Karbon Homes Limited (202203262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203262

Karbon Homes Limited

12 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of concerns about a mutual exchange, including:
1. property inspection and condition of the property.
2. subsequent remedial works.
3. staff conduct.
4. gas and electrical safety checks.
5. the deed of assignment.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord through a mutual exchange on 11 October 2021. Prior to the mutual exchange the resident resided at a property owned by another landlord.
The landlord’s assignment and mutual exchange procedure sets out that:
1. The property is exchanged in its current condition, and the landlord will not be responsible for any cleaning or decoration required.
2. The landlord will complete a ‘pre-termination inspection’ detailing any repairs that are the outgoing resident’s responsibility.
3. If it is apparent considerable repairs are needed, then the landlord will arrange for a surveyor to attend to complete a detailed inspection.
4. After both parties have consented to the mutual exchange, the landlord will assign the property to the resident using a deed of assignment. The incoming resident will then be given a copy of the original tenancy agreement.
5. A gas safety check and electrical check will be required, and the landlord should also provide the resident with an energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property.
6. The landlord should arrange for any repairs to be done before the exchange, if that is possible.
7. Repairs reported by the incoming resident that would normally be considered the landlord’s responsibility will be carried out by the landlord in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to carry out standard repairs within 20 working days. An example given is of refixing kitchen cupboard doors.
The repairs policy sets out what the landlord will do if it is unable to gain access to a property to carry out work following an appointment. It states it will leave a card advising that the job has been cancelled and that the resident should make contact to arrange another appointment.
The landlord’s tenants’ handbook states that the resident’s responsibilities include:
1. allowing the landlord access to complete repairs, safety checks and any inspections needed.
2. some minor repairs, such as replacing plugs and chains in sinks. It does not specify who is responsible for maintaining bathrooms seals.
The landlord sets out in its gas safety policy that it fulfils its statutory duties by undertaking annual gas safety inspections. In its electrical safety policy it says it is committed to ensuring electrical testing every 5 years as a minimum.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can consider payments for distress and inconvenience. It says this payment may be up to a maximum of £250 but will be determined by the severity of the issue.
The landlord has a 3-stage complaints process. It states that stage 0 complaints are for issues that can be handled at the first point of contact within 5 working days. Otherwise, the complaint will be escalated to stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. The landlord sets out that it will provide a response at these stages within 5 working days, unless there are mitigating reasons to extend this timescale.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has vulnerabilities as she has mental health issues. The resident told us that she is vulnerable and used the services of a community psychiatric nurse (CPN) during the time of the mutual exchange.

