Kingston upon Hull City Council (202011898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011898

Kingston upon Hull City Council

31 August 2021

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 reports about:
1. the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy
2. repairs.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a house. The tenancy commenced in March 2020. This investigation report refers to both tenants when referring to ‘the resident.’
The landlord’s home standard sets out the minimum standard a property should meet when letting it to a resident. This advises that properties will have safe electrics and gas; be clear of rubbish and clean; have suitable heating; be free of mould; have hygienic, leak free and secure bathrooms; have insulation where possible; have adequate water supplies; have kitchens in usable conditions; have windows that open and close freely and are secure from elements; have external doors that open and close freely and are secure from elements; and have roof and walls that are wind and water tight. The standard adds that if rear gardens are not already enclosed, properties will have fencing installed after moving in.
The landlord’s voids standard sets out its processes to ensure properties meet standards for letting purposes. This advises that on completion of works, a completed and signed final inspection sheet is normally provided along with keys to the landlord, which then undertakes an accompanied visit with the prospective tenant where repairs related issues may be highlighted. Following this, the landlord usually instructs a surveyor to arrange for remedial work to be undertaken and proceeds with sign up and letting.
This also sets out requirements concerning provision of utilities, and advises that if gas and electric meters are missing, an area housing team will be notified; and that within the first year of a contract, the services of a utility company will be procured and employed to ensure meters are fitted for incoming tenants.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints procedure. At stage one it responds within ten working days and at stage two, within 20 working days. At a final stage, escalation to a panel can be requested and the landlord advises if a complaint can or cannot go before the panel within 20 working days.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman decided on a complaint from the resident about delays moving into the property. This investigation therefore considers events when he and his household moved into the property and events that pre-date this are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

