East End Homes Limited (202001075)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001075

East End Homes Limited

17 December 2020

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 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 residents have complained about:

1. The landlord’s handling of their transfer application including its actions at the viewing of their property, the moving in process and whether the landlord followed the relevant policies as part of the application process, including policies concerning “downsizing” and “bespoke housing plans”.
2. The landlord’s handling of repair works prior to, and at the commencement of the residents’ tenancy. 
3. The landlord’s complaint handling. 
4. The residents have made their complaint to the landlord and this Service through their representative.

Jurisdiction

5. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
6. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 23(m) and 23(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
7. Paragraph 23(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “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.”

            Paragraph 23(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”

8. The representative has complained of a breach of personal data insofar as the residents were given information about the previous tenant when they moved in.  The representative has also complained that the landlord has not provided to him repair and void property records.  The Information Commissioner’s Officer is the body that has the power to adjudicate on information rights.  It can determine whether or not an organization has complied with data protection legislation. Therefore, this aspect of the residents’ complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in accordance with paragraph 23(m) of the Scheme.
9. The representative has also  questioned the validity and reliability of gas safety certificates and contended that with regards to one certificate, a landlord’s “employee or an engineer had fraudulently signed a legal document”.  In particular, he advises that the residents did not sign the gas certificate of 20 November 2019.   He has also contended that the landlord has breached gas safety legislation. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord has acted unlawfully or illegally, nor can this Service forensically examine documents provided.  The role of this Service is to review the documentary evidence and consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions and its handling of the formal complaint.  The Ombudsman takes into account the law if appropriate, policy and procedural obligations and good practice, and what adverse affect was caused to the residents.
10. The court has the power, unlike this Service, to determine if the actions of the landlord is fraudulent. It can also determine if the landlord has acted illegally or unlawfully. If necessary, it can cross-examine witnesses and consider submissions from experts. Therefore, this aspect of the residents’ complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in accordance with paragraph 23(i) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