Summary of events

In August 2021 the resident began a mutual exchange with another resident of the landlord (Mr G). On 13 August 2021 the resident wrote to a housing officer for the landlord (Officer M). She said the property was in a poor state of decoration and needed a “deep clean”. She queried whether the landlord would arrange this before she moved in. Officer M responded the same day. She said:
1. it was Mr G’s responsibility to clean the property prior to the exchange, and it would highlight this when it inspected the property.
2. the exchange would not go ahead until Mr G had completed a deep clean, if necessary.
3. the incoming resident accepted the property in its current condition during a mutual exchange.
On 20 August 2021 the resident submitted a mutual exchange application to the landlord.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord completed a pre-termination inspection of the property. This included photos of the rooms in the property. No issues or repairs were identified. However, it stated that:
1. a full inspection of the property may not be possible due to furniture and belongings being “in situ”.
2. a thorough inspection would be completed once Mr G had returned the keys.
3. Mr G had agreed to clean and clear the property prior to the exchange.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord booked gas and electrical checks for 4 October 2021. However, on 28 September 2021, the resident postponed the exchange date. At this time she told the landlord she was a vulnerable person and that she was being assisted by her CPN (community psychiatric nurse). The next day the landlord arranged to meet the resident at the property on 6 October 2021 to sign documentation in advance of the exchange, which had been set for 11 October 2021. Gas and electricity checks were rearranged for 12 October 2021 and the landlord told the resident of this.
On 6 October 2021 the resident and Mr G met at the property to sign the deed of assignment. An officer from the resident’s previous landlord signed the document as a witness.
The mutual exchange took place on 11 October 2021. That day the resident sent an email to Officer M. She said:
1. The property had been left in a “deplorable mess”. She said Mr G had left cupboards full of items which he had agreed to collect by the end of the week.
2. She had attached photos of the condition of the kitchen.
Officer M responded later the same day. She said the landlord could not assist with moving Mr G’s items, and this would be rechargeable. She said Mr G would need to return to dispose of the items he had left. The resident later said she left the key for the property with Mr G to allow him to move the rest of his possessions and went to stay with a relative.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord attended to complete gas and electricity checks but recorded there was no access to the property. The following day the resident sent Officer M an email. She said she had been unable to access the property since the exchange as Mr G was cleaning. Officer M arranged to meet with the resident and Mr G at the property on 15 October 2021.
On 19 October 2021 the resident emailed Officer M. She said repairs were needed at the property and she would be in contact when she had a full list.
On 25 October 2021 the resident called to re-book the electricity check at the property. The landlord booked this for 6 December 2021. On 27 October 2021 the landlord noted the resident was unhappy with the condition of the property and that it was to inspect for repairs. It booked an appointment for 5 November 2021.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord’s surveyor wrote to the resident following an inspection of the property that day. The surveyor noted the following work would be completed:
1. Patching of the plasterwork on the ceilings and walls.
2. Cleaning mould growth in the bathroom.
3. Renewal of a kitchen base unit.
4. Replacing missing plinths, and refixing a loose base unit in the kitchen.
5. Replacing a strip light and repairing an extractor fan in the kitchen.
The same day the surveyor told the resident that an appointment had been booked for electrical and plastering work and to clean mould in the bathroom on 6 December 2021. The resident responded saying she needed notice of repairs appointments so she could arrange for someone to be present with her.
The landlord completed a gas safety check at the property on 22 November 2021. On 26 November 2021 the landlord noted that the resident wanted to wait for the kitchen to be repaired before kitchen goods were delivered.
On 5 December 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about its management of her mutual exchange. She raised concerns about:
1. whether it had met its health and safety obligations.
2. its response to repair issues at the property.
3. the conduct of Officer M.
The resident said:
1. the property was in a state of “disrepair” and the landlord could not show it had completed an inspection prior to the exchange.
