Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202223539)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223539

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

20 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 the landlord’s:
1. management of the resident’s rent;
2. handling of soundproofing works and other repairs to the property, including temporary rehousing of the resident;
3. response to the resident’s request for double glazed windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. This includes complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about council tax. He has been advised to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and/or the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) in relation to this. It is noted that neither the LGSCO nor the landlord can change the council tax banding of a property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord and lives with his elderly mother and adult daughter. He moved to the property, which is a three-bedroom maisonette occupying the upper two floors of a converted four-storey end-terrace house, in September 2019. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although he has informed it of his mother’s age and health issues.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant in relation to repairs. The handbook confirms that the landlord is responsible for plastering, plasterboard, glazing, stairs, and sanitary fixtures and fittings. Repairs are divided into five categories of priority, with target completion times of between two hours (emergency repairs) and 20 working days (routine repairs).
The landlord’s lettable standard document describes the property condition that tenants can expect when they move into their new home. It states that the property will be in good repair; that plasterwork will be in a satisfactory condition; that kitchen units will be in a sound condition; and that windows will be watertight, with any broken windows reglazed and double glazed units replaced if they are defective. It further states that vinyl flooring in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet will be intact, and notes that the landlord does not provide floor coverings to other rooms.
This is supported by the tenancy agreement, which states that tenants must “put down a suitable floor covering, with adequate underlay or insulation underneath it, to make sure that any noise, including normal day-to-day noise, could not and does not cause a nuisance to your neighbours”. The landlord does not have a specific policy in relation to soundproofing, but its internal guidance states that in the event of a noise transference issue, its surveyor would carry out an inspection in order to identify the source of the noise transmission and any deficiencies in the structure of the building. Where possible, it will insulate and isolate fittings (such as a pipe) to minimise noise transference “within all practicable limits”.
The landlord also has no specific policy in relation to double glazing, but its internal guidance states that where the energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property meets the lettable standard and the windows are assessed by its surveyor as being fit for purpose, they will be upgraded as part of a capital works programme. The guidance also notes that it will consider any vulnerabilities when deciding whether to replace glazing outside of a capital works programme. The landlord has informed this Service that an EPC rating of D is in accordance with its lettable standard.
The landlord’s emergency and major works decant policy states that the landlord has a duty to provide alternative accommodation to tenants when their accommodation has become unsuitable to live in. This may be for a variety of reasons, including “property becoming uninhabitable because of serious disrepair” and “major/complex works being undertaken resulting in the accommodation being temporarily unsafe for habitation”. In cases where a decant may be required, the policy states that a surveyor will visit the property to inspect its condition and determine whether a decant is warranted. If the surveyor finds that a decant is appropriate, this will be authorised by the relevant manager and a decant form approved by the relevant head of service. The form includes a programme of works and estimated length of time that temporary accommodation will be required. The landlord will make two offers of decant accommodation. Alternatively, tenants may choose to make their own arrangements on a temporary basis; this is their own responsibility and the landlord will not make payments towards rent or occupation of a property under such private arrangements, although it may consider a subsistence payment. The policy states that council tax will always be levied on the occupied property, and any deficit on the decanted property addressed by the landlord.
The landlord’s emergency and major works decant procedure states that, if tenants choose to stay with family or friends instead of temporary accommodation, their case will still be managed as a decant. It also confirms that all tenants who are required to move due to disrepair or improvement works will be entitled to a disturbance payment, which is calculated as a one-off payment of £500 plus £100 for each bedroom in the property. In cases where the tenant is arranging their own accommodation for the period of the decant, the landlord may offer a larger payment of £1,000 plus £100 for each bedroom. Where applicable, rent arrears will be deducted from any payments made.
In addition, the landlord’s repairs complaints compensation policy states that it may award financial compensation in cases where a resident has experienced a delay or incurred additional costs due to its service failure. Examples of such circumstances include: inability to use part of the property; failure to meet agreed standards of service, including delays in delivering services; poor complaint handling; and where the landlord or its contractors have failed to communicate properly. It will not consider compensation in cases where work is required at a property and an action plan has been provided and kept to.
Awards of compensation for time, trouble and/or inconvenience range from £50 (for minor failure) to over £700 (for extensive disruption), whereas awards of up to £100 may be made for complaint handling failure. When assessing the amount that is due, the landlord will consider the extent of the time, trouble and inconvenience suffered; the time taken to resolve the issue; recognition of its failure to follow policies and procedures; and any vulnerability within the household, such as age. Where it is found to be at fault, it will rectify the issue by acknowledging mistakes, explaining why things went wrong and setting out what it will do to prevent the same issue happening again.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it will acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours and respond within 15 working days. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will notify the complainant of this, the reasons why, and when it will respond. A complainant may escalate their complaint to stage two within 20 working days of the stage one response, and at stage two, the landlord will carry out a review of the stage one outcome within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Before the resident’s tenancy at the property began, the landlord had received noise complaints from the occupant of the property below and was aware of noise transference issues between the two properties. An energy performance certificate dated 9 August 2019 showed that the property had an energy efficiency rating of 59 (with a grading of D on a scale of A-G), whereas its potential rating was 72 (grade C). The document recommended three actions to improve the energy efficiency of the property, including “replace single glazed windows with low-E double glazed windows”.