11. The residents were tenants of the landlord and downsized from a two-bedroom, first-floor property to another of the landlord’s properties, a one-bedroom property. They viewed the property on 15 November 2019, signed the tenancy agreement for the property on the same day, and were provided keys.  The representative has stated that the residents were provided with a gas safety certificate dated 3 October 2019.  It is understood that the tenancy start date was originally to be 25 November 2019 but the tenancy start date was extended by a week, to start on 2 December 2019, therefore a new agreement was signed and the original agreement returned and destroyed.
12. The landlord’s records for the new property when void confirm that a gas safety certificate and the testing of all gas appliances was ordered. The gas and bayonet socket was to be capped. A gas safety certificate was issued for the boiler at the new property on 20 November 2019. However, boiler faults were identified and repairs were completed on 27 November 2019.  The representative has stated that a gas engineer attended on 19 November 2019 and that it was an electrical engineer that attended on 20 November 2019. On 6 December 2019 the residents reported that the hot water was at a reduced temperature and on 10 December 2019 the landlord descaled the heat exchanger as a repair.
13. It is understood that the residents accepted a decoration allowance of £341.25.  The landlord offered to pay for removal costs but this was declined.  It offered to pay for the disconnection of white goods, electricity and gas and this was accepted.
14. On 6 and 9 December 2020 the residents’ representative submitted a formal complaint. In the complaint of 6 December 2019 (Complaint A) the representative complained that the residents were told that they needed to accept the property at the viewing and felt pressurised; the landlord only gave a £500 incentive for one bedroom for downsizing when their previous property was 2 bedrooms and the landlord had not made a “bespoke plan” for the transfer which included reimbursement of reasonable costs up to a payment of £2,000. 38  The representative made reference to the landlord’s “Under Occupation and Incentive to Move” policy, identified items that could be covered and stated that the residents were not informed of the policy.
15. In the complaint of 9 December 2019 (Complaint B), the representative raised concerns about the boiler issue stating the landlord had allowed the residents to sign a tenancy agreement knowing there were issues with the boiler; there was a missed appointment on 22 November 2019 and the residents had to travel from their previous property to provide access and no new gas certificate had been issued to indicate that the boiler was repaired on 27 November 2019. The resident raised other issues, in particular, that the residents were not informed where the electricity meter was; the V2 form signed on 27 November 2019 indicated that the residents were to leave their previous property on 25 November 2019 when in fact the agreed date was 2 December 2019, querying why the landlord had not decorated and contending that the landlord had asked the residents to sign an initial tenancy agreement on 15 November 2019  without a gas certificate and the tenancy agreement signed on 2 December 2019 was backdated to 15 November 2019 and again without a gas certificate.
16. On 12 December 2019, the residents reported further issues with the boiler, in particular that the hot water only worked when the heating was on, not independently.  The landlord ordered parts and sought to carry out a repair but after leaks to the boiler were identified, its contractor on 16 December 2019 recommended a new boiler, although the boiler was left working and a safety certificate was issued.
17. In an exchange of correspondence between 15 and 16 December 2019 the representative advised that there had been further issues with the boiler and pursued a request for a security light for the pathway to the front door.  The landlord advised that it had decided to install a new boiler even though the boiler was providing heating and hot water at that time and would install a security light even though it was not obliged to.  It advised that a valid gas certificate had been in place since the residents had moved in and a new certificate had been issued that day to confirm that the boiler was safe to use, although it subsequently advised that, it was mistaken in stating that a new certificate issued on 16 December 2019 and the current certificate was dated 20 November 2019.  A security light was installed on 16 December 2019.
18. On 20 December 2019 the representative raised a new complaint following on from his complaints of 6 and 9 December 2019, and noted that there were still problems with the boiler (Complaint C). He advised that 6 different engineers had visited and contended that there was no valid gas safety certificate.  He contended that the boiler was defective and that the landlord had not proved that it was not safe to use, and that the property should not have been let with a defective boiler.  He also complained that the landlord took 2 weeks to install a security light for the pathway to the front door. 
19. The landlord responded to the complaint of 6 December 2019 on 24 December 2019 (Complaint A). It noted that there was an expectation that any applicant who expressed an interest in an advertised home wanted to move as they chose to bid for the property; it had agreed to pay for disconnection and reconnection of the cooker and washing machine and to pay for a removal company even though a bespoke plan would be instead of an incentive payment  and the downsizing payment was paid at the lower rate of £500 for the release of one bedroom because the previous property was a two bedroom flat without a garden within the curtilage of the property, the garden being communal. The landlord broke down the components of the bespoke plan which included confirming that if the residents provided receipts for curtains, blinds, carpets or floor coverings, it could provide reimbursement from the balance left between payments already made and the total allowable of £2,000.
20. On 30 December 2020 a new boiler was installed.  A new gas safety certificate was issued.
21. On 6 January 2020 the representative escalated Complaint A to Stage 2.   He reasserted that the landlord acted forcefully in asking the residents to accept the property and sign the tenancy agreement on 15 November 2019; queried why the keys to the property had been given to them when the landlord stated it was aware that there were outstanding repairs; queried why the boiler had not been repaired prior to the new tenancy start date; queried why the landlord had not offered to decorate the property; and queried why the services offered in the Stage 1 response (provision of new curtains, blinds, carpets or flooring) were not discussed at the time of the move.  The representative also disputed the landlord’s statement that the residents’ garden at their previous property was communal.
