Derby Homes Limited (202119615)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119615

Derby Homes Limited

28 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports that the property did not meet lettable standards at sign up.

Background

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 cannot be fully investigated. From the evidence provided it is clear that questions have been raised by the resident, regarding the suitability of this accommodation offer before the tenancy agreement was signed between both parties.
The duty to ensure that suitable accommodation is made available to homeless people is placed on local authorities under Part 7 of the Housing Act (1996). The landlord’s records note that the resident was threatened with homelessness and that she was living in severely overcrowded conditions in a refuge. This was evidenced to be a breakdown in her relationship and further noted that the resident was vulnerable due to her mental health and has a history of domestic abuse. It’s records also noted that the resident was at serious risk of harm and in refuge as of June 2021.
As a homeless applicant being relieved of homelessness by her local authority, the resident was advised that she would only get one offer of accommodation. She was matched to a property on 7 July 2021 and sent an offer letter on 26 July 2021. The resident viewed the property on 10 August 2021 and accepted it on the day. The local authority closed her homelessness case the same day and noted that she had been rehoused.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. Since the homelessness aspect of the resident’s complaint falls within Part 7 of the Housing Act (1996) it cannot be investigated by the Housing Ombudsman. The resident is therefore advised to approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she wishes to pursue this strand of her complaint.
The resident had an introductory tenancy with the landlord which began on 22 November 2021 and ended on 6 February 2022. The property is a two bedroom inner terrace house.
The landlord is an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) created to manage and maintain the local authority’s housing stock. The function of management and maintenance is delegated to the landlord, but the local authority retains ownership of the housing stock.
It did not provide the details of any other household members expected to be living in the accommodation with her in the tenancy agreement. The evidence provided to this service by the landlord however indicates that her children would be part of the household. The landlord’s records note that the resident has vulnerabilities.

Policies and Procedures

The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, but the resident must inform it of repair work it is aware of. These include but are not limited skirting boards, floors and ceilings (excluding decoration). The resident must pay all outstanding charges to the landlord when their tenancy ends straight away. Residents are required to give four weeks’ notice in writing if they intend to terminate their tenancy. They will be responsible for the rent until the end of the notice period or until the keys are returned.
Its void management policy defines a void as a tenancy that has been ended and the property is unoccupied. It notes that void repairs must be clearly defined and adhere to its Lettable Standard. It aims to ensure that customers in housing need can be housed with the minimum delay, ensure residents are allocated homes that meet its lettable standard, maximise customer satisfaction and ensure outgoing customers are aware of their responsibilities prior to termination. It classifies void properties as closed sites until categorised as safe to view.
Its sign up process for new residents includes a “sign up checklist” which confirms the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and is signed and agreed by the both customer and staff. It reviews it four weeks after the resident has moved into the home. Under its void procedure it will inspect the property and use a void inspection form to record all necessary repairs, meter reading and decoration vouchers and if the property is safe to view. The landlord’s voids cleaning specification notes that where required it will carry out a heavy duty clean of void properties. It said heavy duty clean requires the use of materials which require more time to act and may leave a residual odour requiring time to disperse.
The landlord’s lettable standards provides that all rubbish and debris are to be removed and the property fumigated if necessary. Floor screed, floor boards and existing floor finishes to be retained must be in sage and sound condition. It will decorate rooms affected by mould growth, extreme dirt or grease. It will clean the front and back of the radiators (as far as possible), skirting boards, storage cupboards and left free of unpleasant smells by using air fresheners when appropriate.
The landlord’s allocation policy states that offers of accommodation will normally be by telephone and may be followed up in writing. If the resident has been made an offer of housing, they will not get any further offers.
It has a two stage complaints process where it aims to answer stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord arranged an escorted viewing with the resident on 10 August 2021. It noted that the resident had viewed and accepted the property. She requested a further viewing on 25 August 2021 and said it was in a poor condition the first time. The landlord told her to contact its service closer to 23 September 2021 to arrange the viewing.
The landlord arranged a second viewing with the resident on 15 September 2021 and the member of staff noted that there was a terrible smell in the upstairs bedroom and faeces in the cupboard of bedroom one. The member of staff noted that they had not completed the first viewing with the resident, but that the resident informed the officer that a lot had not changed.
The landlords records further note that the tenant was extremely upset at the prospect of moving into the house and said that there was a dreadful smell and faeces in the corner of the room. It sent an internal email to its voids team stating that the property was not in a good state and that there was a terrible smell in the upstairs bedroom and that there was faeces in the cupboard of bedroom one. It attached a photo. It said in the email that the £70 decoration voucher was not likely to contribute much to the works needed in the property. It asked the voids team to do some decoration works to the property, as it was not suitable for young children especially when there was still faeces in there a week before the expected completion date.
On 16 September 2021 the resident’s social worker asked for an update on the status of the property, as the resident had expressed concerns about it not being ready. The landlord arranged three more viewings with the resident on 11 October and 2 November and 9 November 2021. It noted on its records as of 2 November 2021 that the property smelt strongly of dogs.
It arranged a joint visit with the resident on 9 November 2021 and agreed additional works to fully decorate the property, sand the floor boards in the bedrooms, remove staining, renew piece of worktop, replaster around the bathroom door and a full clean. It noted that the resident said she was pleased with the works and would stay at her current accommodation until the works were completed. The landlord’s records note that it completed the tenancy sign up with the resident on 23 November 2021.
At the pre void inspection stage the landlord had completed a clearance and general cleaning on 25 August 2021, and general repairs on 8 September 2021. Works carried out as noted in the log were: redecorate complete two bedroom house or maisonette, rub down, prepare, apply two coats of emulsion to ceilings and walls, one undercoat and gloss and all other previously painted surfaces on 17 November 2021.
The resident made a complaint on 24 November 2021, about the significant delays, lack of necessary work, poor communication and dishonesty which she said had adversely affected her health. She said this was between August 2021 and the date of the complaint and that she had made previous complaints about the matter.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 November 2021 and asked her to provide some more information to assist it in looking further into the matter. The resident responded the same day that it was about the animal waste soaked floors that had not been appropriately resolved and that the landlord was already aware.
It contacted the resident on 26 November 2021, where the tenant advised that she had not moved into the property as it was not fit to live in as the floorboards had not been professionally cleaned so would need to be replaced. The landlord agreed a date with the resident to visit the property.
The landlord arranged a visit to the property on 30 November 2021 and noted that it did not smell dog urine. It explained to the resident that the property was ready to move into but she disagreed. The landlord made several attempts to contact the resident and it eventually got through to her on 6 December 2021. It informed the resident that it had agreed to change the floor boards in bedroom one.
The landlord made another visit to the property on 7 December 2021. It noted from the visit that there was an odour as they walked through the door of the bedrooms. It said it was more cleaning products or bleach type smell but there was no smell in the room. It agreed that the floorboards in the large bedroom would be replaced, even though it disagreed that there was a smell in the room. It noted that the kitchen extractor fan was dirty and poor and arranged for it to be changed. It further noted that the tenant had a butter knife and that she had been sticking it in between the floorboard in the smaller rooms and pulling out dog hair and what she said was dog faeces. The landlord’s records note that the resident won’t accept that the property had been cleaned.
The landlord’s officer noted that there was dog hair behind the radiators and pulled out some clumps so she thought it would need another clean. The resident also said that she was cleaning the hall floor and flooded it slightly and brown gunge came of the strip in between the hall and bathroom. She believed this to be animal faeces so she asked for a clean to be done around the threshold strip.
The landlord contacted the tenant on 8 December 2021 to discuss an extension of its stage one response.
It completed a post void extra clean on 13 December 2021 and this included clean, wash down, scrub, clean all kitchen units, fittings and other landlords fittings, clean windows internally, disinfect toilets and applied air freshener to all areas to lettable standard. It had also disinfected the walls and floors to the property.
It contacted the resident on the same day and advised her that the property keys would be ready for collection in the morning. It also advised that it would credit a week’s rent to her account, as she had not had access to the property for a week.
The resident raised further concerns about dog urine smells on 15 December 2021 and said that she could not move in as the smell made her sick. She requested a suitability review. She also complained that an operative had left their lunch in the property and the landlord agreed that this was not acceptable. The resident was advised to move into the property as she had informed the landlord that living with her mother was not convenient.
The landlord also responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on the same day. The key points in the response are :
1. The main issue raised in the complaint was with the condition of the bedroom floor boards as she wanted the floorboards replaced, ceiling downstairs renewed as the waste would have penetrated through the floorboards into the ceilings/plasterboards.
2. As a result of another visit completed on 9 November 2021, it agreed to fully decorate the property. Further repairs raised were also completed and the property was ready to let on 19 November 2021, as extensive works had been carried out.
3. The resident refused to move in and said she was hypersensitive to smells and wanted the floorboards in the second bedroom changed.
4. The agreed works were completed on 14 December 2021 to a good standard and the keys were ready for collection on 15 December 2021. A week’s rent was also credited to her rent account.
5. It believed the property was ready to move into when she signed up and it would not be completing any further works but it had arranged for a suitability review to be completed.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage two on 16 December 2021. She said she had cleaned fur and animal waste and that much of it was still trapped beneath the floorboards. She said her health was continuing to deteriorate due to the stress of the situation and the condition of the house. She said she would send the landlord a supporting letter from her doctor and that she has pet allergies which cause a skin reaction. She said there were further issues in the house such as sockets not working and split wood on the stairs.
The resident also contacted the landlord the same day regarding her complaint and stated that she felt suicidal. She was advised where and how to send her supporting letters to the landlord. She also discussed her concerns with the landlord and the effect it had had on her wellbeing. The landlord advised her that it had taken the necessary steps to address her concerns but that the property was fit to move into. The resident provided supporting letters from her mental health therapist. The landlord completed a safeguarding referral on 17 December 2021 but it was not accepted by the Children’s Social Care Team. It said to the landlord on 20 December 2021 that it did not meet the threshold for support and explained that she had declined support in a previous referral. It said it had reviewed the referral and decided that threshold was not met to escalate further without parental consent.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2021 and informed it that she was moving back with her ex-partner, as no one was taking her concerns seriously. She asked the landlord to reimburse and compensate her and move her to a new house near her children’s school.
On 21 December 2021 the resident’s family support manager contacted the landlord on her behalf. She said she had visited the property and agreed that the small bedroom had a strong smell of ammonia associated with urine. She said she did not feel the home was suitable for a child and that placing carpets on the floorboards would not resolve the problem. She asked the landlord to offer a new property to the resident, to provide her children a safe and clean home where they could thrive as a family.
The landlords records note that the resident contacted it on 5 January 2022 and requested the termination of her tenancy without the four weeks’ notice. The landlord responded that it would consider her request, but that the tenancy would end on 6 February 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 17 January 2022. It said in its response that:
1. It had completed a suitability review of the resident’s accommodation on 17 December 2021 and found it to be suitable.
2. It visited the resident at the property on 23 December 2021 and the resident explained that the whole property smelled but that its officers could not smell what she had described.
3. It would take the resident’s hypersensitivity to smell things others could not into consideration and offered to change the floorboards in the second bedroom.
4. The resident asked its officers to leave as she was no longer prepared to live in the property.
5. It offered to explore her request for another property, but she refused and said that she would go back to live with her ex-husband.
6. It had considered the resident’s request for additional works such as walls replastering, skirting boards to be replaced and the downstairs ceilings to be replaced. It did not consider these works reasonable or a necessary solution.
7. It’s conclusion from its visit was that the resident was not prepared to engage further or to discuss a resolution.
8. The resident had terminated her tenancy and the account was in arrears, but it had taken the decision to clear the arrears in consideration of her mental health issues. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the complaint outcome.
The following events also occurred on the same day:
1. The landlord responded to the resident’s support worker and gave them a summary of the outcome of the visit conducted on 23 December 2021. It explained that the resident refused to explore the possible offer of another property and its offer to change the floorboard in the second bedroom and advised that she wanted to pursue the matter with the Ombudsman instead.
2. The resident contacted the landlord and asked that certain members of its staff should not contact her. She notified the landlord that she would be taking legal action as she was homeless and unable to afford hotel accommodation and that she was moving to a refuge in Scotland.
The landlord’s records also note that it received a referral response on 20 January 2022 regarding its safeguarding referral for the resident’s children. The dates of the referral are unclear from the evidence seen by this service. The Safeguarding Team confirmed that they had reviewed the information that the landlord had provided, and decided that the concerns did not meet the threshold for a social care referral. It said no further action would be taken by Social Care at this time. It further explained that the relevant agencies had followed up on the referral made by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2022 and expressed further discontent with the landlord’s response to concerns about the property. She said she had a video of an officer swearing at her. She asked for compensation for rent paid, council tax, cleaning cost, hotel cost, carpet fitting cost and to be reimbursed the cost of moving to Scotland. She said the landlord knew her about her previous situation and history of domestic abuse.
The landlord wrote to the resident the same day and explained that it had cleared her rent arrears, so it would not pursue any rent arrears action against her. It said it would not pay her compensation, as it deemed the property fit to live in. It advised her to pursue the matter with the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident responded that she wished to pursue a complaint against a member of staff and the landlord advised that she could submit a new complaint about the matter.
Since giving up the property the landlord had advised the resident that she was not eligible to re-register for housing register, as she would be seen as worsening her own circumstances.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

According to the landlord’s records, the resident was in urgent need of suitable housing, prior to the time the property was offered to her. It noted that the resident attended a viewing in August 2021 and accepted the property on the grounds that it would have been cleared of the previous tenant’s belongings and cleaned to an acceptable standard.
Whilst it would have been ideal for the property to have been cleared and for the necessary works to have been completed prior to the time the resident was invited to view the property on 10 August 2021, this is not mandated in the landlord’s policy. The resident said she had no choice but to accept the offer and this aligns with the local authority’s letters to her regarding her homelessness application.
She accepted the property and worked with the landlord to identify and resolve the outstanding issues in the property prior to sign up. The landlord projected a completion date of 23 September 2021, but the resident reported that property was still not in an acceptable state for her to move into. This was also confirmed by the landlord’s officer who acknowledged there was animal faeces when it visited on 15 September 2021 and made arrangements for further works.
The evidence seen shows that the resident was living in a refuge, which the landlord’s notes described as overcrowded, but the property she was offered was not ready to move into until 23 November 2021. This means there was a prolonged period of time between viewing the property and the tenancy commencement due to outstanding works. This was inappropriate as the resident was homeless and this caused her frustration and uncertainty. The evidence shows that the resident contacted her local authority regarding the delays, but this remains outside this Service’s jurisdiction as this was in relation to her homelessness case.
After the sign up the resident did not move into the property as she still felt there was an odour. The landlord acknowledged on its visit on 7 December 2021 to the property, that was a slight odour but that it was more of cleaning products or a bleach type smell. It also noted on its visit that there were clumps of dog hair behind the radiator, which suggests the area was not cleaned to the standards set out in its lettable standards.
The resident later said she was allergic to pets on 16 December 2021 but there is no evidence to advise that the landlord was aware of this matter prior to this time. The landlord however did take reasonable steps to address her concern and offered to undertake works to the floorboards. It offered to change the floorboards in her second bedroom and also offered to explore another offer of accommodation. This was a reasonable adjustment to make and an appropriate remedy to address the matter.
In summary, the landlord did not adhere to its voids management policy, to minimise delays in providing residents in housing need homes that meet the lettable standard. Its member of staff who visited the property on 15 September 2021 noted that there was a bad smell in the property and that there was faeces in one bedroom cupboard. The property was supposed to be ready for sign up 23 September 2021 but this was postponed until 22 November 2021 due to the additional works it had to complete. The works included full decoration works and a further clean of the property.
It must however be noted that the responsibility to ensure that the resident was in suitable housing prior to sign up remained the local authority’s responsibility. The contractual agreement between the landlord and the resident did not commence until 22 November 2021. The landlord disputed the resident’s complaint that the property was not suitable to move into after the tenancy commenced, but it nonetheless arranged a further clean and changed the floor boards in one of the bedrooms even though it did not agree that they required changing. This demonstrates that the landlord had learnt from this as it took reasonable and appropriate steps to address her concerns about the property condition.
The landlord followed its complaints policy in conducting a thorough investigation of the issues raised. It’s stage one response was however late as it took 15 working days to respond to it rather than the 10 working days stated in its complaints policy. It is however noted that it duly contacted the resident to request an extension of the response date and that it kept in contact with her throughout the complaint investigation. Its handling of the complaint is therefore considered reasonable and appropriate as it adhered to its complaints policy.
This service sympathises with the resident given the difficulties she had experienced with her family and her health needs and that she felt she had no choice but to give up the tenancy. However based on the evidence seen, it is clear that the landlord took her concerns seriously and went over and beyond the repairs set out to meet the lettable standard. This shows that the landlord took steps to put things right and provided reasonable redress.
It also offered to explore the option of offering her another property, but it said the resident declined the offer. The landlord’s records note that this offer was made on 23 December 2021 but the resident handed in her notice to terminate the tenancy on 5 January 2022. The landlord cleared the arrears on her rent account and ended her tenancy on 6 February 2022. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to make and it demonstrates that it had learnt from its failings, and sought to ensure no further inconvenience was caused to the resident. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for the faults identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports that the property did not meet lettable standards at sign up.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps in dealing with the concerns raised about the state of the property. The property did initially fail to meet the lettable standard but the landlord acknowledged this and actively engaged with the resident and other parties working with her to put things right. It offered the option of exploring alternative accommodation and took steps to make adjustments to the residents rent account at different stages through the process to lessen the overall impact that the delays have had on her. It went over and beyond the requirements of its lettable standard, tenancy agreement and other relevant policies in addressing the resident’s concerns.

Recommendations

The landlord is advised to review their processes to determine necessary actions to be taken when there is a significant delay with a property in the void process, for homeless applicants when the duty has been discharged.