In early 2019, the landlord made a direct offer of the property to the resident, whose existing property did not meet his household’s needs. Following the resident’s acceptance, adaptation, extension and refurbishment works were carried out due to the condition of the property and the needs of his household. The landlord has advised that these works did not go through its usual day to day voids process, although the information provided advises that ‘extensive routine voids works’ detailed in a survey were to be carried out in addition to the extension works.
Around 21 February 2020, after completion of the works, the landlord advises that the property was inspected to check all works were completed and supplied photos taken before and after completion. The landlord advises that in the professional opinion of the project surveyor and contractor who carried out a joint inspection, the property was in “excellent condition” and there was no awareness of repair issues that prevented or delayed moving in. The landlord advises that when the keys were handed to the resident, its surveyor made him aware that utility meters were not in place as they had been removed for safety reasons, but that it was a tenant responsibility to arrange for these by contacting the supplier. The landlord also advises that the surveyor contacted a contractor and asked them to arrange an appointment to progress fencing works.
On 21 February 2020, the landlord’s records advise the resident made reports of snagging issues, which were that two external bricks were loose; fascias required replacement; rooms required curtain battens; and a shed light required works. On 28 February 2020, the resident signed the tenancy agreement.
On 17 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and detailed a number of issues he had found, which he advised he had been unable to raise earlier due to Covid-19. The resident detailed the following issues and queried why the property was ‘passed’ in the condition it was handed over in, after being informed works would be completed to a high specification:
1. A toilet filled with and flushed hot water.
2. Hot and cold water configuration was wrong on a bathroom tap.
3. A slippery wet room floor did not drain water when used.
4. Mould was developing between a wet room and a hallway wall.
5. A front door was not fitted properly.
6. A hall light switched on and turned off at different locations.
7. Windows lacked safety catches.
8. A kitchen back door was not fitted properly.
9. There was subsidence and a doorframe was coming away, in a bedroom.
10. A bathroom lacked non-slip flooring; had sealant coming away from a bath and floor; and had loose window handles.
11. Floorboards outside a bedroom were collapsing.
12. A fire alarm was loose.
13. A cracked bannister was coming away from a wall.
14. Windows flashing was showing.
15. There were rotten fascias and fasicas on the extension hanging off.
16. There were holes in wall mortars.
17. There was an external hole with exposed pipes.
18. There was unfinished fencing.
19. There were wet bricks on the side of the house.
On 23 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the issues had been referred internally and he would be contacted about an inspection. On 29 June 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he had not been contacted and a chunk of plastic had now fallen off the extension fascia. The following day, the landlord apologised and explained there had been delays clarifying if visits could be commenced, and advised the resident would be contacted that day.
On 2 July 2020, the landlord raised a complaint from the resident. It was noted he had waited a year to move into the property while it was extended and adapted. It was noted that when he received the keys, he identified the property was not completed to the high standard that had been promised, with multiple faults that needed rectifying, and it was not ready to be moved into. He also advised he was informed that there were no meters as they had been stolen.
On 3 July 2020, the landlord’s records advise that it carried out an inspection and on 24 July 2020 it emailed the resident and confirmed a surveyor had attended and raised repairs in relation to the concerns. On 12 August 2020, the landlord updated the resident that it believed some work had already been completed and appointments were arranged for remaining works. The following day, it confirmed a joint visit for 17 August 2020 had been arranged, in order to ensure completed works were to the resident’s satisfaction and to pick up any remaining issues.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response.
1. It apologised for the delay in response.
2. It advised that the property had undergone extensive works and that it was satisfied these met its standards, but apologised that the resident was unhappy and that issues were not resolved to his satisfaction before moving in. It noted that since receipt of the complaint, staff and contractors had attended and most issues were resolved or in progress, and outstanding issues were discussed at a joint inspection on 17 August 2020.
3. It advised repairs would be raised in relation to holes and bees nests in wall mortars, and that no work was required in relation to living room and kitchen window safety catches; windows flashing; mould; and wet bricks, which related to natural salting of a wall and were below a damp course
4. It advised that no further works were required to a wet room, as water was observed to run away adequately; flooring met specification and was fit for purpose; and around the bath and floor had been sealed. It suggested a disabled shower access enclosure could help contain drips, and advised an assessment by an Occupational Therapist would be required for this.
5. It advised that it met its responsibility to ensure incoming utility supplies, and advised that responsibility to replace a missing meter fell to an incoming tenant to liaise with whichever utility company they use. It apologised this was not explained or caused any inconvenience, and noted the rent account was credited with a ‘one week lettable allowance’ to cover a delay in carrying out gas and electrical checks.
By 14 September 2020, the landlord’s records advise it had completed all works it agreed were required, on the following dates:
1. 24 June 2020: front door
2. 1 July 2020: toilet; bathroom taps.
3. 2 July 2020: fire alarm and hallway light.
4. 24 July 2020: bedroom window safety catches; kitchen back door; filling in and painting of cracked plaster.
5. 27 July 2020: external holes with pipes exposed.
6. 5 August 2020: rotten and hanging off fascias.
7. 19 August 2020: floorboards.
8. 12 September 2020: fencing.
9. 14 September 2020: holes in wall mortars.
The landlord’s records also advise that all the issues raised by the resident were considered and addressed, apart from a cracked bannister coming away from the wall where the status status is unclear, although there is no information to suggest there is any dispute about this repair.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord issued a stage two response, after an escalation request which this Service has not seen.
1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration about the length of time it took to move into the property and the standard of some of the work, but noted that it was unable to identify any new information to support the escalation. It offered the resident £50 for inconvenience caused, which it explained was the maximum it could offer.
2. It noted it was confirmed work identified on 17 August 2020 had been completed apart from holes in external walls where bees had nested, and some rotten fascias, and it confirmed contractors would contact the resident concerning these.
3. It noted that the resident referred to risks he believed children faced living in the property with works outstanding. It noted the resident confirmed no injuries had been suffered as a result of outstanding work to the property or remedial work required when first moving in. It noted the resident also did not identify any current risks and so it noted that it was content there was no risk apart from the state of repairs.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord issued a final response, after an escalation request which this Service has not seen.
1. The landlord explained that it had considered if there were any issues not adequately considered and addressed in previous responses, and advised that the escalation request did not meet the criteria for referral to a panel.
2. It noted that the resident’s escalation reasons were a dissatisfaction with the stage two outcome and a lack of confidence that the investigation looked at the complaint and the reasons behind the initial complaint. It noted that the resident did not outline why he was not satisfied or what a satisfactory outcome would be, but advised it had tried to examine the reasons why the complaint came about.
3. It noted circumstances surrounding requirements for a bigger home and the length of time it had taken to move into the property. It acknowledged that it must have been disappointing that there were numerous problems which needed addressing, and that there was delay in the rectification of these due to Covid-19, and it apologised that the property was not of the standard the resident expected.
4. It explained it had a policy for void properties which become empty and are bid for. It explained that when new tenants visit a prospective property with a housing officer to decide if they want it, agreed repairs to be completed before or after a tenant moves in are documented in a written agreement between the tenant and the landlord.
5. It explained that the resident’s unique circumstances fell outside this process as the property was already accepted and adaptations and an extension were agreed.
6. It acknowledged that an arranged viewing with a housing officer missed an opportunity to identify faults and missing items and for the resident to point out issues such as child locks and ill-fitting doors.
7. It confirmed that it had put a process in place to ensure joint visits are made with tenants before keys were handed over.
8. It noted that from when it was made aware of issues, visits were made and steps were taken to resolve issues by carrying out repairs or raising new orders, and it noted that all agreed required works had been completed.
9. It advised that while there was fault in respect to issues with some of the renovations and adaptations, all necessary work had been completed, and steps had been taken to ensure different processes were in place.
10. It advised that the action taken to rectify faults, apology given and the offer of £50 compensation was a suitable remedy for the complaint and referral to a panel was not necessary.
The resident contacted this Service in January 2021 to raise dissatisfaction with the response. He complains the property was not fully checked before being handed over and was provided in an illegal condition; that the wet room flooring is inadequate and requires relevelling as the shower floods when in use; and that the downstairs toilet and sink hot and cold water were linked up incorrectly. He advised his outcomes sought were to put the wet room flooring right, and to be compensated further to recognise incorrect taps were put in and the risk this caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy

The landlord’s home standard sets out the minimum standard a property should meet when letting and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints confirms that new lettings must be free from risks and of decent standard. The report advises that landlords should carry out inspections to determine whether properties meet lettable standards, and accurate records of inspections and post-inspections should be kept, in order to clearly demonstrate with robust evidence that letting standards are met. It is therefore not entirely reasonable that the landlord has not supplied more detailed contemporaneous written records of when the resident moved in.
The landlord’s response however advised that it was satisfied the property met its minimum standards; acknowledged the resident’s frustration; compensated for inconvenience; and detailed relevant improvements in service. This demonstrates that the landlord considered the key aspects of the complaint and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, appears reasonable considering all of the circumstances of the case.
The landlord advises the letting condition, for which it supplied photographs, was reported to be excellent, and the issues described in February and June 2020 appear to evidence snagging issues with completed works rather than a failure to meet the landlord’s minimum standards for letting. Further, the information provided advises it is acceptable for some works to be completed after moving in, such as fencing work. While the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence and lacks the expertise to make definitive judgements about such matters, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the information provided shows no obvious errors in the way the landlord has reached its main conclusions. In addition, some snagging issues were reported on 21 February 2020 and the tenancy agreement was signed on 28 February 2020, which suggests there was opportunity to view the property and confirm sufficient satisfaction with the letting condition prior to signing of the tenancy.
This Service notes the landlord advises that works carried out to the property did not go through its usual day to day voids process, and while the particular circumstances were unusual, the landlord’s obligation to ensure a property is suitable for letting remains the same. As such, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to follow its usual policies and processes to ensure letting standards are met. It is also not unreasonable to expect it to carry out a more formal joint inspection with the resident on completion of the works. This would have been good practice and customer focused, because extensive works were carried out and the property would have been significantly different to when it was originally viewed and accepted.
This Service also notes the landlord advised that tenants had responsibility for meters, while its voids standard appears to give it responsibility to ensure meters are fitted for incoming tenants. It is expected that a landlord will meet expectations in its policies, and this suggests it may have made inaccurate statements about meter responsibility and failed to meet its policy. However, the landlord has advised that it applied a rent credit in respect of a delay related to this.
In this case it is recognised that the circumstances of the household, which includes disabled individuals, meant moving into a property with outstanding issues may have been more challenging than to other households, in respect to the issues themselves and disruption from any works. It is also recognised that whilst a number of the issues were snagging and relatively minor, the number of issues identified may have had a cumulative impact and added to the frustration of an household with more vulnerability than most, particularly after waiting a long time for the property and the extensive works already carried out to it.
However, overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, acknowledgement of frustration and inconvenience, offer of £50 compensation, and confirmation of improvements in service, was reasonable.
While the landlord should demonstrate better contemporaneous records such as final inspection sheets, the issues raised appear to describe snagging issues with completed works rather than evidence that the landlord’s home standard was not met. In the Ombudsman’s experience, it is not unusual for some repair and/or snagging issues to not become apparently until after a household has taken occupation and living in the property, and that however robust void checks are, some issues may not be obvious until a property is being used. Further, the resident proceeded to sign the tenancy agreement and move in, having appeared to have had the opportunity to view the property. The response and £50 offered by the landlord appears therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable acknowledgement and redress for the inconvenience evidenced to have been caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs.