22. On 8 January 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint of 9 December 2019 (Complaint B), stating that the boiler issues raised within the complaint and the complaint of 20 December 2019 would be responded to separately.  With regards to the V2 form the landlord advised that it had indicated the anticipated let date at the viewing so prospective tenants could start making plans but that this could change on occasion, as with this case; redecorations were not completed as part of void works but a decoration allowance of £341.25 was identified which the residents had accepted; the initial tenancy agreement showing a start date of 25 November 2019 was returned as it was no longer valid as the tenancy date was being amended to 2 December 2019; and that gas and electrical certificates were provided to oncoming tenants when works were completed and they collected the keys.
23. On 10 January 2020, the representative asked for Complaint B to be escalated, responding to points in the response and highlighting points in the original complaint of 9 December 2019 that he considered were not addressed.
24. On 10 January 2020, the residents reported further disrepair to the heating and hot water system and it is understood that the landlord attended that day and that there were several engineer visits over the following days. It is understood that there were drops in pressure to the system due to a leak which had to be located. The representative has advised that the repair was completed on 16 January 2020. The landlord understood that the leak was hidden by screed therefore decided to install new surface mounted pipework to bypass the leak.  The landlord at a visit on 15 January 2020 identified and advised the residents that the repair arose due to damage caused by the residents’ carpet fitter but this is disputed by the representative.
25. On 13 January 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint of 20 December 2019  (Complaint C) noting that the gas servicing certificate was issued on 3 October 2019 and valid for 12 months.  It advised that when the property was void, its contractor capped off the gas carcass to check for leaks on 14 November 2019.   Its process was to recommission the boiler on occupation by new tenants which would merely require switching on by a qualified engineer, given the servicing certificate and the carcass test.  The landlord then provided a chronology of events following recommission of the boiler on 20 November 2020.  The landlord concluded that following the servicing in October 2019, the boiler had deteriorated to needing replacement a couple of months after, compounded by a new leak on the heating pipework.
26. The landlord offered compensation of £142.47 for distress for the period 20 November 2019 to 27 November 2019 at a rate of £500 per annum equating to £10.96, and for the period 7 December 2019 to 30 December 2019 at a rate of £2000 per annum equating to £131.51.  The landlord further offered £250 for time and trouble noting that its Compensation Policy allowed payments in the range of £50 to £250.
27. On 20 January 2020, the representative asked for complaint C to be escalated stating that there were errors in the chronology  as it referred to a visit on 20 November 2019 not 19 November 2019 and omitted a missed appointment on 22 November 2019; contending that the keys could have been collected from the housing office instead of the residents providing access; contending that the landlord had destroyed the tenancy agreement signed on 15 November 2019 and asked them to sign a new one on 2 December 2019 to cover for their mistakes and noting that further problems arose with the new boiler 11 days after installation.  The representative also queried the compensation offered, asking why the compensation offered for 19-27 November 2019 was offered at the lesser amount of £500 per annum when the residents had to attend 5 appointments and asking whether their age and vulnerabilities were taken into account.  The resident made reference to the Right to Repair and noted that there were further problems to the boiler when the Stage 1 response of 13 January 2020 was sent. therefore further compensation was warranted.
28. The representative also disputed the validity of the gas certificate dated 20 November 2019 as it was not completed on that date and not signed by the resident.  He contended that as the boiler was not working or inefficient the property was not in a lettable condition.
29. On 27 January 2019 the landlord carried out a settling in visit. 
30. On 27 January 2020 the landlord responded to Complaint A at Stage 2.  The landlord apologised for the late response of 27 January 2020 stating that the senior member of staff responding was on leave. The landlord reiterated its position that it did not act in a forceful manner during the viewing process and that it understood the residents were happy to accept the offer; its staff had contacted the residents to ask if they were interested in the property and agreed they would visit the location before deciding; the tenancy was delayed by one week primarily because the boiler required works; the housing plan covered a range of headings and allowed a sum up to £2,000, and that it had been agreed between the landlord and the residents, although the stage one response allowed additional claims to be made and that had the residents indicated that the allowance would not allow the decorations to be completed it would have considered decorating itself.  In conclusion, the landlord stated that it did not unduly pressurise the residents and its lettings department had sought to support the residents manage the move, including providing financial support.
31. On 31 January 2020, the landlord responded to Complaint B, which had been escalated on 10 January 2020, at stage 2. It apologised for the late response of 8 January 2020; accepted that the termination of the Notice of Vacation should have stated 1 December 2019 and apologised; explained that decorations were carried out on exceptional basis and the residents had not indicated that the decoration allowance was inadequate; provided all gas safety and capping off certificates; explained that an officer had carried out a home visit as a genuine effort to acknowledge the difficulties the residents had experienced in moving in and offered apologies for not showing the location of the electricity cupboard at the time of viewing.  The landlord also addressed repair issues raised by the representative stating that works to install a new front light were carried out as an improvement, the front gate had been adjusted and a contractor had attended to a repair for the sliding bathroom door but could not identify an issue.  The landlord agreed to send a Technical Officer to inspect the latter issue.
32. On 10 February 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to Complaint C.  It noted that the representative had disputed the chronology of events in the response of 13 January 2020, as it did not refer to the appointments of 19 and 22 November 2019.  The landlord in response relayed the information shown on the records on its contractor’s records and its own repairs system.  The landlord also addressed a point raised by the resident that the response should have stated that a further boiler repair occurred on 6 December 2019, not 7 December 2019. The landlord accepted this point and noted that the contractor’s appointment was made for 7 December 2019. 