2. it had not completed gas and electricity safety checks in advance, so could not guarantee the safety of the property.
3. Officer M had been “negligent” and was aware she could not access to the property between 11 and 15 October 2021, but responded with “apathy and inaction”. She said:
  1. she told Officer M she had given Mr G the key to the property.
  2. Officer M said this was “not acceptable” and that Mr G should have cleared his possession prior to the exchange.
  3. she had insisted Officer M attend the property on 15 October 2021 to witness Mr G returning the key to her.
  4. Officer M had not taken account of her circumstances as a vulnerable person.
The resident said the situation had caused her distress and anxiety-related illness. She said damage in the kitchen meant she had been unable to install kitchen goods, and she had yet to be told when repairs to the loose kitchen unit would be completed.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord completed patch repairs to the ceiling and walls at the property and cleaned mould in the bathroom. It recorded that it was unable to remove the black mould from the bathroom seal.
On 17 December 2021 the landlord noted it had booked an appointment for 20 December 2021 to complete repairs to the strip light and extractor fan. It later recorded it had been unable to gain access to the property that day and that the job was abandoned.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 7 January 2022. It acknowledged the delayed response and offered the resident £25 for the inconvenience caused as a result. It went on to say:
1. it had undertaken a “visual inspection” of the property on 21 September 2021.
2. it looked to see if Mr G had completed any work without permission or if there were signs of repairs.
3. there was nothing to stop the exchange going ahead.
The landlord said it completed gas and electricity checks after the mutual exchange had taken place. It said gas checks had previously taken place when Mr G lived at the property, in line with its gas safety policy. It said:
1. A gas check had now been completed.
2. An electricity check was due to be undertaken on 3 February 2022 after being rescheduled from 6 December 2021.
The landlord said Officer M had been unaware the resident had given keys to Mr G until 13 October 2021. It said:
1. had Officer M been aware, she would have advised the resident not to do so.
2. once Officer M was aware, she sent an email to Mr G and advised that he should have removed all his items by the day of the exchange.
3. Officer M met with the resident and Mr G on 15 October 2022 to arrange for the key to be returned.
4. Officer M said she had physically helped Mr G move his items that day.
5. it had credited the resident with a week of rent because of the issues she had experienced with Mr G.
The landlord noted Officer M had not provided the resident with the online tenants’ handbook or the EPC for the property. It said it attached both documents, and upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord went on to say that:
1. some repairs were identified after the move and it apologised for this.
2. the strip light and extractor fan in the kitchen were not checked.
3. its surveyor had since attended to arrange for works to be completed.
4. it upheld this part of the complaint.
The landlord said it was sorry about the problems the resident had experienced with the mutual exchange. But it said it could not have known Mr G would fail to remove his belongings in a timely manner or leave the property as he did.
On 19 January 2022 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
1. the landlord’s assignment and mutual exchange policy was not available publicly and so was not transparent or accessible.
2. the landlord had provided no evidence of the inspection it said was undertaken on 21 September 2021.
3. repairs such as the damaged strip light, extractor fan and the mould on bathroom seal were in “plain sight”.
4. she had not refused access for electrical check on 6 December 2021 but had instead been told the electrician could not attend due to illness.
5. she had sent the landlord emails showing her contact with Officer M on 11 October 2021, in which she said she had given Mr G the key to the property and that she would stay with a relative.
6. The safety hazard presented by the loose kitchen unit had not been addressed.
7. While a plasterer attended on 6 December 2021, he had not been able to remove mould ingrained into the seal in the bathroom, and no further work had been undertaken.
8. The deed of assignment had not been signed by independent witnesses and she wanted a tenancy agreement in her own name.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord noted that it was waiting for:
1. the resident to rebook work to the extractor fan and strip light in the kitchen.