It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to definitively decide whether specific aspects such as the wet room flooring are inadequate. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is required to take appropriate action in response to any repairs reports it receives, and following the resident’s report in June 2020, which was still during Covid-19 restrictions, the landlord arranged multiple inspections, including one approximately two weeks from the report. It then arranged completion of works it agreed were required within three months, and the majority by the end of the month following the complaint.
The landlord has advised it does not have a repairs policy which sets out target completion dates for specific repairs, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion the information provided demonstrates that the landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns, and took action in respect of issues it accepted responsibility for, in a reasonably timely manner.
Following the resident’s reports, the landlord also provided position and explanation on a number of issues for which it did not consider works were required, including the wet room flooring. As explained at Paragraph 23 and 28, the Ombudsman lacks the expertise to make definitive judgements about such matters, however the information provided demonstrates the landlord reached an informed decision about issues such as the wet room floor level, based on first hand inspection that would have allowed it to review the issues directly against its obligations. This demonstrates the landlord reached conclusions in appropriate ways and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs was therefore reasonable, as it completed repairs in a reasonably timely manner and made decisions about works based on first hand inspection by its staff, whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident about repairs.

Reasons

While the landlord should demonstrate better contemporaneous records such as final inspection sheets, the issues raised by the resident appear to describe snagging issues with completed works rather than evidence that the landlord’s home standard was not met. Further, the resident proceeded to sign the tenancy agreement and move in, having appeared to have had the opportunity to view the property. The response and £50 offered by the landlord appears, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable acknowledgement and redress for the inconvenience evidenced to have been caused.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs was reasonable, as it made decisions about works based on first hand inspection by its staff, whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on, and completed repairs which it considered were required in a reasonably timely manner.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer the compensation of £50, if this has not been paid.
The landlord to review whether it is acting in accordance with its voids standards when advising that tenants are responsible for utility meter installation, and to ensure its policy is followed appropriately.
The landlord to review its recordkeeping for all new lettings to ensure relevant records are kept and are accessible.
The landlord to consider having a repairs policy in place, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.