Hyde Housing Association Limited (202216852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216852

Hyde Housing Association Limited

14 September 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the property, including damp.
2. Reports that the windows in the property were screwed shut.
3. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. Request for alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy began in May 2012.
The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has reported to this Service that she has a number of vulnerabilities and health conditions and has provided medical documentation to evidence this. The landlord’s tenancy records for the resident record that she has “vulnerabilities” and “mental health issues”.

Summary of events

On 22 October 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that it had failed to address “long-term” damp within the property and she was experiencing ASB. Within her correspondence the resident provided further details to support her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the damp:
  1. The damp was impacting on her health conditions.
  2. Previous repairs undertaken by the landlord had not addressed the damp.
  3. The property had cracks.
  4. The landlord had not offered her a decant while it took steps to address the damp.
  5. She was required to use a dehumidifier daily due to the damp.
2. In respect of the ASB:
  1. The property’s surroundings had changed since the start of her tenancy. She noted that there were “12 hours of noise all day” – no further details given.
  1. Neighbouring tenants were “hostile” – no further details given.
Within her complaint the resident also noted that:
1. She had received a letter, date not given, from the landlord threating legal action if she did not allow access for repairs which she had found distressing.
2. She was unable to manage the property’s garden due to “ill-health”. She stated that the landlord had failed to offer her support in this regard.
On 6 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, confirming that it aimed to provide a response by 20 January 2022.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her ASB concerns following a telephone conversation with her earlier that day. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the ASB concerned “harassing and threatening behaviour” from a neighbouring tenant (the neighbour).
2. To assist its investigation the resident had agreed to provide it with details of any further incidents for a case review which had been scheduled for 7 February 2022. It confirmed that it may not be able to progress the case without further details. It explained the resident should document ASB on diary sheets.
3. It would contact the neighbour to make it aware of the allegations and provide them with the opportunity to respond.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on the complaint. The landlord set out that it required additional time in order to respond to the complaint as it was still gathering all the information to make a decision. The landlord confirmed that it now aimed to provide its response by 3 February 2022.
On 28 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to request that she provide it with completed diary sheets as it was yet to receive any.
On the same day the resident replied. In summary the resident said:
1. She had not received any diary sheets to complete.
2. She had reported ASB to the police and she was waiting to hear back from it. She advised that the ASB reported included “destruction of the communal fire safety [equipment]” by the neighbour.
3. Other ASB by the neighbour included the use of an unauthorised gas fire in their flat and aggressive and threatening behaviour towards her.
4. She was experiencing “unbearable noise from the school opposite” the property.
Within her correspondence the resident reiterated that the property experienced damp which was impacting on her health.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord replied to the resident confirming that diary sheets were posted on 7 February 2022. The landlord confirmed that it could resend the diary sheets and the resident may backdate any incidents. The landlord advised that it was able to discuss the resident’s ASB allegations with the neighbour with her consent. The landlord noted that the resident had previously requested for this action to be put on hold.
On the same day the resident responded stating that she had not requested that the landlord put on hold approaching the neighbour in respect of the ASB. In response the landlord replied confirming that it had attempted to call the resident to discuss the matter further however it had not been successful. The landlord requested that the resident make contact with it.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that its complaint response had been further delayed as it needed “more time to check the details [of the complaint]”. Within its correspondence the landlord confirmed that its surveyor (the surveyor) had tried to contact the resident in order to inspect the property however this had been unsuccessful. The landlord explained that an inspection was required as the resident had reported that the property was beyond repair and therefore it needed to make an assessment on its condition. The landlord concluded by confirming that it now aimed to provide its response by 17 February 2022.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord opened its response by confirming that it understood that the resident’s complaint concerned “outstanding damp and mould in the property” in addition to increased “noise in the building”. In response to the complaint the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. It explained that this was due to “an increase in customer contact”.
2. In respect of the damp and mould:
  1. It attended the property in 2019 and completed works related to damp and mould. It confirmed that following these works it had received no further reports from the resident regarding damp in the property until the complaint dated October 2022.
  2. It had attempted to arrange an inspection of the property for damp and mould however the resident had not co-operated with its request to allow access. It noted that in response the resident had confirmed that she “no longer [wished] to live in [the property as] the repair issues [were] beyond resolution”. It explained that it was a tenant’s responsibility to provide access for both safety checks and repairs and therefore requested that the resident contact the surveyor to arrange a date for an inspection.
  3. It understood that the resident wished to move to a new property due to damp and mould. It confirmed that the resident should contact the local authority for assistance or registered on the Home Swapper website.
3. In respect of ASB:
  1. It was unable to investigate the issues as part of the complaint process.
  2. Its ASB team were aware of the issues the resident had reported and had requested that she keep a record of any ASB she experienced.
4. It had issued the resident with letters concerning access for repairs historically as it had been unable to enter the property.
5. While its complaint response was pending the resident had raised concerns regarding carbon monoxide in the property. It explained its records showed that carbon monoxide was reported by the resident in 2019 and it had attended in response to make sure that the property was safe.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate the complaint if she was not happy with its response.