The landlord decanted the resident to the property in September 2019 when the block containing his previous property was found to have structural issues and set to be demolished. His previous property contained wooden flooring and marble fittings in some rooms. It also had double glazed windows. The previous property fell into council tax Band C, whereas the new property fell into Band E.
At the time that the resident’s tenancy began, a number of works to the property remained outstanding, including: replacement of kitchen units; installation of a shower and tiling in the bathroom; repair of cracks in four rooms; renewal of glazing in the hall window; and soundproofing works. The landlord inspected the property the same month and concluded that it was not habitable. Its records show that it considered rescinding the tenancy and reinstating the property’s void status – which would allow it to complete the works before entering into a new tenancy agreement with the resident – but it instead decided to offer the resident a further temporary decant. The resident declined the property it offered and made his own arrangements to stay with friends.
The landlord’s environmental services team carried out a sound test at the property on 10 October 2019. In December 2019 the landlord raised six work orders relating to the property. An order raised on 10 December 2019 concerned works to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway. Further work orders raised on 24 December 2019 related to plastering of the hallway and replacing a cracked floor tile in the bedroom, although it was later established that there was no cracked tile. On 30 December 2019 a work order was raised regarding a defective boiler, and on 31 December 2019 another work order was raised regarding a blocked kitchen sink. The repair logs show that the boiler issue was fixed on 9 January 2020.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 March 2020, stating that:
1. He had had to deal with “numerous problems” at the property since his tenancy began, most of which were yet to be resolved.
2. The landlord had not informed him of the outcome of its sound test on 10 October 2019, as it said it would.
3. He was unable to fully refurbish the property as there was a possibility that further soundproofing works would be required.
4. An energy efficiency report that was completed in respect of the property before he moved in had recommended the installation of double glazed windows. He had had double glazing in his previous property, and the landlord had assured him that anything his previous property had would be applied to his new one.
5. The change from council tax Band C to Band E had resulted in a substantial increase to his council tax bill. He had not been made aware of the banding before he moved in and thought the new property would be Band D. He was finding it difficult to pay the increased rate.
6. The landlord’s surveyors who inspected the property in September 2019 agreed that there was “a lot of unfinished work”. He had been told that the outstanding works would be completed by the landlord’s contractor.
7. He had experienced several issues with utilities at the property, including a blocked sink, lack of hot water and heating. This was resolved on 31 December 2019 “after many calls and follow-ups”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and told him the relevant service would be asked to respond by 2 April 2020. It said he would be informed of any delay as soon as possible. The landlord’s records show that, while it discussed the complaint internally between 13 and 18 March 2020, it did not inform the resident that it would be unable to respond by its target date.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord raised a work order for plaster cracks throughout the property to be repaired. The repair logs indicate that an appointment was arranged for 24 April 2020, although an update on 6 May 2020 stated that no access could be gained by the attending operative.
The resident phoned the landlord on 17 April 2020, and followed this up with an email on 21 April 2020 to request an update on his complaint. The landlord raised a further four work orders for “monthly planned maintenance” on 27 May 2020. On 31 May 2020 it had a conversation with the resident about “all issues” and agreed that its structural surveyor would visit the property on 3 June 2020.
The information provided to this Service indicates no further developments until 16 October 2020, when an internal decant request was made to the landlord’s supported moves team. On 1 November 2020, a work order (with no description) was raised in respect of the property. The landlord offered the resident a decant to a nearby three-bedroom property on 16 December 2020, but he declined this as he felt that it was not of the same standard as his current home. Following another period of several months, a work order was raised to “carry out works as per site visit with [structural surveyor]” on 18 May 2021.
An internal email by the landlord on 7 June 2021 noted that the resident had not been residing in the property since September 2019 due to disrepair, and that he had made his own living arrangements. The email said that the property was “still not habitable and awaiting completion of works”.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2021, stating that:
1. It apologised for its delay in responding.
2. There had been several developments since the resident made his complaint, and it had considered a variety of options for carrying out works to his home. It was now in a position to outline what it intended to do about the soundproofing and outstanding void repairs.
3. Its environmental services noise team had carried out several sound tests and concluded that there was a high degree of noise transference between the property and the flat below. It subsequently undertook to carry out soundproofing works, but there had been long delays due to difficulties in sourcing a suitable contractor.
4. It recognised that there were repairs outstanding which should have been completed while the property was void. A job was raised in February 2020 in relation to filling and decorating in various locations throughout the property. Its surveyor then identified further issues, including the need to level the kitchen floor. It planned to carry out the necessary works on a room by room basis, as it needed to factor in any further soundproofing works when carrying out general repairs.
5. It proposed that works would start in the first room (the lounge) on 21 June 2021. During the first week it would lay soundproofing materials under the floor and also complete the filling and decorating required in the lounge. It would need to remove the ply flooring and underlay, replace this with acoustic matting, and install new ply overlay. Its structural surveyor would oversee these works.
6. It would then review the effectiveness of the soundproofing works to the floor before planning the next stage of the works. It needed to assess whether the soundproofing had achieved its aim before installing it to other rooms.
7. It aimed to complete its assessment and provide details of its further plans, including an approximate timescale, by the end of June 2021. It would keep in touch with the resident in order to update him.