33. In conclusion, the landlord stated that the chronology corresponded with its repair records with the single exception of the missed appointment of 22 November 2019. It did not find any evidence to suggest that the dates set out in the response had been manipulated as alleged.  The landlord also addressed several other queries and concerns raised by the resident.  This included explaining that the tenancy date was amended and a new tenancy agreement signed to reflect the time it would take to address issues with the boiler; issues arising after the installation of the boiler were related to the distribution pipework and not related to disrepair; explaining that the compensation rate for the period 20 to 27 November 2019 was calculated at the lower rate as the residents remained living at their previous address; the Right to Repair did not apply as the landlord had not failed to engage with the repairs process and explaining it was not aware that there would be ongoing issues with the new boiler when it sent the Stage 1 response as the difficulties were due to the residents’ carpet fitter damaging the distribution pipework in the bedroom.  The landlord noted that there was an invoice of £1,268.64 which it chose not to recover from the residents and noting that although the residents had stated there were discrepancies in safety certificates they had been provided copies of all certificates issued.
34. On 14 February 2020, the representative asked the landlord to escalated Complaint A to Stage 3 panel review. He reiterated his concerns that the residents were given keys prior to the tenancy start date with the boiler in disrepair and therefore were responsible for dealing with contractors attending to carry out works; restated his view that the residents were forced to sign the tenancy agreement, queried why the landlord had carried out a tenancy review meeting on 27 January 2020 when there was an ongoing complaint; stated that the landlord had not made clear that the offer to cover removal costs would be deducted from the total payable sum of £2,000 not the downsize payment of £500; reiterated his view that the garden at the previous property was not communal and queried why the residents were required to request the decoration of the property.  The representative also stated that the residents had not discussed a bespoke housing plan and asked for evidence of the plan.
35. On 20 February 2020, the representative responded to the response of 10 February 2020 and advised that he wished to escalate Complaint C to a Stage 3 panel review, outlining a number of reasons, and requesting higher compensation.  This included noting that there was intermittent heating and hot water supply both before and after the installation of the new boiler; stating the residents had been waiting in an unheated property for four hours during the missed appointment of 22 November 2020; querying whether compensation allowed under the Right to Repair applied and requesting that a higher rate of compensation be allowed for the period 20 to 27 November 2019. 
36. On 3 March 2020 the landlord’s contractor confirmed its finding that having inspected it was apparent that the system pressure loss coincided with the fitting of new carpets due to the area in which the leak was identified, existing pipe routes and the positioning of the new gripper rods.
37. On 5 March 2020 the landlord responded to the  Stage 3 complaint escalations.  The landlord noted that it had offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the boiler.  It stated that the compensation was increased to take into account the residents’ age and vulnerability, including the missed appointment on 22 November 2020.
38. The landlord addressed observations made by the resident stating that it believed that annotations on a gas certificate were comments made by the engineer to explain the certificate to the member of staff responding to the complaint; the leak on the heating circuit was caused by the carpet fitter where he had installed carpet gripper on an area where pipework ran through the screed and this caused the water pressure problems; it had reviewed all its records in relation to the boiler, its chronology and the residents’ chronology and that it was agreed at the viewing of 15 November 2019 that the residents could stay in their former property for another week and when the boiler issue arose it chose to draw up a new tenancy agreement.
39. The landlord further explained that it had referred to the first names of two staff members in the Stage 2 response as the resident had when addressing his stage 1 complaint; whilst the resident suggested that the landlord should provide evidence that it was not its intention unduly pressurise the residents to sign the tenancy for their new property, it had provided a clear response reassuring the residents that staff would not do so; in response to a query that it had not delayed the residents moving in because of the boiler issues, it had extended the tenancy start date on the assumption that the boiler would be working satisfactorily when they moved in and the contractor who attended the repair on 27 November 2019, prior to the residents moving in, advised that a satisfactory repair had been achieved and a comment in the chronology “unable to be used” referred to the lack of electrical supply  at that time to the boiler not that the boiler was beyond use. In response to the residents’ concern that they had been provided keys which caused inconvenience when access was required by the contractor, the landlord stated that it in fact had provided keys to the residents when the tenancy agreement was signed and they had wanted to move in their possessions.  Moreover, it had recognised the distress and inconvenience caused in its response and had offered compensation.
40. The landlord further refuted that the residents had been pressurised to sign the tenancy stating that it was in accordance with its process that they were asked to make a decision on the date of viewing, and moreover, afterwards, they did not request further time or indicate that they were pressurised.  The landlord also refuted that the Lettings Team failed in their “duty of care”, noting that it had bid for the property with the residents’ permission and were keen to do so before expiry of the seven day weekly advert cycle.
41. In response to the representative questioning the relevance of the “settling in visit” the landlord advised all new tenants were visited by a staff member from the local housing office and it was not an “underhand tactic”.  The landlord also noted that it did not believe that the bespoke housing plan had not been adhered to and had set out its position on each potential element of any claim in the stage one response.
42. The landlord confirmed that as per its decorations policy, whilst it could decorate it did not mean it would do so if decoration vouchers had been received by the tenant. The landlord noted that it had apologised and made an ex-gratia payment for an incorrect date being added to the V2 form and for not showing the residents where the electric meter was at the time of the viewing, even though it had a different recollection of events and these issues would not warrant compensation.
43. In conclusion the landlord stated that it had considered the matters raised in the representative’s letter of 14 and 20 February 2019, and having taken into account the previous correspondence it did not think it appropriate to convene a Stage 3 Panel. It stated that it had shown a willingness to review the issues raised by the complaint, provided fair and reasonable responses and had offered compensation in line with its policy. The landlord expressed regret for the difficulties with the move, particularly with respect to the boiler. 