2. materials to complete work to the kitchen units, and that it had chased this.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said there was a considerable amount of information to consider and that it would respond to the complaint by 4 February 2022. It said it appreciated this was outside its target but that it was important for it to consider and investigate all the issues raised.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email. She said:
1. there was no reason the resident could not live at the property or installher kitchen goods.
2. the resident had said she did not want to install kitchen goods (such as a cooker and washing machine) until she had replaced the floor coverings.
The same day the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. The inspection of 21 September 2021 was done using an electronic form which was date stamped and included photos.
2. It was “regrettable” repairs to the strip light and extractor fan were not identified at this time, but these had not been raised as an outstanding repair by Mr G.
3. Mould on the silicone seal was the responsibility of the resident but it had addressed this as gesture of goodwill.
4. It did not believe it was appropriate to share the inspection form with the resident as this was completed when Mr G lived at the property. However, it assured the resident an inspection was undertaken, and said it did not uphold the part of the complaint.
The landlord said it was not a statutory requirement to complete gas and electricity checks during the process of a mutual exchange. But it accepted it was good practice. It said its process was to complete these checks on or after the day of the exchange. It said it considered this reduced any risk the outgoing resident may inadvertently cause. It said the resident had been informed on 6 October 2021 that these checks would be completed on 12 October 2021 but had not raised concerns about this. It said its mutual exchange and assignment policy was on its website and directed the resident to this.
The landlord said it accepted the resident had told Officer M she had given keys to Mr G. However, it said the resident did she would not be at the property for the appointment on 12 October 2021 and had not asked for it to be rearranged.
The landlord noted details of email correspondence between the resident and Officer M on the day on the transfer. It apologised for previously saying that Officer M had not been aware on 11 October 2021 that the resident had given Mr G her key. It said this was incorrect. It noted from this communication that:
1. The resident told Officer M she had given Mr G the keys to the property so he could return to clean.
2. Officer M had said this was “not acceptable” and had offered to call Mr G so keys could be returned.
3. The resident said she was looking after her mother so would stay with her, and that she had given Mr G until 15 October 2021 to resolve the matter.
The landlord said the resident had not asked Officer M to intervene, nor had she taken up her offer to call Mr G. It said it could be inferred that there was a mutual agreement between the resident and Mr G that he retain the keys. The landlord accepted this would have been a stressful situation for the resident and would have caused her significant inconvenience. But that it had not suggested the resident given her keys to Mr G and that it could not be held responsible for his actions.
The landlord noted that Officer M had met with the resident and Mr G to ensure all items had been removed from the property and that keys were returned to the resident. It also noted that Officer M had arranged for a week’s rent to be credited to the resident’s account, as a gesture of goodwill. It said it could see no evidence of Officer M being negligent.
The landlord said it had been due to complete work to the resident’s extractor fan and light on 6 December 2021. However, it had called the resident to cancel the appointment due to operative sickness and rebooked for 20 December 2021. It said:
1. the electrical check that day was a separate appointment.
2. it had attended but could not gained access.
3. It acknowledged the resident may have reasonably assumed both appointments had been cancelled.
4. this should have been explained better at the time of contacting her and it apologised for not doing so.
The landlord noted the resident had complained of professional negligence by Officer M. It said it had reviewed all correspondence and had spoken to relevant staff. It said it could see no evidence or suggestion that Officer M had not acted in a professional manner. It said she had provided paperwork in a timely manner and had responded to the resident’s enquiries. It said the exception had been that Officer M had not provided the tenants’ handbook and EPC, which had been acknowledged in its stage 1 response.
The landlord said it had acknowledged in its stage 1 response that some repairs should have been identified at an earlier date and it had upheld this part of the complaint. It said:
1. it was initially due to attend on 5 November 2021 complete an inspection to identify repairs, but the resident had refused access as she wanted her CPN to be present.