8. It accepted that it previously told the resident the property was not habitable until it had completed at least some of the works. It also understood that the resident had been unable to organise the property as he would wish because he had been waiting for its contractors to complete the outstanding works. It was aware that he had not moved into temporary decant accommodation but had made his own arrangements to stay elsewhere. For this reason, it had waived his rent and council tax payments to date, and would continue to do so until the end of July 2021.
9. It had previously offered the resident temporary decant accommodation, but he did not feel able to accept the property offered. He had recently indicated that his current arrangements were becoming difficult and that he would like it to assist with temporary accommodation. It would consider this as part of its overall review of the case at the end of June 2021.
10. With regard to the resident’s request for double glazing, its surveyor had inspected the windows and concluded that they were in good condition. No works were therefore needed.
11. Its council tax team had confirmed that the property had been in Band E since the implementation of the system in 1998. It did not have a record of any comments made about the banding during the decant process. It could not change the banding as this was outside its control.
12. It was sorry for its delay in completing works that should have been carried out while the property was void, and also in carrying out soundproofing works. It appreciated that the issues had gone on for a long time as it was almost two years since the resident’s tenancy began.
13. As part of its review of works and next steps at the end of June 2021, it would consider when it was appropriate to restart rent and council tax payments. It would also review whether it still considered the property to be uninhabitable, and if so, at what point the resident could be expected to live there and what options it could offer in the meantime.
14. It offered a “goodwill compensation payment” of £150 in recognition of its delay in responding to his complaint. It would consider whether any further compensation was merited in relation to its handling of the repairs when it reviewed the case at the end of the month.
15. If the resident felt it had not answered his complaint fully, he could request that any outstanding items were addressed at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 9 August 2021, noting that it had taken him longer than expected to respond as he was waiting to receive advice from Citizens Advice. He gave the following reasons for escalating his complaint:
1. He noted the landlord’s comments regarding the soundproofing and void works, but he felt it had taken too long for the initial soundproofing works to begin. The sound test had been carried out on 10 October 2019 but the remedial works did not begin until 21 June 2021.
2. The works that were commenced on 21 June 2021 were completed in the first week of July 2021, but since then he had received no communication from the landlord regarding next steps. He had contacted it and received no response.
3. In his previous property, he had 72m2 of wooden flooring and marble in his bathroom, toilet and kitchen. He was previously told that this would be reinstated in his new property in areas where it was permissible.
4. The issues he had experienced with the property had caused him and his family considerable stress and inconvenience. His daughter was studying a demanding university course and had no home to relax and revise in, which had impacted her coursework and mental health. His mother was in her 80s and had recently diagnosed with cancer for which she required an operation; the property issues had caused her additional stress during an already stressful time. Together his household had faced “almost two years of a lack of communication, inconsistent planning and unprofessional decision making”.
5. The energy efficiency report gave the windows in the property a rating of 1 out of 5 and recommended that they were replaced. This meant that the current cost of heating the property was significantly higher than it would be if the windows were double glazed. He asked the landlord to take this into account.
6. He was moved out of his previous property because the landlord declared it to be unsafe. It was unfair to ask him to pay more council tax because of an event over which he had no control.
7. The landlord had provided information about the move which said that his rent would not increase, but did not mention council tax, which he felt was misleading. If he had been aware of the banding of the new property he would have had the opportunity to object at an earlier stage. He did not feel that the banding should be changed, but asked the landlord to exercise discretion in the council tax charge made to him.
8. He had been let down by the landlord and simply wanted to live in a property that was safe and met the promised requirements.
9. He declined the offer of £150 compensation. He noted that the landlord intended to consider further compensation from the end of the month, and felt that a substantial payment was due.
The landlord discussed the resident’s case internally on 16 August 2021 but did not contact him or acknowledge his escalation request. On 14 September 2021 Citizens Advice contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord subsequently acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 30 September 2021 and apologised for its delay in doing so. It said it would respond by 12 October 2021. However, it did not provide a response – or inform the resident that it required an extension – by that date.
The landlord again discussed the resident’s case internally between 18 and 29 November 2021. On 1 December 2021 the resident’s adviser from Citizens Advice contacted the landlord to request the outcome of a soundproofing test that had recently been carried out at the property. The landlord replied the same day to say that it would request an update on progress of works and the test results. It also apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint.
Having received no further contact, the resident phoned the landlord’s contact centre on 17 December 2021 and requested a call back. The landlord’s allocated stage two responder attempted to call the resident the same day but was unable to get through. An internal email by the landlord noted that its stage two responder had read through the case and would seek an update from the repairs department during a meeting on 20 December 2021. The resident phoned the landlord again on 20 December 2021 and was informed of this plan. When the resident phoned the landlord for a third time on 24 December 2021, it informed him that it was moving to a skeleton staff for the Christmas period and would reopen on 4 January 2022.
On 4 January 2022, the resident called the landlord to request a temporary decant for his elderly mother until the repairs were completed. He noted that he didn’t know when the soundproofing would be post-inspected or whether double glazing would be installed following an energy performance certificate (EPC) report. The landlord sought internal updates on 10 and 11 January 2022, and on 13 and 14 January 2022 the resident reiterated his request for a temporary decant, explaining that his mother was being discharged from hospital and needed somewhere safe to live. The landlord discussed the possibility of a surveyor’s visit to check the condition of the property, but delayed this until the surveyor who was leading on the case returned from leave, noting that “unless absolutely necessary I would like to avoid sending another surveyor to re-inspect”.