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedure

Compensation Policy

44. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that

44.1.“Ex gratia compensation payments are not an automatic entitlement and are designed to recompense tenants in exceptional circumstances, for example where processes have not been properly followed…”

44.2.“Where appropriate, for the issue of distress caused to complainants, it is recommended appropriate sums to be in the range of £500 to £2000 per calendar year, adjusted pro rata to match the length of the inconvenience. Where the distress is related to intermittent periods they will be collated to produce a total figure.”

44.3.“With regards to ‘time and trouble’ payments, to reflect both the financial cost to the complainant and the time spent on pursuing the complaint (but separate from distress caused), it is recommended that where this is appropriate payments should normally be in the range of £50 to £250 per case, and only higher in ‘exceptional cases’.”

Complaints Policy

45. The landlord has a three stage complaints procedure. Its Complaints Policy states that:

45.1.“Stage One complaint will be dealt with by the appropriate service manager. The complainant will receive a full written response within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint.”

45.2.“At Stage two, a “written acknowledgement will be sent to the complainant within 3 working days and a full written response within 15 working days. If further investigation is required which means a full written response within 15 days is not possible the complainant will be notified within 10 working days of their request in writing with an indication of when a full response will be sent.”

45.3.“Eastend Homes reserves the right not to convene a Stage 3 Panel in certain circumstances, as defined by Eastend Homes Vexatious, Frivolous or Unreasonably Persistent Complaints Policy. These are:

1. The complaint has not been upheld at Stage 1 or 2.
2. The complaint is vexatious in that it is not deemed to be a genuine

complaint and would consume an excessive amount of resources to

investigate.

iii.The complaint is deemed to be unreasonably persistent and

repetitive in circumstances where:

additional issues or concerns are continually raised,

the complainant seeks to unreasonably prolong the complaint

through each stage of the process without any prospect of

resolution or apparent purpose,

the complainant is unwilling to accept an honest, reasonable and

factually accurate response from the organisation,

where the substance of the complaint is determined to relate to a

policy or procedural disagreement or difference in interpretation

or opinion rather than about service performance or failure

the learning outcome has already been identified and appropriate response has already been made to the complainant.”

 

Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy

46. The policy in effect at the time stated that:

46.1. “Eastend Homes will make payments to tenants in accordance with the size of the accommodation they are leaving, and that to which they are moving.”

46.2. “Tenants will be offered a financial incentive for each bedroom they give up to a maximum of £2,000. Tenants who move from a property with a minimum of 2 bedrooms to a smaller property and also give up a garden will be entitled to an additional premium of at least £500.”

46.3. “In addition to the incentive payments allowed, Eastend Homes will develop a bespoke housing plan for identified tenant under-occupiers who are prepared to move including reimbursement of all reasonable costs associated with the move, Eastend Homes officer and handyperson support and financial support in lieu of the incentive payments up to the maximum payment (£2,000).”

47. The policy further stated that:

47.1. “The following areas will be considered for reimbursement and as part of a package of support:

Removal expenses and help with the arrangements and related costs

1. including postal redirection, charges for disconnection and reconnection of

white goods and electricity and gas and providing new curtains, blinds,

carpets or floor covering.

2. Waiver of rechargeable works
3. Decoration allowance
4. Payment of rent arrears and rent payments for new property.
5. Travel costs for viewing new property.”

48.The payment schedule of the policy stated that where a two-bedroom property is surrendered for a one-bedroom property, an upper rate payment of £1000 can be paid if the property surrendered is “2 bed + ground floor accommodation with a garden”.  Otherwise, a lower rate payment of £500 is paid.

Decoration Allowance Policy

48. The policy states that:

48.1. “Where the standard of decoration in an empty property is not satisfactory, Eastend Homes will provide the in-coming tenant with vouchers for decoration materials. This will enable the tenant to purchase materials from a designated supplier and carry out the necessary work themselves.”

48.2. “In exceptional circumstances and in liaison with the incoming tenant Eastend Homes will undertake decorating work to properties during the pre-let or post-let period, for example where there are tenants of pensionable age or tenants registered as disabled, living on their own.”

 

Repairs and Maintenance Policy

49. The policy states that Emergency Repairs should be responded to within one hour and completed within 24 hours.  This includes the total loss of heating or hot water for elderly or vulnerable tenants between September and May.  Routine repairs should be responded to and completed within 28 calendar days.

