month for completion.
This was further compounded by the fact there were two Category 1 hazards at the property. In response to a proposal of a month wait for a handrail, the resident felt she had no choice but to contact environmental health who determined a serious threat to health and safety. This meant the resident was returned to a property, with a new baby and whilst recovering from a C-section, that did not meet health and safety standards, which was not acceptable. The landlord’s surveyors and contractor had full access to the resident’s property in the weeks before her return and should have picked these health and safety issues up. The resident should not have had to approach the council to get her voice heard.
Despite environmental health identifying the category 1 hazard of no stair handrail on 8 May 2022, in its stage 2 review outcome, the landlord did not accept the resident’s complaint that some repairs were not carried out and was still telling the resident that this work was completed whilst she was decanted. This was clearly incorrect, and damaged the landlord–tenant relationship.
In response to the EHO’s notification of these hazards, there was evidence that the landlord worked with environmental health to ensure their recommendations were met, which was appropriate. The landlord made immediate attempts to contact the resident to offer a proposed management transfer, in accordance with the EHO recommendations. The landlord also re-categorised the property as a 1-bed dwelling and not a 2-bed, all of which was reasonable.
However, at the time the resident was in the process of accepting an offer of larger alternative permanent accommodation from the local council, so did not require the landlord’s offer of a management transfer. The fact however that it made this offer to the resident and in a timely manner, was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its level of communication with her.

In its handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not respond within its target complaint policy timeframe at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process, which was not reasonable. The landlord however acknowledged this fact in its stage 2 peer review response. It identified this as a failing, apologised and, in accordance with its complaint handling policy, offered £100 compensation which was reasonable redress.
The landlord, in its stage one response, focused on the outstanding repairs, and did not address the part of the resident’s complaint that related to the problems she had encountered in the decant. The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code is clear that the landlord should respond to all elements of the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that this had happened and acknowledged it was a service failure in its complaint handling process. For this, it apologised and awarded the resident a further £250 compensation which was reasonable.
Although the Ombudsman’s Code recommends landlords operate a two-stage complaint process, to prevent unnecessary delays in resolution, in this case the landlord initiated a third stage. Its reasons for doing so have been determined by the Ombudsman to be fair and reasonable as set out in paragraphs 60-61. The landlord recognised that this additional stage, whilst unforeseen, still caused a further delay in resolution for the resident. It apologised for this and offered an additional £100 compensation for complaint handling which was fair and reasonable.
Apart from the miscommunication with the resident over the date of return to her property, which the landlord had addressed in the complaint process, the records indicate that the landlord’s communication, or attempts at communication, with the resident were regular and timely. Plans and arrangements were shared with the resident in advance, calls were returned, complaints taken and responded to. When it could not contact the resident, the landlord had permission to contact her social worker, and it was evident that it did so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s decant and her request for reimbursement and compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s safety concerns and reports of outstanding repairs on her return to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of communication with her.

Reasons

The resident, who was vulnerable, undoubtedly had the most stressful and inconvenient experience being decanted for major works with two children and a dog immediately following the birth by caesarean section of her second son, in recovery from a major operation. It was evident that the landlord was aware and mindful of the resident’s circumstances and vulnerabilities, and attempted to put things in place to accommodate these. It is acknowledged a number of things went wrong throughout the decant, however many could not have been reasonably foreseen by the landlord. There was also evidence of attempts at mitigation through external contractors that did not go to plan, but were outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord accepted service failings and a financial loss to the resident for which it apologised and awarded compensation that met this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress.
The resident had concerns about returning to the property and the level of repair completed. This was dismissed by the landlord who insisted the works had been completed and the property was fit to return to. The resident was proven right when, through a formal complaint, the landlord had to acknowledge a number of repairs were outstanding that had to be re-ordered, and environmental health threatened to serve a prohibition notice if the landlord did not initiate an urgent management transfer on health and safety grounds. The peer review did not acknowledge any responsibility or failings for this and continued to confirm repairs had been completed whilst noting at the same time that it was working with the EHO on their recommendations. As a result, there was no apology or redress offered to the resident for the failure in repair and the conditions she was forced to return to.
Whilst it was evident things did not go according to plan for the resident, the landlord’s complaint process on the whole was able to resolve those issues or offer suitable redress. It recognised where there were failings in its own complaint process, apologised and offered compensation that met this Service’s expectations and guidance on redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord apologises to the resident for its failings in the handling of her reports concerning safety and outstanding repair issues.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, in addition to the compensation it has already awarded, the landlord pays the resident the sum of £950 for its failings in the handling of the resident’s concerns over safety and outstanding repair and the inconvenience this caused her.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to evidence of compliance with these orders.