Colchester Borough Council (202122725)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122725

Colchester Borough Homes

28 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her new home.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pests in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom bungalow on a secure tenancy with the landlord that began on 12 April 2021.
The landlord’s records show vulnerabilities reported by the resident of mental health, mobility issues and fleeing domestic violence.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement place certain obligations on the landlord, namely:
1. To keep the structure of the home in good repair.
2. To keep the fixed equipment for supplying water, gas and electricity in good repair and working order. This includes basins, baths, sinks, toilets and cupboards.
3. To keep the heating and hot water system in good repair and working order.
The landlord has a repairs and rechargeable policy that aims to effectively manage its repair and maintenance obligations and ensure all residents live in a safe and habitable environment. It prioritises repairs into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs – Attend within four hours (two hours for heating and hot water breakdowns) and make safe and complete within 24 hours if possible.
2. Urgent repairs – Attend within three working days; complete within five working days.
3. Routine repairs – Attend within five working days; complete within 20 working days.
There are certain repairs that are the tenant’s responsibility, and these are outlined within the tenancy agreement, repairs policy and within the tenant handbook published on the landlord’s website. They include minor repairs such as attempting to clear all plumbing blockages in the first instance and bleeding radiators. In relation to pests, it outlines that both landlord and tenant have responsibilities.
The landlord has an empty property standard and relet procedure that aims to ensure empty properties are relet as quickly as possible while achieving elevated levels of customer satisfaction. Within this, it has a minimum lettable standard which specifies items per room that ensures consistency, value for money and repair. This includes cleaning and redecoration of properties in some circumstances. It also includes that the garden that should be free from rubbish and grass cut to a reasonable height.

Summary of events

On 6 April 2021, the landlord’s records show a void works handover form. It did not note any concerns.
On 13 April 2021, an internal landlord email confirms that it had received a call from the resident, stating the property condition was poor and noted the following items:
1. The property had not been cleaned. Surfaces and woodwork were greasy, and the property was full of cobwebs.
2. Two of the new internal doors had a plastic wedge underneath the hinges.
3. There were cracks on the ceilings and artex was falling away.
4. There was a large gap under the lounge sill which was full of debris.
5. Black window seals were coming away.
6. The shelves had been removed and large holes left in the wall.
7. A fan light in the kitchen would not open.
8. The threshold between lounge and hall was not fixed correctly.
9. Wallpaper layers were on the walls.
10. A wood batten above the window in the bedroom had been removed.
On 19 April 2021, the landlord’s records note contact from the resident, stating that she had not heard from the voids team regarding the condition of her new home.
On 21 April 2021, the landlord’s internal emails suggest that the resident was given full decoration vouchers to carry out decorating. It confirmed that an officer had inspected the property and it was cleaned to standard, but it was difficult to clean when the property was not decorated. It confirmed an inspection of the kitchen window and the threshold in the lounge, noting that all other matters would be the resident’s responsibility.
On 4 May 2021, the resident first complained to the landlord online about the poor condition of her new home. This was in relation to the cleaning that she said had not been carried out, outstanding repairs and the gardens that had been left a mess. Although she said that she had asked the landlord not to decorate her new home, she expected these items to have been completed. The resident explained the following:
1. She had spoken to her housing officer about the outstanding work and the officer emailed the voids team, asking them to contact the resident and they delayed in doing so.
2. She said that she had been made to feel that she was the one at fault and referred to them saying that if she had allowed them to decorate, then everything would have been sorted.
3. Specific repair issues were listed as follows:
  1. Small kitchen window did not open.
  2. Bedroom window did not close.
  3. Lounge window ledge loose – dirt and debris under it.
  4. Cracks in all ceilings and on a number of walls.
  5. New lounge and bedroom doors were not hung properly – door frames filled.
  6. Threshold between lounge and hallway replaced but it was high and not fitted properly, making it dangerous.
  7. A piece of wood was missing from the cupboard in the hallway where the electric meter was situated.
  8. Kitchen cupboard under the sink had a rotten patch in it and the door had a fixed drawer screwed to it.
  9. The toilet was leaking.
  10. The rubber seals on both shower cubicle doors were hanging loose.
  11. There was no seal around the bathroom floor.
  12. The seals around the windows were not fitted correctly and were missing items.
  13. Holes were left in the walls where the shelving had been removed.
  14. A wooden baton above the bedroom window had been removed.
  15. Kitchen lighting was not replaced.
4. The resident commented that the property was left in a very dirty condition, and she was concerned that flies were in the kitchen.
5. The resident said that the gardens were left overgrown with rubbish present and alleged that the voids team had more than likely left some of this rubbish.
6. She said that she was not happy with how the officer had handled her concerns and that the situation had affected her anxiety.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord responded to the resident via email and advised that it would investigate the complaint and provide a response by 17 May 2021.
On 12 May 2021, the landlord’s records note a councillor enquiry on behalf of the resident about the void standard and flies in the property. It noted that this was answered on 24 May 2021. However, the response has not been provided to this Service.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord’s records show that the resident called it, upset due to flies in her property and she requested urgent action. It advised the resident that it was aware of the situation and was still investigating the matter.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it required a further 10 working days to respond to the complaint and she should now receive this by 28 May 2021.
On 19 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to explain that she felt her complaint had not been addressed. She requested a call with the contract manager, and this took place on the same day. However, details of the discussion have not been provided to this Service.
On 24 May 2021, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. It upheld the complaint and found the following:
1. There was an issue in relation to fruit flies within the property that was not identified during the void period. It was later confirmed by the landlord that these were a direct cause of material left underneath the cupboard and behind the kickboard.
2. After the resident had moved into her home, it found that the flies were coming from underneath the kitchen sink base unit. It was dealt with by pest control within 48 hours and it apologised for the distress of the situation.
3. It accepted that some areas fell below the minimum void standard which were acted upon as soon as they were raised.
4. It confirmed that following their conversation of 18 May 2021, all agreed works with the exception of grass cutting had been completed. It said that the grass cutting would be carried out in the very near future, weather permitting.
On 25 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to make it aware that she remained dissatisfied with its response and requested a review. This was acknowledged on 26 May 2021 and a response date of 22 June 2021 was given. The resident’s email confirmed the following:
1. She felt that she was still being blamed for the problems in her new home because she chose not to have the property decorated.
2. There had been no visits from the landlord since the initial complaint apart from the operatives assigned to carry out work.
3. She believed that the only reason the landlord telephoned her on 18 May 2021 was because she had said that she was going to contact the press and this Service. She felt that an investigation of a complaint involved a visit and speaking personally to all involved.
4. She was made to feel that she was imagining the fly situation.
5. A more thorough inspection of the property should have been carried out.
6. Both gardens should have been cleared.
7. She had to move quickly due to needing to be near her family and network because she was the victim of domestic abuse.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord informed the resident that its head of housing management would investigate her complaint.
On 1 June 2021, the landlord informed the resident that her garden would be surveyed that week with a view to undertaking works the following week.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that it had visited her home and the following works were raised:
1. Replace the seal around the front door.
2. Reattach the trim to the front door.
3. Repair the window seals to the front lounge windows.
4. Repair the shower chair in the bathroom.
5. Repair the stop tap.
6. Inspect the hole in the front porch ceiling.
7. It said that it was unable to add additional electric sockets to the bedroom.
8. Overall, it apologised that the cleanliness and repair of the property did not meet its expected standards and it offered decoration vouchers of £40.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaints process