Assessment

The Landlord’s handling of the transfer process

50. After the residents expressed an interest in the new property, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging a viewing so that the residents could make an informed decision on whether to accept the property.  Viewings are also in line with the landlord’s Void Policy which states that “Eastend Homes will carry out multiple viewings where appropriate”.
51. Landlords have a responsibility to minimise the time a property is void, not simply to meet financial viability standards but also to prevent reputational damage.  This is reflected in the Void Policy which states that “To meet housing needs and maximise rental income EeH prioritise turning round empty properties by repairing and letting them in accordance with the Lettings policy as quickly as possible.”  In this case, the landlord asked the residents to sign the tenancy agreement on the same day as the viewing which was in line with the Void Policy and administratively efficient. It also had a reasonable expectation that applicants would be in a position to accept a property if they had decided to attend a viewing. Had the residents wanted more time to make a decision, it would have been their responsibility to make this request and for the landlord to exercise its discretion.  However, there is no evidence that the residents, at the time, indicated that they required more time to accept the property, or that they had reconsidered, therefore there is no evidence of service failure on the part of the landlord
52. Although the start date of the tenancy agreement was post-dated, the landlord handed the resident the keys for the property.  This was reasonable as the resident still had occupation of their previous property and there could move belongings in over a period of time without being expected to move into the new property.  It is noted that the parties have provided different reasons for the tenancy agreement being post-dated to 2 December 2019, the landlord stating that further works to the boiler were required, but regardless there is no evidence that the residents disputed being handed the keys for the property after the viewing.
53. However, as further works to the boiler were required the residents were required to give access, causing them a degree of inconvenience as they were not living at the property at the time.  The landlord provided redress for this by awarding discretionary compensation for the period, 20 to 27 November 2019 that was in accordance with its Compensation Policy.  Although the representative argued that the landlord could have given compensation at a higher rate, the landlord provided an explanation why this did not apply. Its explanation was reasonable given that the residents was not living at the new property at that time and therefore did not experience a service failure in respect of their occupation of a property that would ordinarily merit compensation at a higher rate.
54. It is noted that the representative has made reference to a visit by an engineer on 19 November 2019 but in the absence of contemporaneous supporting evidence it cannot be confirmed that the landlord should have offered compensation for this date as well.  The representative was also consistent in stating that there was a missed appointment on 22 November 2019, which was not reflected in the landlord’s records.  It is reasonable for landlords to pay a sum of compensation specifically for missed appointment; however, again in this case, in the absence of contemporaneous supporting evidence provided to the landlord of the appointment, it cannot be concluded that the landlord acted inappropriately in not compensating for the reported missed appointment.  In any event, the landlord also made a discretionary payment for time and trouble of £250, which was the maximum allowable, and which taken altogether, provided reasonable redress for these instances.
55. With regards to the incentive provided to the residents for downsizing, the offer of £500 accorded with the downsizing incentive provided for by the Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy.  This is because the maximum award of £1,000 is only applicable if the previous property is ground floor with an exclusive garden; however, the residents’ previous property was on the first-floor, according to the information provided to this Service.  Also, according to the landlord, the garden at the previous property was shared.  The representative contended that the garden was for the exclusive use of the residents but provided no supporting evidence to the landlord.  Exclusive use of a garden would usually be provided in the tenancy agreement.
56. With regards to the reimbursement for defined moving costs allowed under the bespoke plan, the Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy is ambiguous insofar as it makes reference to payment being “in addition to the incentive payments allowed” but also in lieu of the incentive payments allowed up to the maximum payment (£2,000)”.  What is clear is that the residents could have received financial support of up to £2,000.  They were awarded £500 incentive payment, a decoration allowance of £341.25 and payment for the disconnection of white goods, electricity and gas.  However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept full records of the bespoke plan that was agreed or of the communication surrounding the plan, or that it made clear to the residents what they were eligible for under the policy, up to the maximum applicable payment.  This was a significant omission not only because there were  payments the residents were eligible for under a formal policy but also because moving property in itself can be stressful and it is important that all parties are clear on their rights and responsbilities.  There is also no evidence the residents were made aware, at the time of transfer, of all services covered under the bespoke plan, in particular, reimbursement for new carpets, blinds, carpets or floor covering.  It would appear that the residents would have lost the opportunity to claim for such costs had not they made a formal complaint. 
57. With regards to the decoration allowance that was paid, this was made in accordance with the Decoration Allowance policy.  It is a tenant’s responsibility to decorate and it is at the landlord’s discretion to decide whether to provide an allowance based on the decorative condition on the property.  In this case, the landlord assessed that a decoration allowance was warranted.
58. However, the Decoration Allowance policy allows the landlord to consider decorating itself in “exceptional circumstances”. By definition, this will not be frequent but the policy specifically refers to “tenants of pensionable age”, as were the residents, and liaising with the incoming tenant.  Therefore, the landlord should have proactively considered whether the residents had “exceptional circumstances”, instead of relying on the residents advising that the decoration allowance was insufficient when they may not have known of the possibility of the landlord decorating. The landlord, by its own acceptance in its complaint responses, did not take a proactive approach. This is not to say that the landlord was required to carry out decorations itself but that it should have considered this possibility.