On 3 February 2022 the resident requested an urgent call back from the landlord. It returned his call and followed this up with an email, in which it accepted that “you and your mother have been unable to reside at the property due to outstanding repair works”. It confirmed that a joint visit by its surveyor and repairs contractor was required in order to go through the scope of works. It told the resident that, while it was unable to authorise temporary accommodation, it had asked its contractor to schedule the visit urgently.
The resident requested a further urgent call back on 4 February 2022. He said he was under pressure from the hospital, social services and emergency housing team regarding his mother’s discharge from hospital and why she could not return to her home. He requested a letter from the landlord stating that the property was not in a liveable condition. The landlord’s records show that it “pressed the resident as to why he believes the property is uninhabitable”. He replied that, while the living room flooring had been put back down following the soundproofing works, the soundproofing had not yet been tested and other repairs were also outstanding (such as a cracked ceiling in the bedroom and kitchen which required replacement of plasterboards). The landlord said it would liaise with its repairs team regarding progress of the works and whether a decant was deemed necessary, and if so, arrange a letter for the hospital.
On 9 February 2022 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and produced a list of works required. These included: removing and refixing five kitchen units; fitting an electric shower and shower curtain; 3m of tiling to the bathroom wall; crack/filler repairs to all three bedrooms and the hallway; renewal of tread to one step; and renewal of glazing to the hall window to match other windows.
On 1 March 2022 the resident requested an update from the landlord following its visit on 9 February 2022. It chased this internally and also requested a quote from its contractor in relation to soundproofing works in the kitchen, bathroom and hall/landing. A work order was raised the same day (1 March 2022). On 16 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his request for an update on 1 March 2022. On 18 March 2022 the landlord inspected the property and informed the resident of works that were required. These included: repair of a crack to glass in the kitchen; installation of soundproofing to the kitchen floor, including renewal of vinyl sheet; fitting of wall tiles to ceiling from bath to ensure the area was watertight; fitting a shower, shower curtain and rail; installation of soundproofing to the bathroom floor; installation of soundproofing to flooring on the landings; renewal of broken glazing in the hallway; repair of cracks in the hallway; renewal of broken tread to stairs; and repair of cracks to ceilings in the bedrooms. The resident requested a timetable for this work on 19 March 2022, and the landlord replied on 21 March 2022 that it would provide this once its contractor had confirmed its availability.
A system note by the landlord on 22 March 2022 stated that “there will be no decant and the property is considered habitable”. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this decision was shared with the resident. On 12 April 2022 the resident asked the landlord why its contractor was taking so long to respond after visiting his property and producing a detailed report. On 26 April 2022 the landlord was contacted by the resident’s energy provider, which had been informed by the resident that he had been unable to reside at the property since his tenancy began and that the landlord was responsible for utility charges. A further system note by the landlord on 25 May 2022 noted that it had been decided a decant was not necessary, and queried whether works had been appointed with an expected date for completion.
On 30 May 2022 the resident’s adviser contacted the landlord about a rent statement he had received, which said that his account was in arrears by £15,172.52. The adviser noted that this contradicted all previous communications by the landlord, which said that the resident’s rent had been waived since 2 September 2019 until works had been carried out to make the property habitable. The adviser’s email also highlighted that the resident had been told in February 2020 that his weekly rent would be £97.93, whereas his latest statement said it was significantly higher at £161.83. An internal email by the landlord the same day said “Citizens Advice rep chased today – don’t know what to tell them”.
A further note by the landlord on 13 July 2022 stated that it had moved to a different contractor. It also said that the quote for works to the resident’s property had been approved, with appointment dates having been chased on 1 and 6 July 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2022, stating that:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had requested to escalate his complaint in August 2021, and apologised for its delay in sending its final response. It had kept the complaint open in order to monitor progress of the case.
2. Regarding insulation and flooring:
  1. It understood installation of underfloor insulation was completed to the lounge in July 2021, but the resident was not updated regarding installation of insulation in the remaining rooms.
  2. There had been a long and unacceptable delay in progressing this specialist work. It apologised for the delay and for the lack of communication the resident had received from its staff and contractors.
  3. There was also a significant delay in testing the soundproofing in the lounge.
  4. It had now arranged for its contractor to install soundproofing in the kitchen, bathroom and hallway. This work was due to begin on 25 July 2022 and was expected to be completed by 3 August 2022.
  5. The resident had asked it to send its stage two response before the work commenced.
  6. The resident’s complaint was kept open “well beyond our usual timeframe” to monitor progress with getting works appointed.
  7. It asked the resident to allow its operatives access to the property so that works could go ahead as scheduled.
  8. It confirmed that wood and marble flooring was not permissible in the property. Instead, it could supply its standard lino flooring for the kitchen and bathroom. The resident was responsible for floor coverings elsewhere in the property.
3. Regarding windows and energy efficiency, its surveyor had checked the windows and reported that they were in good condition and not in need of replacement. Since the windows were at a lettable standard, it had no plans to renew them.
4. Regarding council tax, it had previously confirmed that the property had been in Band E since the implementation of the system. It initially agreed to waive council tax and rent payments until July 2021 while it was waiting for soundproofing to be installed in the lounge.
5. It had offered the resident £150 compensation at stage one of its complaints process. Since that time, there had been a long delay in appointing specialist works. It appreciated that this had had a significant impact on the resident and his family, who suffered delays, disruption and inconvenience.
6. Its surveyor confirmed that the property was habitable in March 2022. It would waive the resident’s rent for a further seven months (from August 2021 to February 2022), amounting to £4,942.
7. Considering everything that had happened, it would also like to offer an additional £1,000 in compensation.
8. Since the resident’s rent account was in arrears, the compensation and reimbursement of rent would be credited to his account in line with its policy.