2. it attended on 10 November 2021 to complete an inspection and then sent an email to the resident outlining the repairs to be completed.
3. the surveyor had identified no health and safety concerns in the property and said there was nothing that would prevent the resident from installing kitchen goods.
4. it appeared to be the resident’s decision not to install kitchen appliances.
5. it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
The landlord noted the following jobs were still outstanding:
1. electrical check – it said this had been booked for 17 March 2022 after the resident had cancelled an appointment of 3 February 2022.
2. electrical work to extractor fan and strip light – it said that there had been no access on 20 December 2021 and the work had now been re-booked for 15 February 2022.
3. Joinery work to kitchen and trunking – it had experienced issues with obtaining materials for this job and it was trying to source materials from other suppliers.
The landlord assured the resident that the joinery work would be followed up and that it would contact the resident with an update. It said if it could not source materials to match the resident’s kitchen it would explore alternatives. The landlord accepted that the resident had not been updated about the progress of these repairs or explained the delay. It upheld this part of the complaint.
In respect of the resident’s concerns about the deed of assignment, it said:
1. the deed of assignment was a legal document it used to show the exchange of tenancies had taken place.
2. the deed of assignment did not create a new tenancy but showed Mr G’s tenancy had been transferred to the resident.
3. the resident had been provided with a copy of Mr G’s original tenancy agreement.
4. the document had been witnessed by Officer M and a housing officer for the resident’s previous landlord. It said an independent person was not required for this.
5. it would be happy to explain in further detail, or the resident could seek independent advice. It confirmed the resident had an assured tenancy.
6. it was satisfied the method it used to facilitate the mutual exchange was correct.
The landlord said it appreciated this had been a distressing time for the resident. It said some of the issues were beyond its control. However, it recognised some failings in the standard of its service. It offered the resident £50 in recognition of this.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord noted that it was unable to match the base unit in the kitchen and that a further inspection was needed. It recorded that it had left a voicemail for the resident as it needed to re-inspect the kitchen.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord’s records note it attempted to attend to repairs of the strip light and extractor fan but could not gain access. Its records note it had sent text reminders about this appointment on 10 and 16 February 2022.
The landlord’s repair records note that it attended the resident’s property on 14 March 2022 to assess kitchen unit repairs. It recorded there was no access. Its records note it had left a voicemail and sent appointment reminders on 10 and 13 March 2022.
The landlord booked an appointment for 14 October 2022 to complete work to the strip light and extractor fan. It noted that day that an operative was to attend that afternoon and later noted that materials were on order.
On 20 October 2022 the landlord completed an electrical check at the property.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord completed work to replace the strip light at the property. It noted the resident did not want the extractor fan replaced and that this was operating correctly.
On 8 April 2023 the landlord made a further appointment for 28 April 2023 to assess kitchen unit repairs at the property. It sent text messages to the resident on 8, 21, and 27 April 2023 about this appointment. On 28 April 2023 it noted it had been unable to contact the resident and that there was no access at the property. The landlord has since told us that kitchen repairs at the property remain outstanding.
The resident told us that:
1. she considered repair issues should have been identified by the landlord during the visual inspection of the property.
2. the stage 2 response was inaccurate in saying that she had refused access to the surveyor on 5 November 2021. She said the surveyor was late for the appointment, her CPN was left waiting, and that the appointment was then rearranged.
3. she also disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion that it was safe for her to install kitchen goods as there was a loose kitchen cabinet that had toppled when her CPN leaned against it.
4. she disputed the legality of the deed of assignment.
5. she wanted compensation for the distress of not being able to live at the property due to the lack of “habitable kitchen”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of concerns about a mutual exchange