Repairs works prior to, and at the commencement of the residents’ tenancy

59. The landlord has stated that the boiler in the new property was not operational at the time of the viewing and that works would be carried out prior to the tenancy commencing.  The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the safety and functioning  of the boiler, by producing a gas safety certificates on 3 October 2019 and 20 November 2019, then completing identified remedial works on 27 November 2019.  It was entitled to rely on the professional judgment of approved contractors and qualified members of staff.  As such, it was reasonable that the landlord concluded that the boiler was operational at the start of the tenancy on 2 December 2019.
60. It transpired that the residents made reports of disrepair to the boiler from 6 December 2019 culminating in the decision to replace the boiler on 30 December 2019.  The landlord offered compensation that provided adequate redress for the residents’ distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, insofar as it was in line with the Compensation Policy and was the maximum allowable.  The redress was also proportionate insofar as the landlord responded to the reports that it received and it is not evident that there was a constant, total loss of heating and hot water.
61. With regards to the further disrepair reported on 10 January 2020 it is noted that the parties have disputed the cause with the landlord considering that a carpet fitter inadvertently damaged a pipe. It is not the role of this Service to independently investigate the technical issues or to seek to determine the exact cause.  This Service has considered the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord attended on the same day in line with the repairs policy.  The landlord carried extensive works to the pipework to restore the heating and hot water system and whilst this was not carried out immediately, it explained the difficulty in diagnosing the disrepair to the resident, taking steps to manage their expectations.  It also provided heaters thereby taking steps to ensuring the residents had a heating source pending the repair to the heating and hot water system.
62. The correspondence provided to this Service indicates that the landlord did not meet the one hour timeframe set out for emergency repairs when responding on 10 January 2020.  However, for balance, it is noted that having concluded that the repair in the first instance arose from works carried out by the residents’ carpet fitter it could have sought to seek to recover the cost of the works but chose not to.

60.With regards to the light outside the residents’ property the landlord’s repair records indicate that it raised a repair on 9 December 2019 to “Supply and fit PIR security light to outside door” with a target date of 6 January 2020.  This is commensurate with the timeframe from routine repairs.  The landlord completed the repair within the target timeframe, therefore carried out the works adequately promptly.  It is also noted that the light was outside the residents’ property and not there before, therefore, constituted an ‘improvement’ according to the landlord. The landlord does not have an obligation to the residents to carry out improvements, but to keep the property in good repair, therefore it was to their benefit that the landlord agreed to carry out the works in the first instance.

Complaints handling

63. With regards to the landlord’s complaints handling, it did not meet the ten working day timeframe for responding to Stage 1 complaints under the Complaints Policy, for Complaints A and B.  The stage 2 response for complaint A was also late. However, the delays were a matter of days, therefore not excessive and did not cause any significant detriment to the residents. The landlord offered apologies in its responses which provided reasonable and proportionate redress.
64. It is also noted that when making and escalating his complaints, the representative was detailed, for instance, querying aspects of the chronology provided by the landlord; the significance of documentation provided and annotations; the dates on documents and, at times, motivations of the landlord’s staff. The landlord within its complaint responses addressed all these concerns, thereby acting thoroughly and diligently.  For instance, it outlined the information it held on its repair records, accepted discrepancies in dates and explained the actions and intentions of staff and contractors. It thereby demonstrated a willingness to reach a mutual understanding and agreement with the representative, and ultimately resolve the complaint.
65. The residents wished to escalate their complaints to Stage 3.  Under the landlord’s complaints policy there is no automatic right; this is at the discretion of the landlord. Generally, a landlord must balance the time and resources in arranging a panel hearing, and the prolongation of the complaint process against the benefit in convening the hearing.  In this case, the landlord in its final response of 5 March 2020 answered the outstanding matters raised in the representative’s Stage 3 escalation requests of 14 and 20 February 2020.  Taken together with the fact that there had already been a review of the complaints at Stage 2, it is evident that a fair complaints handling process had been followed. The landlord also explained to the resident why it did not consider appropriate to arrange a Stage 3 panel, specifically advising of its view that it had addressed the issues brought before it. This was allowed for by the complaints policy.

The Ombudsman would also expect that any decision on whether to escalate a complaint or not is made by a member of a staff with sufficient authority to make that decision. The final response of 5 March 2020 was made by a senior member of staff who held such authority.

Determination (decision)

The Landlord’s handling of the transfer process

66. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the viewing and moving in process.  However, there was service failure in respect of the landlord following relevant policies.

Handling of repair works prior to, and at the commencement of the residents’ tenancy. 

67. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repair works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

68. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repair works.