Post complaint

On 25 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that, while contractors had begun soundproofing works to his property that day, they were not authorised to carry out all of the work listed in the landlord’s email of 18 March 2022. The unauthorised works related to renewal of broken glazing, repair of cracks, and renewal of broken tread to stairs. The resident phoned the landlord to follow this up on 26 July 2022, and it made enquiries internally.
On 27 July 2022 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response via his adviser. He said that:
1. He accepted his responsibility for supplying some of the floor coverings for his property. However, he asked the landlord to confirm that it would meet the cost of replacing these floor coverings if it became necessary to take them up in order to carry out further works that were the landlord’s responsibility.
2. The landlord had agreed to waive his rent from the start of his tenancy in September 2019 until July 2021. However, he had paid instalments of rent in September and October 2019 when he first moved into the property. He asked it to confirm that these payments would be refunded to him.
3. He asked it to waive council tax charges from August 2021 to February 2022, as he felt that was reasonable.
4. He also felt it was reasonable for the landlord to waive his rent and council tax charges from March 2022 until the repair works were completed.
5. He was not aware that the landlord’s surveyor had declared the property to be habitable in March 2022, and he requested evidence of this.
6. In practice, nothing had changed for him or his downstairs neighbour. He noted that the soundproofing works were for his neighbour’s benefit as well as his own, and it would be intolerable for the neighbour if he and his family were to move back in before the works were completed.
7. He reiterated his previous query about his weekly rent increasing. He asked the landlord to confirm that the increased amount was incorrect.
8. He also asked his point of contact (the landlord’s stage two responder) to confirm that they were authorised to respond on behalf of the landlord’s whole organisation, as he did not wish to continue communicating with its rent and council tax departments separately.
The landlord discussed the resident’s points internally between 27 July 2022 and 9 September 2022. Its records show that the soundproofing and kitchen floor works were completed on 11 August 2022. On 7 September 2022 the resident’s adviser re-sent the resident’s reply to the landlord’s stage two response and noted that the remedial works had now been completed, but the soundproofing had not yet been tested. The adviser asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s outstanding queries.

On 13 and 20 September 2022 the landlord informed the resident (via his adviser) that:
1. It had liaised with its supported moves team, who advised that the resident had not been offered a decant while works were being completed as they could be done with him in situ. The works consisted of acoustic matting and new flooring being installed in the lounge and works to the kitchen. It therefore did not agree to the resident’s request for a decant and needed to make arrangements for the resident to start to pay his council tax. In addition to ongoing charges, he owed previous tax charges from 2 September 2019 to 26 October 2020.
2. According to its policy, tenants and leaseholders were responsible for providing floor coverings. In some circumstances it might use its discretion, and in others floor coverings may be covered by a resident’s contents insurance policy. It would look at each case as it happened, and could not comment on something that had not happened.
3. It did not consider it appropriate to waive the resident’s rent and council tax charges from March 2022 until the repair works were completed. The property was deemed to be habitable from March 2022, and it had offered significant compensation for the inconvenience and disruption suffered.
4. While its complaints team liaised with other internal teams in order to respond to complaints, it would be necessary for the resident to engage with its rent income and council tax teams as the complaints team did not have access to the resident’s account balances.
5. It recommended that the resident raised his query regarding the amount of weekly rent with its rent income team. It provided the team’s contact details.
An update provided to this Service by the landlord on 15 May 2023 stated that:
1. The resident had not yet moved back into the property.
2. Its strategic director and head of property engagement met with the resident on 5 May 2023 to discuss and try to resolve the outstanding issues.
3. During this meeting, it agreed that if the resident’s carpets had to be lifted in order for further works to be carried out and became damaged, it would replace them.
4. The resident had also requested an undertaking that the soundproofing works carried out had resolved the noise transference issue. It was unable to provide this, as not all measures to mitigate noise transference were in place (including re-laying of floor coverings, which would be completed by the resident when he moved back in) and it had been unable to assess their effectiveness.
5. It was satisfied that its works to resolve the noise transference had been completed. Some painting work remained outstanding and it was arranging to complete this as a priority. Its surveyor had previously had issues with gaining access to the property in order to post-inspect all works.
A further update provided by the landlord on 17 July 2023 stated that:
1. It had met with the resident again on 10 July 2023.
2. The decorating works, including additional redecoration that the resident requested, had been completed to a high standard and signed off on post-inspection.
3. It had laid vinyl flooring in the hallway and on the landings as part of the redress offered.
4. It had also agreed to install two missing kitchen wall cabinets and to replace all doors on the existing cabinets to match.
5. Repairs to the top step of the stairs remained outstanding, but could be completed with the resident and his family in situ.
6. It had waived the resident’s rent and council tax charges until 5 May 2023.
7. It increased its offer of compensation to £4,050, comprising:
  1. £2,700 for delays to works and negative impacts on the resident;
  2. £750 for his time and trouble;
  3. £600 for its delays in responding to his stage one and two complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. This Service therefore cannot assess whether the resident’s current or previous rent (or any difference between them) is appropriate. Instead, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to reimbursement of rent and his concerns about a rent increase.

Management of rent

The resident was unable to reside in the property when his tenancy began in September 2019, due to its condition. Whether the tenancy should have begun in such circumstances is addressed below. Since it did begin, the landlord waived the resident’s rent until March 2022 when its surveyor determined that the property was habitable. However, the landlord did not inform the resident that it considered the property habitable until it issued its stage two response to his complaint in July 2022. By this time, the resident had received a rent statement (in May 2022) which said that his account was over £15,000 in arrears. The statement itself, together with the landlord’s delay of almost two months in allaying his concerns, caused him considerable alarm and distress.
It was appropriate for the landlord to waive the resident’s rent between September 2019 and March 2022 when the property was uninhabitable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was also right for it to waive the rent until May 2023, as until then it had failed to answer relevant questions and the resident could not reasonably have been expected to feel able to move back in. Removal of rent charges for the full 43-month period is reflective not only of the disruption caused to the resident by making his own arrangements, but also of the landlord’s failure to create conditions in which the resident’s continued concerns could be resolved. In view of the late stage at which the landlord revised its position – after the case had been allocated for investigation within this Service, and in the context of a wider paragraph 49 investigation into the landlord’s practices – a finding of reasonable redress is considered inappropriate, and an order has been made in relation to rent reimbursement. Had the landlord not offered an ultimately acceptable level of redress in relation to rent charges, a finding of maladministration would have been made.
Separately, the resident first raised his concern regarding a rent increase with the landlord in October 2019. He then raised it again on 30 May 2022, after he had received its stage one response to his complaint and requested to escalate the complaint to stage two. While the matter was not specifically raised by the resident in his initial complaint, it formed one of “numerous problems … which are yet to be resolved”, and the landlord addressed rent charges in its stage two response as well as in its follow-up response on 20 September 2022. The Ombudsman therefore has discretion to consider its handling of the issue.
While the resolution was straightforward – the landlord accepted that the stated rent was incorrect, and confirmed on 12 May 2023 that its system had been amended – it delayed for three years in putting his mind at rest, necessitating repeated communications from the resident and his adviser. It was right for the landlord to honour its commitment (in February 2019) that “should you move into a property with the same number of bedrooms, it will be the same rent as your current property”, and subsequently to correct its records. However, the avoidable distress caused to the resident as a result of its delay has resulted in a finding of service failure. The Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of a more sympathetic and tailored approach, particularly in circumstances where the resident was understandably worried about other aspects of his financial situation.

Rehousing, soundproofing works and other repairs

Rehousing

When the property was offered to the resident as a permanent decant in September 2019, it did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard. It should therefore not have completed the landlord’s voids procedure and been made available to be re-let. Had the landlord completed the soundproofing works and other repairs prior to letting the property, many of the issues experienced by the resident would have been avoided. The landlord’s records show that it considered options for ending and restarting the tenancy, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this should have been explored with internal decision makers of appropriate seniority and with the resident once its surveyor became aware of the condition of the property (if not before). If the resident did not agree to end the tenancy, or if it was not possible to explore this option for some other reason, the landlord should have been clear that a temporary decant was necessary. It appears that, because the resident made his own arrangements rather than accepting a decant property offered by the landlord, his situation was not treated as a decant; however, the landlord’s emergency and major works decant procedure states that cases where tenants choose to stay with friends or family will still be managed as decants.
Since the resident had chosen to make his own arrangements in 2019, it is not clear why a decant to a specified property was offered to him in December 2020. Nonetheless, when he asked the landlord to provide decant accommodation in January 2022, it should have followed the same non-emergency process it followed between September and December 2020. Its omission meant that for a period of 11 weeks (between 4 January 2022 and 22 March 2022), it failed to offer suitable decant accommodation to a tenant who required it and whose property was accepted to be uninhabitable. It was particularly inappropriate for the landlord’s officer to “press the resident as to why he believed the property was uninhabitable” in February 2022, when the landlord had previously confirmed the property to be uninhabitable and had no reason to believe that this had changed; this interrogation unfairly put the onus on the resident, and would have contributed to his distress at a time when he was already concerned about his mother’s discharge from hospital.
When the landlord’s surveyor later concluded that the property had become habitable in March 2022, this should have been communicated to the resident as soon as practicable. The landlord should also have been clear when it expected the resident to move back into the property and what costs it would and would not cover. This would have given the resident an opportunity to dispute any facts with which he disagreed. Regular communication with the resident may also have avoided confusion in relation to things like the level of weekly rent and responsibility for utility payments.

Soundproofing

The noise transference issue that gave rise to the soundproofing works was known to the landlord before the resident’s tenancy began, and probably when the previous tenant was in situ. Given the landlord’s awareness of noise transference issues, its decision to re-let the property before soundproofing works had been completed and tested constituted poor housing management. As well as causing inconvenience, its sequence of actions put the resident in a difficult position where he may have felt partially responsible for the inevitable impact of noise transference on his downstairs neighbour. Unless the landlord had known from the outset that it would need to decant the resident as soon as his tenancy began, it should have considered ways to address this situation, such as offering mediation.
The landlord described the soundproofing as “specialist works”, but there is no reference to specialist or complex works in the repairs handbook, which states that all repairs will be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman expects landlords to make provision in their policies for complex repairs that may require an investigatory, diagnostic or evaluative approach. If the landlord anticipated that the soundproofing would take much longer than its usual maximum response time, it should have explained this to the resident in order to set expectations. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the specialist nature of the works did not justify the significant delays at each stage. In the absence of any detailed explanation, it was unacceptable that it took 21 months from the start of the resident’s tenancy for soundproofing to be installed in the first room, 13 further months for it to be installed in other rooms, and over 10 more months for its efficiency to be tested.
While it is understood that the landlord experienced some challenges and setbacks during this period, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, a change in contractor and difficulties gaining access to the unoccupied property, the total delay of nearly four years was unjustifiable. Ultimately, the landlord failed to build a trusting relationship with the resident within which he felt confident of its ability to resolve the issues and able to move back into the property. It could have done this in a number of ways: by informing him of the outcome of its sound test in October 2019; producing and keeping to an action plan; giving him a designated point of contact; providing regular updates using an agreed method; and progressing the repairs independently of its complaints process. It could also have done more to test the efficiency of the soundproofing in the first room before repeating the intrusive process other rooms (for example, by installing carpeting itself, by using temporary or offcut floor coverings, or by discussing noise levels with the occupant of the property below).

Other repairs

Given the impact and intrusiveness of the soundproofing process, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out other related repairs at the same time on a room by room basis. However, as stated above, in the Ombudsman’s view all repairs should have been completed while the property was void in order to bring it to a lettable standard. Once the resident’s tenancy had begun, some repairs that would be unaffected by the soundproofing works – such as repair of cracks and replacement of damaged glazing – were unreasonably delayed without explanation.
In addition to planned repairs such as replacement of kitchen units, the resident reported a number of responsive repairs shortly after his tenancy began. He stated in his stage one complaint that a blocked sink and boiler issue in December 2019 were resolved only after “many calls and follow-ups”. The repair records examined by this Service lacked sufficient detail, with some work orders containing no description or accompanying notes. Perhaps due to poor record keeping, the resident also faced issues with different officers producing different lists of works to be completed and contractors not being authorised to complete all of the works that had been agreed. Despite the challenges experienced by the landlord in relation to a change of contractor, as discussed above, these issues could have been avoided or lessened by improved communication and record keeping.
Overall, the landlord’s significant delays in carrying out soundproofing works and other repairs, together with its failures in communication, record keeping and in relation to rehousing of the resident, have resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.

Double glazing

The resident informed the landlord during a visit on 5 May 2023 that, when he was permanently decanted from his previous property, he was told that he would be given a ‘like for like’ property and was specifically assured that the new property would include double glazing. There is no written record of this. The landlord’s records indicate that double glazing was not identified as a condition of the tenancy; it has also informed this Service that the resident was offered a number of properties and chose the property over the others. The Ombudsman notes that the resident may not have received all relevant information about the property, such as its council tax banding, before he chose to accept it.
In giving the resident a copy of the energy performance certificate for the property, the landlord complied with its legal responsibility and also with the information on its website regarding its lettable standard. When the resident raised the recommendation about double glazing as part of his complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to make its position and reasoning clear in its stage one response. Although the response was delayed (discussed below), and this denied the resident a prompt answer to a straightforward question, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not cause any significant detriment to him.
While the resident’s account of events is not doubted, the Ombudsman’s decision must be based on the documentary evidence that is available. At the time of this investigation, the legal requirement for rented properties was an EPC rating of E or above, and a rating of D was in accordance with the landlord’s lettable standard. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord only to replace glazing in the property that was damaged, and to decline to install double glazing at the resident’s request. Its communications on this topic were consistent and supported by an assessment by its qualified member of staff.
If it has not already done so, it would be helpful for the landlord to advise the resident of approximate timescales for planned double glazing upgrades, and to signpost him to any support and/or educational material that may be available in relation to reducing heating costs and improving energy efficiency. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord is in the process of carrying out stock condition surveys that will inform its capital works programme, and that it has asked its asset management team to prioritise the survey of the resident’s property as well as exploring grants that may be available. This constitutes a practical and positive course of action that displays an awareness of the resident’s situation and a willingness to make reasonable adjustments in order to meet his needs. The recommendations that have been made are designed to give further reassurance to the resident and to improve the future experiences of other decanted tenants.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint promptly, but did not respond by its target date or inform the resident that it would be unable to do so. Its eventual response time of 14 months was unacceptable. When it did respond, it apologised for the delay but did not provide an explanation. Its compensation offer of £150 related solely to its delay in responding, and while it was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for this, the amount exceeded the maximum amount the landlord’s policy said it would award for complaint handling failure (£100) and no breakdown was provided. While the Ombudsman agrees that an award of over £100 was justified, the lack of breakdown and departure from policy suggested an arbitrary and disorganised approach. The landlord’s response to this Service’s enquiry about the level of compensation was that the officer who made the offer had left the organisation and it was not clear from the notes how they had arrived at the figure; this is indicative of poor record keeping as well as inconsistent decision making.
The stage one complaint response made repeated references to a case review that would take place at the end of June 2021. However, no record of such a review is available, and the landlord later informed this Service (in May 2023) that it could find no evidence of a case review taking place at this time. This meant that a key opportunity to produce a schedule of works and timescales, and to share this with the resident, was missed. It also meant that additional compensation for delayed repairs was not considered and a decision was not made in relation to the resident moving back into the property.
When the resident requested to escalate his complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge this, leading the resident to arrange for Citizens Advice to contact the landlord on his behalf. It is therefore apparent that the resident invested more time and trouble in pursuing his complaint than he would have done if the landlord had fulfilled its commitments. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 12 working days after it received contact from the resident’s adviser, and while it provided a target response date, it again did not meet this or explain that it required an extension. A further ten months passed before the stage two response was issued. A second delay of this length – which meant that, in total, the complaint had taken 28 months to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process – was excessive and unsatisfactory. At both stages, the response times far exceeded those set out in the complaints policy (15 and 20 working days, respectively) and communication in relation to the complaint was inadequate.
The resident had declined the £150 compensation offered by the landlord at stage one. Its offer at stage two, excluding reimbursement of rent, was £1,000. Although this amount was in line with the highest category in the repairs complaints compensation policy (awards over £700 for “extensive disruption”), in the Ombudsman’s opinion it did not reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the preceding three years. There was again no breakdown provided, and so it is unclear whether an award for complaint handling was included in the amount. The landlord’s decision to offset the compensation against the resident’s rent arrears, though in accordance with policy, represented an unsympathetic and inflexible stance, particularly given that part of the complaint related to how much rent the resident should have paid. This Service has therefore made an order for increased compensation, and requires that (as per the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code) this is made as a distinct payment rather than credited to an existing account.
Although the landlord’s stage two response in July 2022 was intended to be its final response, it was appropriate for it to respond to further questions raised by the resident the same month. While internal discussion took place promptly, the two-month delay in responding was again excessive. Some aspects of the response, such as declining to comment on a hypothetical situation in which the landlord’s actions caused damage to floor coverings bought by the resident, were unhelpful; in fact, the landlord agreed to cover the costs of such a situation when it met with the resident eight months later.
Overall, the landlord’s protracted and unsatisfactory complaint handling has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in its management of the resident’s rent;
2. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of soundproofing works and other repairs to the property, including temporary rehousing of the resident;
3. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for double glazed windows;
4. severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

It was appropriate for the landlord to waive the resident’s rent, initially for the period it considered the property to be uninhabitable, and subsequently until it had provided sufficient information for him to feel able to move back into the property. However, its delay in confirming the total period over which it would waive the rent caused unnecessary worry and uncertainty to the resident. It also delayed in resolving a straightforward error relating to a rent increase, which prolonged the resident’s distress.
The landlord let the property to the resident in a condition that did not meet its lettable standard. This caused avoidable neighbour issues. When the property was declared to be uninhabitable and the resident chose to make his own arrangements rather than accept its offer of alternative accommodation, it did not treat his case as a decant. It also failed to provide suitable accommodation when the resident requested this, although the property remained uninhabitable. It did not inform the resident when its surveyor decided the property became habitable, delayed for almost four years in coordinating and carrying out works, and kept inadequate records of repairs. It failed to keep the resident updated and its poor communication with its contractors caused confusion in relation to works that had been authorised.
The landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s request for double glazing was reasonable, as the property met the legal requirement and its own lettable standard for energy efficiency. It was appropriate for the landlord to take measures to prioritise the resident’s property for future glazing upgrades.
The landlord delayed for 14 months in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one and for 11 months at stage two. A further post-stage two response was also unreasonably delayed and did not adequately address all points raised. Its communication in relation to the complaint was unsatisfactory, and a case review promised in the stage one response did not take place. Its initial offers of compensation were insufficient and did not include a breakdown.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in managing his rent, carrying out repairs, providing suitable rehousing, and handling his complaint.
2. Pay the resident £4,500, comprising:
  1. £100 for its service failure in relation to management of his rent;
  2. £1,000 for its delays and poor communication in relation to the soundproofing works and other repairs;
  3. £600 for its lack of appropriate action and poor communication in relation to rehousing;
  4. £1,300 by way of a disturbance payment (the amount due for a self-managed decant from a three-bedroom property);
  5. £1,000 for its complaint handling failure;
  6. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident;
  7. £200 for the time and trouble invested by the resident in pursuing the repairs and his associated complaint.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the £4,050 it offered on 17 July 2023, this should be deducted from the amount above with the difference now being due. This should be a distinct payment and not credited to the resident’s rent account (or any other account).

Waive the resident’s rent between the start of his tenancy and 5 May 2023, if it has not already done so, with any payments made for this period to be reimbursed and any arrears removed. To confirm this, the landlord should provide to the resident a written statement of his rent account.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

The landlord is ordered to review its training of staff in relation to decants where residents make their own arrangements, and to consider updating this, within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord informs the resident of its expected timescale for future capital works programmes and/or planned maintenance that would involve installation of double glazing in his property. It is further recommended that the landlord signposts the resident to available resources and support in relation to reducing heating costs and improving energy efficiency.
It is recommended that, in future cases where a decant is agreed, the landlord keeps detailed written records of any discussions and agreements with the tenant in relation to the features/specifications of the decant property. The accuracy of this record should be confirmed by the tenant before the decant is finalised.