During July and December 2021, the landlord’s notes show various resident contacts chasing up repairs. The landlord has evidenced that it made contact with the resident to arrange for the shower seat and door to be fitted in July 2021. However, it is unclear if this repair and others noted have been completed.
On 31 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request that her complaint be looked into further about the cause of the vermin in her home. At the time, it was treated as a new complaint because it had not been recognised as a follow on from this complaint. However, as the resident had said that this matter was referred to during the stage two complaint visit, compensation of £50 was paid to the resident for the call out of pest control and the purchase of a rodent deterrent device.
On 11 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord as she was still having issues with the ceiling and lounge that were uneven. She said this had previously been mentioned to the voids team and whilst she had attempted some works, she supplied photographs to show that the ‘lumps’ had reappeared. She confirmed that the majority of repairs had been done but some had not been done properly and there had been delays with some of them.
In January and February 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that pest control had advised that there was no evidence of rodent activity, but it was still monitoring the situation.
During January and February 2022, various email contact took place between the resident and this Service where the resident described her dissatisfaction with the landlord and the impact the situation was having on her. She gave details of repair requests, pest control visits and actions.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord sent a further final response letter to the resident. It clarified the landlord’s investigations and was satisfied that all the works identified during a previous visit with the housing officer had been completed. It confirmed that the uneven walls are classed as ‘cosmetic’ and were the resident’s responsibility. It also confirmed that there was no further evidence of rodents, the entry points had been sealed and it had made a further appointment to repair the fascia board.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her new home

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the poor condition of her new home from an early point in the tenancy. There is evidence that an inspection took place in April 2021. However, the only work identified at this point was the kitchen window and threshold in the lounge. It was noted that all other work was the resident’s responsibility, but the landlord failed to evidence that it communicated this to the resident. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations as it was clear that she was awaiting a response from the landlord in relation to the outstanding works she listed the day after her tenancy began.
As there were multiple repair requests that the resident identified at an early point in the tenancy, it would have been appropriate at the first visit in April 2021, for the landlord to explain, itemise and confirm in writing to the resident what it would and would not consider so that there was no doubt about the landlord and resident responsibilities.
The inspection in April 2021 did not identify an issue with the cleanliness of the property. In fact, the officer notes of 21 April 2021 confirm that the cleanliness standard was met. However, it then suggested that as the resident did not want it to decorate her new home, it was more difficult to clean, suggesting that the cleaning and decoration were something it carried out together and that the former was not possible without the latter. Whilst it is no doubt easier for the landlord to carry out this work together, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the individual requests of the resident and arrange the cleaning works only.
However, the landlord had an obligation to ensure the property was clean prior to letting and it is of concern that there was a delay in it acknowledging that standards were not met. It did not do so until its stage 2 complaint response in June 2021 (3 months later) when it apologised to the resident for its failure and offered decoration vouchers.
As the repairs issues remained outstanding, the resident raised a complaint, outlining the issues of the fly infestation, the poor cleanliness and the mess in the garden at the beginning of May 2021 and this was replied to as a stage 1 complaint response at the end of May 2021.
The landlord recognised in its stage 1 complaint response that some areas of the void standard were not met, and it upheld the complaint. However, it again failed to specify which of the issues the resident had raised that it acknowledged to be its responsibility and were not up to its void standard. It was not helpful that the landlord was unclear on its position, particularly in relation to the cleanliness and other reported works, and this is likely to have caused uncertainty to the resident as to which aspects of her concerns it had upheld.
The landlord confirmed that all agreed works were completed mid-May 2021 with the exception of the grass cutting. Again, it is unclear of specific repairs that this comment related to at that point and whether or not it recalled contractors to clean the property. The additional works that it had to raise in June 2021 indicate that not all of the repairs needed to meet the void standard had been conducted in mid-May 2021.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested a review of the decision which the landlord registered as a stage 2 complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in early June 2021. It confirmed the works orders raised and at that point, it explained what items it could not complete such as additional electric sockets to the bedroom. At this point, it recognised that the cleanliness was not up to standard, and it apologised for this and also that the repair of the property did not meet the expected void standard, offering £40 decoration vouchers.
Whilst the landlord appropriately confirmed its service failure, the £40 decoration voucher did not offer reasonable redress for these failings. It also missed opportunities to put this right from an early point in April 2021 when the resident began expressing concerns. Given that the resident clearly demonstrated the impact the situation had on her moving to her new home under difficult circumstances, and her inability to fully prepare her home, over a 3-month period, a more significant offer of redress would have been appropriate in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Numerous resident and landlord communications took place after the landlord’s final complaint response. However, it is unclear if new issues were raised by the resident or if items were missed when the landlord responded to the formal complaints. Again, the landlord has not demonstrated that it promptly and clearly set out to the resident the outstanding issues that it was willing to remedy.
This resulted in the landlord sending a further final complaint response in February 2022 when it clarified its position and said that it was satisfied that the issues raised had been completed. However, it has not made clear what issues it refers to, what repairs it determined to be the resident’s responsibility and the reasoning behind its decisions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pests in the property.

Fly infestation

The landlord and tenant both have responsibilities for dealing with pests in the property in accordance with the landlord’s tenant handbook. The main landlord responsibilities are in relation to maintaining the structure of the property to ensure pests cannot enter it. As the fly issue was a problem from the start of the tenancy, it was appropriate for the landlord to accept responsibility for resolving the issue.
The landlord has confirmed to the resident that it was not aware of the fly infestation during the void period and whilst there would no doubt have been numerous visits to the property during this time, it is understandable that this type of issue may not have been evident during its inspection.
After the resident raised concerns, the landlord has confirmed that it dealt with the matter within a reasonable timeframe of 48 hours and diagnosed that the cause of this problem was material being left underneath the kitchen cupboard and kickboard. However, it is of concern that the resident first raised her concerns at the beginning of May 2021 and by mid-May 2021, it is evident that the issue still remained. Therefore, this indicates that the matter remained unresolved for an unreasonable period of 2 weeks rather than 48 hours as the landlord suggested.

Rodents

It is unclear if the rodent issue was raised by the resident as part of the stage 2 complaint. When she raised the issue in December 2021, the landlord firstly registered a new complaint but then changed this to a service request.
The landlord has not provided records of its stage 2 complaint visit and therefore it is unclear whether or not the rodent issue was discussed with the resident.
The landlord responded to the rodent issue in December 2021 and reimbursed her for the pest control visit along with equipment the resident had to purchase. At this point, the landlord did demonstrate that it dealt with the matter appropriately by liaising with pest control, reimbursing the associated costs to the resident, installing monitoring equipment and following this up with visits. The landlord has also demonstrated that it carried out associated follow up works to repair the structure of the building where there was potential for entrance.
Given that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the rodent issue was raised as part of the earlier complaint and that the landlord dealt with the report appropriately when it was raised in December 2021, it is concluded that the landlord acted appropriately in resolving the issue and associated works.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her new home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pests in the property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to:
1. Meet its void standard.
2. Communicate clearly from an early point what items it would and would not complete in the resident’s home and therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to the landlord and tenant repair responsibilities.
3. Evidence that it resolved the fly infestations within a reasonable timeframe.
4. Offer reasonable redress for the service failures identified in not meeting the void standard or dealing with the fly infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, that landlord should provide the resident and this Service with written confirmation of any outstanding work, and an action plan, including timescales, for completion. This should include setting out any work the resident is responsible for carrying out and explaining its reasons for reaching this decision.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 (including the offer of the decoration vouchers and reimbursement of associated rodent costs, if it has not already done so) within four weeks of this report, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord should review this case in relation to its void standard and advise this Service how it intends to ensure that works are completed within a reasonable timescale from the tenancy start date in future.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.