Reasons

The Landlord’s handling of the transfer process

69. The Landlord asked the residents to sign the tenancy agreement on the same day as the viewing which was in line with the Void Policy and administratively efficient. There is no evidence that the residents, at the time, indicated that they required more time to accept the property, or that they had reconsidered, therefore there is no evidence of service failure on the part of the landlord. There is also no evidence that the residents disputed being handed the keys for the property.
70. Although there was inconvenience to the residents from having to provide access for repairs prior to the start of the tenancy, the landlord provided reasonable redress for this by awarding discretionary compensation for the period, 20 to 27 November 2019 that was in accordance with its Compensation Policy.
71. With regards to the incentive provided to the residents for downsizing, the offer of £500 accorded with the downsizing incentive provided for by the Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy.
72. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept full records of the bespoke plan that was agreed or of the communication surrounding the plan, or that it made clear to the residents what they were eligible for under the policy, up to the maximum applicable payment. There is also no evidence the residents were made aware, at the time of transfer, of all services covered under the bespoke plan, in particular reimbursement for new carpets, blinds, carpets or floor covering.
73. Furthermore, although the landlord paid a decoration allowance in line with the policy, the landlord according to the policy should have proactively considered whether the residents had “exceptional circumstances” that may have warranted the landlord decorating itself. It was unreasonable that it relied on the residents advising that the decoration allowance was insufficient when they may not have known of the possibility of the landlord decorating.

Handling of repair works prior to, and at the commencement of the residents’ tenancy 

74. The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that safety and functioning  of the boiler by producing a gas safety certificates on 3 October 2019 and 20 November 2019, then completing identified remedial works on 27 November 2019. 
75. In respect of the disrepair to the boiler culminating in the replacement of the boiler on 30 December 2020, the landlord offered compensation that provided adequate redress for the residents’ distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, insofar as it was in line with the Compensation Policy and was the maximum allowable.  The redress was also proportionate insofar as the landlord responded to the reports that it received and it is not evident that there was a constant, total loss of heating and hot water.
76. With regards to further disrepair reported on 10 January 2021, the landlord attended on the same day in line with the repairs policy.  The landlord carried extensive works to the pipework to restore the heating and hot water system and whilst this was not carried out immediately, it explained the difficulty in diagnosing the disrepair to the residents, taking steps to manage their expectations.  It also provided heaters thereby taking steps to ensuring the residents had  a heating source pending the repair to the heating and hot water system. The landlord could have sought to seek to recover the cost of the works but chose not to.
77. With regards to the installation of a light outside the residents’ property, the landlord completed the repair within the target timeframe. The works constituted an improvement which the landlord was not obliged to carry out, therefore it was to the residents’ benefit that the landlord agreed to carry out the works in the first instance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

78. Although there were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, they were a matter of days, therefore not excessive and did not cause any significant detriment to the residents.  The landlord offered apologies in its responses which provided reasonable and proportionate redress.
79. The representative in his complaints raised many issue and queries.  The landlord within its compIaint responses addressed all these concerns thereby demonstrating a willingness to reach a mutual understanding and agreement with the representative, and ultimately resolve the complaint within the complaints procedure.
80. The landlord was not obliged to escalate the complaint to a Stage 3 panel. The landlord in its final response of 5 March 2020 answered the outstanding matters raised in the representative’s Stage 3 escalation requests of 14 and 20 February 2020.  Taken together with the fact that there had also been a review of the complaints at Stage 2, it is evident that a fair complaints handling process had been followed.
81. The landlord also explained to the resident why it did not consider appropriate to arrange a Stage 3 panel, specifically advising of its view that it had addressed the issues brought before it.  This was allowed for by the complaints policy.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

82. The landlord pay the residents £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to keep a record of the bespoke plan and be clear about what they were eligible for under the Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy.
83. The landlord pay the residents £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to proactively consider whether the residents had “exceptional circumstances” that may have warranted the landlord decorating itself.
84. The landlord is to confirm completion of the above orders by 29 January 2021.

Recommendations

85. The landlord drafts a procedure for the completion of repairs in properties where the tenancy has not yet commenced but the incoming tenants, who may or may not be in occupation of the property, have already been given keys.
86. The landlord drafts a procedure for staff in respect of its Downsizing Policy (which replaced the Under-Occupation and Incentive to Move policy in June 2020).  This should cover the keeping of records of how the policy was applied in any given case, what information is provided to applicant so that he/she is clear on what they may be eligible for and what was ultimately agreed.
87. The landlord drafts guidance for staff in respect of the Decorations Policy, with particular reference to the consideration and identification of “exceptional circumstances” that may lead to the landlord carrying out decorations itself.
88. The landlord, if it has not already done so, carries out a self-assessment of its complaints procedure against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord considers the guidance from this Service that a landlord’s complaints procedure should have two stages. If the landlord believes strongly it requires a third stage, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment.