Homes Plus Limited (202215123)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215123

Homes Plus Limited

28 March 2024

 

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy, and how the subsequent repairs were handled by the landlord.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant from the property.
    3. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and commenced his tenancy on 17 June 2022.
  2. The resident raised a compliant on 13 July 2022 about the condition of his property at the start of his tenancy. The resident stated that he viewed and accepted the property in December 2021 and was told that it would be brought to a lettable standard prior to his tenancy commencing. The resident said that he was required to extend his notice of termination on his previous property several times because the repairs were not completed within timeframes provided. The resident complained that upon moving into the property, various repairs remained outstanding and some of the repairs that had been carried out were not done to an acceptable standard. The resident said that he moved into the property with his children after fleeing domestic violence. He said he suffers with depression and that living in the property had exasperated his mental health.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued on 25 July 2022. The landlord upheld the complaint and found that it had communicated poorly with the resident about resolving the outstanding issues. It said that delays had been caused due to the requirement for the works to be approved. The landlord advised that once approved, a surveyor would attend to establish what works were required.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 10 October 2022. He said that there were delays in the works commencing, and that the work had eventually begun on 26 September 2022, after he had contacted his MP. The resident stated that he had to move out of his property and the landlord had offered no financial assistance to pay for temporary accommodation.
  5. The stage 2 response was issued on 9 November 2022 and the landlord upheld the complaint. It found that there were multiple delays to the resident’s move in date caused by repeated failures to complete outstanding work within the timeframes provided. The landlord stated that a significant number of repairs ought to have been completed prior to the resident’s tenancy starting. The landlord offered the resident a total of £2,530.35 compensation. This was made up of a rent refund amounting to £1,930.50 and £600 for the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022 and stated that the amount of compensation did not sufficiently reflect the upheaval caused to him and his family. He also said that it did not take into account ongoing issues including damage to items in his home and damage to his driveway caused by contractors. Within further emails, the resident raised that the rent reimbursement did not include the costs of council tax he paid during the period, the cost to remove waste and shrubbery from his garden, costs associated with running the gas boiler for 7 days to dry out plastering works and the cost of a mop and a tin of paint used by contractors.
  7. The resident raised his complaint with the Ombudsman on 2 January 2023. The resident stated that the repairs to his property remained ongoing.
  8. The landlord undertook a further review of the compensation payment and wrote to the resident on 6 March 2023 to confirm that the compensation had been increased to a total of £2,868.50. This figure incorporated the cost of council tax, and the mop and paint used by contractors.