The property inspection and the condition of the property

The resident raised concerns about whether the landlord had completed an inspection of the property prior to the exchange. The landlord told her it did not consider it was appropriate to share the inspection it completed as it had been undertaken while Mr G lived at the property. This was a reasonable explanation by the landlord, and it was appropriate for it to take into account that the inspection related to a period when someone else lived at the property. We have seen evidence of this inspection, which is dated 21 September 2021. As such, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord acted in accordance with its mutual exchange procedure by completing a pre-termination inspection of the property.
Where a mutual exchange takes place, there is no requirement on the landlord to ensure that the property meets void standards before the incoming tenant moves in. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the strip light and extractor fan had not been checked during the inspection, and it apologised some repairs were identified after the exchange. However, as it noted in its stage 2 response, no repairs had been raised by Mr G at the time of the inspection. It is also clear that the inspection completed at this time was not intended to be detailed. The landlord’s procedure sets out that a detailed inspection would be completed only if the pre-termination inspection identified considerable repairs. It is evident that no repairs had been raised or identified during the inspection. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the property inspection and the condition of the property.

The subsequent remedial works

Following a mutual exchange, a landlord is responsible for completing repairs that it is required to fulfil to meet its repairs obligations as a landlord.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor’s inspection of the property on 5 November 2021, and this was an appropriate response to the concerns the resident raised about the condition of the property. It later said in its stage 2 response that the surveyor had attended on that day, but the resident refused access. The resident has disputed this, and says this appointment had been rescheduled as the surveyor was late, leaving her and the CPN waiting. The landlord’s records do not show why the appointment of 5 November 2021 had to be rearranged. In the absence of any contemporaneous evidence, it is not possible for us to say what transpired on this day. However, the landlord should reasonably have ensured that details relating to the appointment were accurately recorded. That it did not was poor record keeping. This information could help to ensure details of the needs of the resident were considered when scheduling and attending future appointments.
Following the surveyor’s attendance on 10 November 2021 the landlord raised a number of repairs. The surveyor wrote to the resident that day about repairs to be completed and advised of an appointment on 6 December 2021 to complete some of the work. But it is clear the resident was left unaware of when work would be completed to resolve issues with her kitchen units. By the time of her complaint on 5 December 2021 she was still waiting for this information. In line with timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident might reasonably have expected these repairs to be completed within 20 working days. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated with the resident so she was aware of why this target had not been met. Explaining that it was awaiting materials might have reassured the resident that it was making progress towards doing the work.
When providing a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 February 2022, the landlord addressed this point. It explained and accepted that the resident had not been updated or given an explanation for this delay. While it was positive the landlord identified this, it did not appropriately consider what it could do about the resident’s concerns about the safety of the kitchen units in the meantime. The resident had raised concerns about the safety of a loose kitchen unit in her initial complaint, and when escalating this. Despite being aware that it had not even booked a date to complete work to the kitchen units, the landlord did not consider steps to address this. It would have been reasonable for it to have arranged a re-inspection of the kitchen and consider whether temporary repairs should be completed. Not considering this following the resident’s initial complaint in December 2021 was a failing. In view of this, an order has been made that the landlord review processes in place to keep residents updated of repair timescales. It should also remind staff of the importance of considering re-inspections and temporary repairs when safety concerns are raised.
The resident said that she had been unable to install kitchen goods in the property and she wanted compensation for the condition of the kitchen. The landlord responded during its complaints process. It stated its surveyor had identified no health and safety concerns at the property, and nothing that prevented the resident from installing kitchen goods. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its surveyor on this point. But, as outlined above, there was more that the landlord should have done to address and allay the resident’s concerns about the stability of one of the kitchen units. That it failed to do so would have caused the resident unnecessary additional concern.
While the landlord attended to complete work to remove mould in the bathroom on 6 December 2021, its operative noted they could not remove the mould from the bathroom seal. The resident raised this concern when escalating her complaint in January 2022. But, instead of responding specifically to this point, the landlord said it had already addressed the resident’s concerns about the seal as a gesture of good will. This ignored what the resident and its own records said about the operative being unable to resolve this. If the landlord considered it was now the resident’s responsibility to take any further action, it should have explicitly said so. As it was, its response left the resident without resolution. An order has been made that the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether she has outstanding concerns about mould on bathroom seals and confirm whether it will complete repairs in respect of this.
It is noted that the landlord has made a number of attempts to attend the property to complete work, such as to reinspect the kitchen units and in respect of the extractor fan and strip light. Despite sending text reminders to the resident about appointments, was unable to gain access to the property on a number of occasions.
While the landlord eventually completed the work to resolve the strip light and extractor fan repair in January 2023, the kitchen repairs remain outstanding Records show attempts to complete a re-inspection of kitchen units in February 2022 and April 2023. It appears the landlord provided the resident with appropriate advance warning of these appointments. In line with the tenants’ handbook the resident had a responsibility to allow the landlord with access to the property to complete repairs. It is not clear why the resident missed these repair appointments, but each of these will lead to a cost for the landlord. In addition, it has resulted in repairs being outstanding for longer. We have not found a failing by the landlord in respect of these no access appointments. However, a recommendation has been made that it contacts the resident to establish what steps could be taken to avoid future no access appointments. It may be helped by providing the resident with a single point of contact for the purpose of facilitating outstanding works. It could also be helped by providing the resident with confirmation and reminders of repair appointments using a different method – by post or by email for instance.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about remedial work. The landlord took appropriate steps to complete an inspection of the property in response to concerns from the resident. However, it failed to provide her with a timescale for completing the kitchen repairs or keep her updated when these repairs were delayed due to problems sourcing materials. It also failed to consider reinspecting the property in response to the concerns the resident raised about the safety of a loose kitchen cupboard, and it left her concern about mould on bathroom seals unresolved. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £50 to recognise failings in the standard of its service. This does not adequately recognise the concern, and frustration caused to the resident as a result of its failings. With reference to the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, a further award has been ordered.

Staff conduct

The resident said that she had not been able to access the property between 11 and 15 October 2021 after giving Mr G the key. In responding to these concerns the landlord referred to the email correspondence between Officer M and the resident during this time. We have not been provided with these emails, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep and provide evidence referred to in complaint responses. While that is the case, the resident has not disputed the accuracy of what the landlord said about this communication.
The landlord accepted the resident had told Officer M on 11 October 2021 that she had given Mr G the keys to the property. It also acknowledged and apologised that it had previously said otherwise. The resident felt Officer M had not considered her circumstances as a vulnerable person. But the landlord noted the resident had not taken up Officer M’s offer to intervene by contacting Mr G to request the return of keys. It said it inferred from this that there was a mutual agreement between Mr G and the resident that he keep the keys during this time. The landlord’s conclusions that Officer M had taken appropriate steps by offering to contact Mr G, and by meeting with the resident and Mr G on 15 October 2021 to oversee the return of the key were reasonable. The resident had told Officer M she would be staying with family during the time, so she had no reason to believe the situation had left the resident without somewhere to stay. It is also noted that Officer M later arranged for a week’s rent to be credited to the resident’s account in recognition of the issues caused by Mr G. This was a reasonable step by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged during its complaint response that Officer M had failed to provide the resident with the EPC for the property and the tenants’ handbook. It provided the resident with these documents. Overall, the landlord’s consideration and response to the resident’s concerns about Officer M’s actions during this time was reasonable. We acknowledge that this was clearly a very upsetting time for the resident. Resolving the issues following the mutual exchange would undoubtedly have caused her distress and inconvenience. However, it appears in considering her complaint the landlord responded fully and reasonably to her concerns about Officer M’s actions during this time.

Gas and electrical safety checks.

The resident was concerned that gas and electricity checks had not be completed in advance of the mutual exchange. While the landlord’s mutual exchange and assignment procedures state these checks will be completed, it does not expressly state when. As such, a recommendation has been made that the landlord add some clarity to its literature about this. In its response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it did not have a statutory duty to complete these checks in advance of the mutual exchange, but that its process was to do so after the exchange. It further explained that it did so as it considered this to reduce risks an outgoing resident may inadvertently cause.
It is clear that the landlord had taken steps to book these checks for the day after the mutual exchange. We acknowledge the reasons the resident missed this appointment, due to the issues she had experienced with Mr G clearing the property. However, it appears the steps the landlord took to arrange checks, and its explanation to the resident of the timing of these checks, were reasonable.
It is noted that the gas check was eventually completed on 22 November 2021. We have not seen records that confirm why the electricity check was not completed until October 2022, over a year after the resident moved in. But it is a significant delay. An electricity check is provided for in the landlord’s procedures. While we do not consider there to be any significant detrimental impact to the resident as a result of this, it is noted that she was concerned. However, the landlord was attending the property during this period, and it could have taken steps to deal with any obvious issues accordingly. But it would have been reasonable for the landlord to record details of why the check scheduled for March 2022 was not completed. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about gas and electricity checks.

Deed of assignment

The resident said that she did not believe the deed of assignment had been witnessed independently. She also said that she wanted a tenancy agreement in her own name. The landlord appropriately explained to the resident that it used a deed of assignment to transfer the existing tenancy following the mutual exchange. This was in line with its mutual exchange and assignment procedure.
It is noted that the deed of assignment was witnessed by a housing officer from the resident’s previous landlord. While the resident raised concerns about this in her complaint, the landlord said that an independent person was not required. In addition, its procedure does not set out any specific requirements around this. While the resident may wish to have a new tenancy agreement in her name, the landlord explained why this was not done. A mutual exchange does not result in the grant of a new tenancy and the deed of assignment is therefore used to reflect the change of occupancy and transfer of rights. We acknowledge that the resident’s concerns about the deed of assignment remain. However, the landlord’s explanation to the resident was thorough, and provided reassurance about her tenancy status. It also offered to explain this in further detail if she required, and directed her to seek independent legal advice as an alternative. This was appropriate. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the deed of assignment. However, a recommendation has been made that the landlord reconfirm to her its offer to provide a further explanation around this.

The complaint handling

The landlord was delayed in providing both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The resident had made her initial complaint on 5 December 2021, but did not receive a response until 7 January 2022. That was outside response timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its eventual response. It also awarded the resident £25, which was an appropriate recognition of this delay. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it would have been appropriate for it to agree an extension in advance. A recommendation has been made that the landlord remind its staff of the importance of agreeing complaint response extensions with residents.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also delayed by approximately a week However, the landlord contacted the resident in advance to explain this and the reasons for the delay. At this time, it provided the resident with a date when she would receive the response. This was appropriate. It is also noted that the landlord’s response to the resident was detailed and thorough at each stage and it showed empathy towards the distress the resident had experienced during the mutual exchange.
However, as outlined above, there was more that the landlord should have done during its complaint handling to identify and remedy the resident’s concerns about the safety of a kitchen cabinet and the mould on the bathroom seal. As such, there were some failings in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint. The impact of these failings is considered and included in the award in respect of the handling of the resident’s concerns about the remedial work to the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the property inspection and the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about remedial work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about gas and electricity checks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the deed of assignment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord inspected the property in advance of the mutual exchange in line with its procedure. This was not intended to be a detailed inspection, and no repairs were either identified or brought to its attention. The landlord’s explanation of this, and of why it was not providing the resident with a copy of its inspection was reasonable.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with a timescale for completing work to her kitchen cabinet or keep her updated about progress towards completing this work. It also failed to take the appropriate step of reinspecting to establish whether temporary repairs could be completed to address the resident’s concerns. Nor was the landlord clear about what more it was prepared to do about mould on the bathroom seal.
The landlord’s consideration and response to the resident’s concerns about Officer M’s conduct and handling of the mutual exchange, and the issues that arose during this, was reasonable.
The landlord provided a full and reasonable explanation to the resident of why it completed gas and electricity checks after the mutual exchange. However, it did not complete an electricity check at the property until October 2022, more than a year after the resident had moved in. This was a significant delay but there was not any significant detrimental impact upon the resident because of this.
The landlord provided a clear explanation to the resident of why it had used a deed of assignment rather than a new tenancy agreement. It also provided reassurance to her about her tenancy status.
While the landlord’s complaint responses were, for the most part, comprehensive and thorough, it failed to identify the further steps it should reasonably have taken to resolve the resident’s concerns about the remedial work to the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Make a payment to the resident of £300 for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of remedial work to the property. This includes the £50 it previously awarded.
3. Contact the resident to arrange a date for a re-inspection of the kitchen cabinet and completion of necessary repairs/temporary repairs.
4. If it has not yet done so, pay the £25 previously awarded for the delayed complaint response.
5. Contact the resident to confirm whether she has outstanding concerns about mould on the bathroom seal and whether it will complete repairs in respect of this.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Review processes it has in place to keep residents updated about repair timescales.
2. Remind staff of the importance of considering whether re-inspections and temporary repairs are appropriate when residents raise safety concerns.

Recommendations

Contact the resident to establish whether steps could be taken to avoid future no access appointments and consider offering her a single point of contact to facilitate outstanding work.
Offer to provide a further explanation to the resident about the deed of assignment.
Remind its staff of the importance of agreeing complaint response extensions with residents.
Reviews its mutual exchange procedure literature to provide clarity around when the gas and electrical inspections will take place.