On 1 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that she was “unable to cope in a cold, damp flat where [she had] been threatened with violence [and] 12 hours of noise a day”. The resident requested for her concerns to be revisited. Within her correspondence the resident noted that she had recently been diagnosed with a brain tumour.
The landlord’s internal records document that in response to the resident’s correspondence it made a referral to its Sustaining Tenancy team to provide support however the resident declined any support.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had not received any new records from her documenting ASB in order to carry out an ASB case review. It set out that it had attempted to call the resident on 18 February and 23 March 2022 for an update but had been unsuccessful. The landlord concluded by confirming that if the resident did not contact it within seven days it would close the case. The landlord’s records document that it closed the ASB case on 31 March 2022 due to non-contact by the resident.
An internal record by the landlord dated 24 March 2022 confirmed that it met with the resident at the property on 23 March 2022. The landlord said the resident had agreed for “works”, no further details given, to be undertaken from 10 May 2022 on the basis that she was decanted while they were completed. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that a decant was not agreed.
On 11 August 2022, following further attempts by the landlord to make contact with the resident in June and July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it had been attempting to make an appointment to inspect the property in response to her reports of damp and mould however it had been unsuccessful. The landlord requested that the resident contact it to arrange a convenient time for an inspection.
On the same day the resident replied. In summary the resident said:
1. “There [was] not much to see, but it [felt] horrible in [the property]”.
2. The property was experiencing the following repair issues:
  1. A patch of mould in the front room.
  2. Sinking floor in the hallway and front room.
  3. A damp and sewage smell.
  4. Hidden cracks behind wallpaper.
  5. Windows nailed shut. She reported that this action had been taken by the landlord “because of the ease they could be broken into”.
  6. Missing slate from the roof.
  7. Invasive weeds in garden.
3. In April 2022 the landlord confirmed that she would need to stay in a B&B in order to complete repairs in the property. She advised that she was unable to do so at that time due to health issues. She stated that she later “reluctantly” agreed however nothing had happened since.
4. She believed that the property was “killing” her. She noted that she was currently staying away from the property.
5. She was recently ill from drinking “tap water”.
6. The tenant who occupied the flat above the property had recently died and their “death was exacerbated by the damp”.
7. She had been reluctant to proceed with repairs as she had been “put in exceptionally dangerous situation by the repairs team” in the past which had impacted on her health. She explained this included “flooding” the property with petrol fumes and “dust and debris”.
8. She had experienced ASB by the neighbour which included a threat of violence in December 2021. She noted that other ASB included forced entry of the communal front door.
9. The police station opposite the property was demolished and a school was built in its place. She stated that the noise from the school was “intolerable”.
10. She had attempted to bid on new properties via the local authority however had not been successful.
The Ombudsman has not identified a response from the landlord to the resident’s correspondence.
On 1 November 2022 the resident contacted this Service about her complaint. The resident stated that despite raising a complaint about the condition of the property (specifically damp and nailed shut windows) and ASB the landlord had failed to take action to address the matters. The resident provided a copy of the landlord’s stage one response with her contact.
On 19 November 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord to make enquiries on the status of the complaint and requested that it respond directly to the resident in accordance with its complaint procedure.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that an appointment had been booked for 13 December 2022 to inspect the property in response to her reports of “damp issues”. The resident replied on 11 December 2022 setting out that the appointment was not suitable “due to ill health caused by the condition of the property”. In response the landlord requested that the resident contact it to rescheduled the appointment.
On 30 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident’s complaint concerned:
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. ASB.
  3. Repairs to the property’s windows.
  4. A property transfer.
2. In relation to damp and repairs to the property’s windows:
  1. On receipt of the resident’s stage one complaint it had requested access to inspect the property however the resident did not co-operate with it to make an appointment.
  1. It attempted to contact the resident in April, July and August 2022 to see what support it could offer with maintenance of the property, including the garden. It confirmed that it did not hear back from the resident.
  2. It had also made a referral to its Foundation team to see what support could be offered to the resident, however she had declined any assistance.
  3. It had “continued to try [and] attend [the property] to see what repairs [needed] doing”. It explained that it needed to inspect the property to identify what repairs, “if any”, needed to be undertaken. It confirmed that an appointment had therefore been scheduled for the surveyor to attend on 19 January 2023. It set out that the resident was required to give access to the property in line with the terms of the property’s tenancy agreement.
1. In relation to ASB it had “found [its] response regarding the noise nuisance [the resident] had reported to be in line with [its] policy”.
2. In relation to a property transfer it had found that while its response was “correct… more effort” could have been made in providing information on the different housing options available to the resident.
3. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage two and it would therefore like to award £50 compensation.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
On 19 January 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two response. The resident stated that the response was appalling and she didn’t understand how the landlord expected her to live “under these circumstances”. Within her correspondence the resident repeated the concerns which she had previously raised with it, including on 11 August 2022.
Also on 19 January 2023 the surveyor wrote to the landlord to confirm that they were unable to inspect the property as no access was granted by the resident.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its position following her ongoing contacts regarding the matters subject of the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of damp and repairs:
  1. It inspected the property on 9 February 2023. It confirmed that during the appointment:

(1) It identified “a small amount of mould discolouration” on the external wall in the living room. It confirmed that it offered to complete a mould wash however the resident declined. It confirmed that it therefore washed the mould off with washing up liquid.

(2) It checked the windows and found that they were in “good working order”. It stated that there appeared to be “a misunderstanding around who screwed the windows shut”. It confirmed that it offered to unscrew the windows however the resident declined. It recommended that the resident reconsider its offer as “ventilation was recommended”.

(3) It identified “some signs of a crack in the bathroom but no penetrating damp or mould”. It confirmed that the resident did not want this repaired. It confirmed that the resident should contact it should she like the repair completed.

(4) It identified mould under the vinyl flooring. It confirmed that a follow up appointment had been completed to clean the mould. It noted that the resident should consider changing the vinyl flooring to carpet. It confirmed that the resident may seek assistance from its Foundation team to facilitate this.

It would not offer a decant as “no majors repairs” were required to the property.

In respect of a property transfer:
1. The resident had been awarded a “management transfer priority to reflect the level of deep disrepair that [she felt] living [in the property]”. It noted that it could take some time for a suitable property to become available.
1. The resident may wish to consider a mutual exchange as another option for a move.
2. It understood that the resident was having difficult using its choice based lettings system to bid on properties. It confirmed that it would therefore contact the resident to provide assistance.
It was happy to provide tenancy assistance to the resident through its Foundation Team.
It was engaging with this Service following the resident’s referral.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property, including damp

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, the property. A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. As the repairs reported by the resident related to the structure and exterior of the property the landlord was obliged to investigate and to make good any issues identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property to demonstrate its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the property. This includes its repair records, tenancy notes, correspondence with the resident and internal correspondence.
While the landlord’s repair records do not document any repair issues reported by the resident immediately prior to her complaint the tenancy notes for the property document that the landlord was attempting to access the property from at least mid-2020 in order to inspect the property in response to repair issues raised by the resident, which included damp. For example in October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident requesting access to “draw up the specification of works required”. The records document that in response the resident did not allow access. The Ombudsman understands that the resident refused access due to medical reasons.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident did not wish to allow access for an inspection due to medical reasons the landlord’s request to inspect the property was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. This is because the resident had reported repairs which needed attention and therefore an inspection would have allowed the landlord to assess the condition of the property in order to determine what works were necessary, and then to plan and scheduled any works identified. It was also reasonable in order to determine whether the repairs reported made the condition of the property uninhabitable and therefore whether a temporary or permanent move was required for the resident.
Immediately on receipt of the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord repeated its attempt to gain access to the property to carry out an inspection, however was again refused access by the resident. It was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord made a request to inspect the property again for the reasons already given.
The evidence shows that in March 2022 the landlord did gain access to the property and some works were agreed. The records indicate that the agreed works did not go ahead in May 2022 as scheduled at the request of the resident due to ill-health. The Ombudsman is not aware of the extent or scope of the works agreed as no information is available in this regard. This is unsatisfactory as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations. Notwithstanding this, as no access was granted the landlord could not complete the works it had identified as necessary to put things right at that time.
After the works did not go ahead in May 2022 the evidence shows that the landlord made further attempts to gain access to the property by contacting the resident. This was appropriate as it was aware that the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property had not been resolved.
The evidence shows that it was not until February 2023 that the resident provided the landlord with access to the property in order for it to assess the current situation. The report following the visit identified minor repairs to the property, as detailed in the summary above, which it offered to complete with the resident in situ. This was a reasonable approach based on the findings from the inspection. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was not happy with the works proposed.
Following the end of the complaint procedure the evidence shows that in response to a formal disrepair claim by the resident the landlord instructed an expert witness to inspect the property in June 2023. The expert concluded:
1. “Following my inspection of the property, there appears to be evidence that the building is subject to structural movement with cracks noted in the living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom together with the hallway. From a single inspection it is difficult to ascertain whether or not this is progressive and although the cracking does not look to be recent, it should be monitored for a period of time to establish whether or not it is progressive. Structural repairs will be required to the property, including possible strengthening of the foundations by underpinning together with structural repairs to the cracks, internal replastering works and redecoration of the affected rooms. In addition to the structural movement, there is evidence of dampness particularly within the living room with high levels of damp identified on the front wall and beneath the floor coverings in this room. Further investigation is required although it is likely that injection of a new damp proof course will be required together with replastering with waterproof rendering and plaster. The vinyl flooring should be lifted, and further investigations carried out… The works identified are structural repairs. All works can be completed within three months of commencement. Once complete the property should continue to have a reasonable maintenance life. It is likely that the property will have to be decanted to facilitate the structural repairs required”.
The findings by the expert witness are significantly more extensive than those following the landlord’s own inspection in February 2023. This is concerning and suggests that a thorough and detailed inspection of the property was not undertaken by the landlord when access was gained in either March 2022 or February 2023; as only minor repair issues were recorded as necessary. In the Ombudsman’s view it is reasonable to assume that some of the repair issues identified by the expert witness would have been evident and present while the complaint was live due to the nature of the issues highlighted. Consequently this meant that the full extent of the repair issues with the property were not identified at the earliest possible opportunity. It also raises concerns regarding the officers who were instructed to complete the inspections in March 2022 and February 2023 and whether they were suitably qualified to complete the task.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out that access issues for repairs will be dealt with swiftly and in line with its No Access Procedure. While the complaint was live the Ombudsman can see that the landlord did mention enforcement action to gain access to the property. This was appropriate as the landlord has a responsibility to maintain its stock for the benefit of the resident and future tenants, in addition to safeguarding neighbouring properties. From the landlord’s records the Ombudsman understands that the landlord decided not to progress enforcement action due to the resident’s known vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord will have wanted to approach the matter sensitively as the resident had raised multiple medical concerns with it.

Reports that the windows in the property were screwed shut

The landlord’s repair records dated summer 2019 document a closed work order to “attend and secure bedroom window – even if it is screwed shut…” It is not clear from the record what the outcome of the repair was or whether other windows were attended to as part of the work order as no further details are noted. Following this entry there are no other entries in relation to the windows in the repair records until the resident’s complaint.
From this record, and in the absence of any other information documenting the work which was undertaken as part of the work order, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s report that some windows in the property were screwed shut by the landlord was true. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is unsatisfactory that following the initial work order to attend to the windows there is no evidence of a further appointment to explore a permanent solution for the windows. It was not reasonable for the resident to be left in a position where the windows were not functioning properly.
The evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint, and following access being granted to the property, the landlord assessed the windows and offered to undertake works to make good. This was appropriate in order to remedy the situation however does not mitigate that no follow on appointment was made to permanently address the fault with the windows following the appointment in summer 2019.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received in the timeframe of the complaint, and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, followed good practice and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
This Service understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns she has reported have caused significant distress and upset.
The landlord sets out that ASB is conduct that:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
On receipt of the resident’s allegations it was necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records for the property to demonstrate its response the resident’s reports of ASB.
The first ASB record is dated summer 2021 where the resident reported that she felt “scared and intimidated” by the neighbour regarding use of the communal front door. The records shows that despite informing the landlord of her concerns she requested that no action was taken. As the resident had requested no intervention it was reasonable that no further action was taken by the landlord at that time.
The next ASB record is dated 24 December 2021 when she reported that she felt afraid due to the actions of the neighbour. The resident stated that the neighbour had attacked a landlord contractor and when she had attempted to intervene they had called her “nasty words”. The resident confirmed that she had reported the incident to the police.
The landlord’s records document that in response, and on 30 December 2021, it attempted to contact the resident to discuss the incident however was unsuccessful. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord attempted to contact the resident again in direct response to her report dated 24 December 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory. As the resident had made a serious allegation it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made additional attempts to contact the resident in order to gain further information on the alleged incident, including by letter, to determine what intervention, if any, was needed. This would have been in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which sets out that following “at least two unsuccessful attempts to make personal contact… a letter [would] be sent” to the victim.
On acknowledging the resident’s complaint in early January 2022 the evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident to obtain further information on the undefined ASB which she had reported as part of the complaint. This was appropriate. The resident repeated the details of the incident with the neighbour in December 2021, adding that there had been “no activity since” however she was very “scared”. In response the landlord:
1. Opened an ASB case and set a date for a case review.
2. Requested that the resident keep diary sheets of any further incidents.
3. Sent an enquiry to the police for further information on the incident.
4. Sent an enquiry to the contractor for further information.
These actions were appropriate in order to gather further information and in order to determine next steps. It was also in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which sets out that it will interview the victim, request diary sheets are kept, set a date for a case review and liaise with other agencies. While these actions were appropriate the Ombudsman suggests that it would have been unlikely that the landlord would have revisited the resident’s ASB concerns relating to the incident in December 2021 had it not been for the complaint. This is because as noted above, the evidence only documents one attempt by the landlord to obtain information in direct response to the incident before the case was closed.
The landlord’s records document that contact with the neighbour was put “on hold” at the resident’s request. The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes that she made such a request. As the Ombudsman was not party to the conversation the Ombudsman cannot determine what was actually agreed between the parties. However it was reasonable for the landlord to delay contacting the neighbour as it understood that the resident did not wish to proceed in this way and therefore to compromise her position.
The landlord’s decision to close the resident’s ASB case at the end of March 2022 was reasonable. This is because it had received no further evidence from the resident to consider despite making additional enquiries with her, including in February and March 2022. It was also reasonable as the evidence shows that the landlord had received responses from both the police and contractor, which the resident was not party to, regarding the incident and therefore it could pursue the matter independently of the resident if it assessed that it was appropriate to do so.
The Ombudsman notes that no other ASB cases are recorded against the resident’s tenancy file in the evidence provided for review. While the resident did continue to report concerns regarding the neighbour’s conduct after the ASB case was closed in March 2023, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable that the landlord did not open a new case as she had not provided it with any new evidence for it to consider.
As part of her complaint the resident raised concerns regarding noise from the local school which was built following her tenancy start date. While the landlord did not directly address this concern within its complaint responses, the evidence shows that on 31 January 2022 the landlord responded confirming that it was unable to deal with the resident’s concerns in this regard. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was anappropriate response as the landlord had no relationship with the school. It would however have been helpful for the landlord to have signposted the resident to the local authority’s Environmental Health Team who may have been able to look into her concerns to determine if the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance and required addressing under its own procedures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation

The resident’s request for alternative accommodation was on the grounds that the property was in disrepair and was impacting on her medical conditions. While the resident did provide supporting documents from her medical professionals supporting a move, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to decline alternative permanent or temporary accommodation while the complaint was live was reasonable. This is because the landlord:
1. Was unable to make an informed decision on the resident’s request which took into account the condition of the property as it was initially refused access to inspect it. Without reasonable knowledge or understanding of the condition of the property the landlord could not make an informed decision on the resident’s request including in respect of her health.
2. Its findings following the March 2022 and February 2023 inspections of the property did not highlight any major repairs which could not be completed with the resident in situ.
As part of the landlord’s stage two response it confirmed that a management move had been awarded to the resident on the grounds that she considered the property to be in disrepair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was beyond what the landlord was required to offer however was good practice in order to assist in bringing the matter to a close for the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord provided advice to the resident on her housing options as part of its complaint response, including applying for alternative accommodation via the local authority or exploring a mutual exchange.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Despite the resident raising the complaint in October 2021 the landlord did not acknowledge it until January 2022 or provide its stage one response until February 2022. This is unacceptable as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage possible. This delay will have resulted in uncertainty and distress to the resident, in addition to feeling like her concerns were not being taken seriously. While the landlord did apologise for the delay and offer an explanation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion alone this does not amount to reasonable redress. In accordance with its compensation policy, which sets out compensation may be offered where it has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard, it would have been appropriate for the landlord have offered a sum of compensation in recognition of the significant time its stage one response was outstanding and therefore the impact on the resident.
The resident contacted this Service in order to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. Following contact from this Service on 19 November 2022 the landlord provide its stage two response on 30 December 2022, a period of approximately 28 working days. While this was outside of the 20 working days set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the delay was not so significant to have adversely impacted on the resident. Further in responding at stage two the landlord recognised that its response was delayed and therefore apologised and awarded £50 compensation. This was appropriate.
In addition to the landlord’s poor handling of the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was a shortcoming in respect of the landlord’s stage two response in relation to the content of its reply. Specifically in relation to its handling of the ASB reported by the resident. In responding at stage two stated that its response to the noise nuisance had been appropriate however then did not go on to demonstrate how. Further the landlord’s response ignored the resident’s other concerns relating to the neighbour. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this also as her concerns in this regard were discussed with the resident on acknowledgement of the complaint. The landlord’s response therefore denied the resident a comprehensive reply providing adequate reason and explanation to support the decisions it made in relation to the ASB which she had reported.
It is also unsatisfactory that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord provided a reply to the resident’s correspondence dated 11 August 2022, which concerned the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property, including damp.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports that the windows in the property were screwed shut.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation.
5. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property, including damp

While the evidence shows that the landlord had difficulty in gaining access to the property, the evidence reasonably suggests that when access was gained in both March 2022 and February 2023 it did not carry out detailed or thorough inspections of the property. This is because the evidence highlights that the inspections the landlord undertook in March 2022 and February 2023 did not identify the full extent of the repair issues with the property, as documented by the expert witness it instructed as part of the resident’s disrepair claim in June 2023. This is unsatisfactory.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the windows in the property were screwed shut

It is unsatisfactory that there is no evidence of a follow up appointment by the landlord to explore a permanent solution for the windows following the work order in summer 2019 where the evidence reasonably suggests that the windows were screwed shut. It was not reasonable for the resident to be left in a position where the windows were not functioning properly.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

While the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by the neighbour were in accordance with its ASB policy on receipt of the complaint its initial response to her ASB report dated December 2021 was unsatisfactory. This is because it only made one attempt to contact the resident to discuss the incident which was contrary to its ASB policy which documents that several contacts should be made on receipt of an allegation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for alternative accommodation

The landlord’s decision to decline alternative permanent or temporary accommodation was reasonable. This is because it was unable to make an informed decision on the resident’s request which took into account the condition of the property as it was initially refused access to inspect it and then the findings following its inspections in March 2022 and February 2023 did not document any major repairs required.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory because:
1. It failed to award appropriate redress to acknowledge that it had significantly delayed in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage one complaint.
2. It failed to appropriately address the ASB concerns which the resident had raised, providing adequate explanation and detail to support its decisions.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from a director in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, write to the resident setting out what steps it is taking in response to the findings of the expert witness regarding the condition of the property, including timescales for the works even if provisional. This should also include information on the decant recommended by the expert witness for the duration of the works.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1900 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination. This figure comprises the £50 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £1850 comprising:
1. £1000 in recognition that the landlord did not undertake a thorough inspection of the property in March 2022 or February 2023 which meant that the full extent of the repair issues were not identified at the earliest possible opportunity and there the distress and inconvenience she would have experienced as a result.
2. £500 in recognition that the landlord failed to carry out a follow up appointment to offer a permanent solution to address the windows following a repair appointment in summer 2019 and therefore the inconvenience and distress she will have experienced as a result.
3. £100 in recognition that the landlord failed to follow its ASB procedure on receipt of the resident’s ASB report dated December 2021.
4. £250 in recognition of poor complaint handling and the distress and uncertainty she will have experienced as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that all staff dealing with a complaint are aware of and familiar with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code so that a complaint is responded to in accordance with best practice.
In light of the findings in this case the landlord should undertake a review of its process for undertaking inspections of its properties to ensure that it officers are suitably qualified to assess the repair issues which have been raised against a property.