Assessment and findings

Condition of the property and ongoing repairs

  1. The landlord’s lettable standard states that upon commencement of a new tenancy, a property should be safe and ready to move into. This includes that properties should be free from damp and mould, internal and external doors should be in good condition, and rubbish should be removed from gardens, and any overgrowth cut back.
  2. The resident initially viewed the property in December 2021, and it was identified that work was required to bring it to a lettable standard. The evidence provided indicates that there were delays in completing this work, and the resident was not provided with an accurate date on which the repairs would be completed. It is noted that the resident was required to extend the termination period on his previous property several times because the property was not ready to move into. The resident’s tenancy began on 17 June 2022, more than 6 months after the resident initially viewed and accepted the property.
  3. The evidence reflects that there were clear failings in the landlord’s handling of the voids process and the completion of the required repairs. The landlord acknowledged that there had been repeated failures to complete the work to the property within the deadlines provided, which meant that the lettings team could not provide the resident with accurate information on when the property would be ready to move in to. While it is appropriate that the landlord has acknowledged the failings that occurred, there is no indication that it identified the cause of these failings, and it did not state what it would do to prevent the same issues occurring again. It is clear that this had a significant impact on the resident, who reported that he was anxious at the prospect of facing homelessness and that he felt he had no option but to move into the property in June 2022, despite its condition.
  4. The resident’s tenancy document, signed 17 June 2022, sets out that the outstanding defects in the property were damp, missing cupboard doors, overgrown garden and repairs required to light fittings. The resident stated that a voids inspector visited the property on 19 June 2022. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the details of the void inspection that was carried out. However, in his complaint, the resident set out various other defects that were identified, including cracked and loose plaster throughout and rotten door frames. In accordance with the landlord’s lettable standard, these defects ought to have been repaired prior to the resident moving into the property.
  5. The resident raised his complaint almost 4 weeks after moving into the property. It appears that, when he made his complaint, none of the outstanding repairs had been completed and there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord communicated with the resident about the repairs during this time.
  6. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that a request for the works had been raised on 21 June 2022, but delays had been caused as this required approval due to the costs of the work. The landlord stated that an appointment had been scheduled for 26 July 2022 for a staff member within the voids team to attend the property to take measurements and discuss the work with the resident.
  7. The landlord has not provided details of the 26 July 2022 visit, and it is unclear exactly what work was identified. Within his escalation request, the resident stated that the landlord identified a significant amount of internal and external repairs that were required. Internal emails provided by the landlord indicate that the works were approved on 15 September 2022. The work commenced on 26 September 2022, approximately 2 months after the 26 July visit. As such, the resident lived in the property for approximately 3 months prior to the works commencing. In its stage 2 response, the landlord again stated that delays were caused due to the works requiring approval. It also said that the requirement to appoint a subcontractor contributed to the delay.
  8. In his escalation request the resident raised that the works had progressed slowly, and that he and his child had moved out of the property on 5 October 2022 due to the disruption caused. On 21 October 2022, the resident was decanted to a hotel for 2 weeks while the work was completed. Within correspondence to the Ombudsman on 2 January 2023, the resident stated that the repairs remained ongoing due to incompetent contractors.
  9. Overall, the evidence suggests that the landlord failed to carry out an adequate void inspection, and that there were repeated delays in completing the outstanding repairs. Due to the apparent extent of the works required, the landlord should have identified and completed these within the void period. Further, the landlord should have proactively considered and discussed the possibility of a temporary decant sooner.
  10. When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  11. It is evident that significant distress and inconvenience has been caused to the resident due to the initial delays in the work being progressed prior to his tenancy. Further distress was caused after he had moved into the property that was not in a suitable condition. He has incurred substantial time and trouble pursuing the matter, as well as disruption due to the extent of the works requiring him to move out of the property.
  12. The landlord offered the resident a total of £2,868.50 compensation to remedy the complaint. This includes a full rent refund for the times that the resident was unable to live in the property, and a partial refund for the time the resident was living in the property and the works had not commenced. This was a reasonable action to take in the circumstances. However, the £600 offered for the time and trouble was inadequate. The resident’s specific complaint about the level of compensation has been dealt with in more detail below.
  13. Further, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has identified the cause of the failings and learned from the outcome of the complaint. Given the failings identified, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to put in place any measures to prevent the same issues occurring again. This amounts to a failing by the landlord to learn from outcomes. The landlord should review its void processes and make any changes necessary to ensure a robust process is in place, as well as considering what action can be taken to address delays caused by the need for works to be approved. An order has been made below in this regard.
  14. On 6 September 2023 the landlord informed the Ombudsman that there were no outstanding repairs in the property however, the resident explained to the Service that the repairs have not been completed. Based on this the resident has concerns with the way the new kitchen was fitted. As such, I have included a further order for the landlord to attend the property for an inspection, to ensure that all the jobs that were raised were completed correctly, and any further repairs are arranged.
  15. The resident mentioned to the Service that he has concerns with the stud wall that the landlord installed in the property. He explained that currently is experiencing a significant leak in the bedroom and that this was raised this with the landlord, and it has ignored the resident’s reports. The landlord installed the stud wall which the resident says he was against as he felt this was only going to cover what water ingress would show. Following recent heavy rain, water has come through in the resident’s bedroom again. As this incident has occurred after the landlord’s final response, as above, I have made a recommendation for the landlord to attend to do a further inspection and arrange any necessary repairs within a week, in line with its repairs policy. I note the resident advised that this was reported, and the landlord did not respond therefore, I have asked the landlord to consider further compensation for any delay in it coming out to attend to the leak.

Handling of the resident’s decant

  1. The landlord’s decant policy states that tenants may be moved to temporary accommodation if major repairs are required where it is not safe or possible for the resident to remain in the property. The policy states that the landlord will cover the costs for which it is responsible.
  2. Within his request to escalate the complaint, the resident stated that he moved out of the property with his child on 5 October 2022 due to the disruption caused by the ongoing work. He said that on the same day, he contacted a member of the voids team and informed them that he needed to move out of the property. The resident stated that he also spoke to the contractor who advised the resident to move into a hotel and provide a receipt for the costs to the landlord. The resident raised that he should not have to pay for the cost of a hotel, given that the issues were the fault of the landlord.
  3. Within an email exchange with the resident on 21 October 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident had been offered a decant by the contractor, which it said that the resident had declined. The landlord acknowledged that it was not the correct protocol for a decant to be offered by the contractor. Within this exchange, the resident stated that he had informed the landlord on 2 further occasions that he was homeless and sleeping in his van, but that he had not been provided with any assistance. The resident confirmed that he would like to be temporarily rehoused. The evidence reflects that the landlord decanted the resident to a hotel from 21 October 2022 for a period of 2 weeks.
  4. While it is appropriate that the resident was offered a decant, there appears to have been a failing in that he was given incorrect information about how the costs incurred would be paid for. The landlord ought to have provided clear information to the resident about the decant process. It is clear that this had a significant impact on the resident, as he stated that he had no alternative accommodation available, and that he was required to make arrangements for his children to live elsewhere.
  5. The landlord reimbursed the resident’s rent and council tax payment for the 2-week period that he was unable to stay in his property, until he was decanted into a hotel. This is a suitable remedy in order to put things right and is reasonable redress for the failings identified.
  6. However, the landlord should ensure that residents are proactively contacted if a decant may be required, and that they are informed that the landlord will pay for the cost of any decant. A recommendation has been made below in relation to this.

Level of compensation

  1. Following the stage 2 response, the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation offered. He stated that the offer did not cover various additional costs he had been required to pay, and that £600 offered for the trouble caused was inadequate. The resident also reported that on 23 December 2022 his living room ceiling was replaced again, and that the work was ongoing.
  2. Some of the points were not raised by the resident in his initial complaint or in his escalation of the complaint, as they referred to costs incurred following the final complaint response. The landlord therefore acted reasonably in conducting a further review of the compensation taking into account the new information that the resident had provided. On 6 March 2023, the landlord increased the amount of compensation offered.
  3. At the resident’s request, the landlord reimbursed the resident’s council tax payments during the period he was unable to live in the property, as well as half of the payment for the period he was living in the property while the repairs were outstanding. The landlord also increased the level of compensation to incorporate the costs of a mop and paint that the resident stated was used by the contractors. These were positive steps to resolve the complaint.
  4. The landlord did not increase the compensation in line with the resident’s request for the cost of removing 2 loads of rubbish from the garden or for the use of gas between 1 and 7 November 2022. The resident did not provide the landlord with evidence in relation to these costs, and it therefore appears reasonable that the compensation was not increased on this basis.
  5. In terms of the £600 offer for ‘time and trouble’ caused, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that amounts of £600 to £1000 are appropriate where there have been serious failings by a landlord which have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. In this case, it is clear that the resident has been caused significant distress and inconvenience over a protracted period which is not reflected in the landlord’s £600 offer. As such, an amount at the higher end of this scale would be proportionate. An increased amount is ordered below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy, and how it handled the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s decant from the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord regarding the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £3,168.50, comprised of the    £2,868.50 previously offered (which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid), and an additional £300 for the time, trouble and distress caused.
  2. The landlord should arrange a further inspection of the kitchen and ensure any necessary repairs are arranged with within the next four weeks.
  3. The landlord should conduct a review of its voids inspection of the property, and how it handled the repairs both prior to and after the resident moved in. The landlord should consider whether changes to its voids process are necessary in order to ensure properties are to a lettable standard prior to being let out, and what action it may take to avoid delays caused by the need to approve works. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review and details of any actions taken.
  4. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of the report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord ensures its staff offer decants at the earliest opportunity, and that residents are provided with accurate information about the decant process.
  2. It is recommended that the bedroom is inspected within the next week to ensure that the leak is investigated, and a repair arranged. The landlord should also consider when this was reported to the landlord and whether additional compensation should be paid for the delay in handling the leak within the seven days from when it was reported in accordance with its repairs policy.