London Borough of Hounslow (202116448)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116448

London Borough of Hounslow

5 April 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:
1. Handling of void repairs at the property.
2. Handling of a deep clean before the property was let to the resident.
3. Handling of offers of accommodation in 2018 and the level of priority banding allocated to the resident in 2021.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s offers of accommodation in 2018 and the level of priority banding allocated to the resident in 2021.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body’.
Complaints concerning the determination of an individual’s priority banding and property allocation are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2 bedroom house and the tenancy commenced on 2 August 2021. The landlord recorded multiple physical and mental health vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident informed the landlord that her daughter had a sensory processing disorder and was having tests to determine other possible conditions. The landlord received no new medical evidence regarding the resident’s children.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. It will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 15 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in repair:
1. The structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters, and external pipes.
2. Any installations it has provided for the supply of water, gas and electricity, and sanitation including basins, sinks, baths and toilets.
3. Any installations it has provided for space heating and water heating.
The tenancy agreement states residents are responsible for minor routine repairs and renewals. This includes, but not limited to, filling minor cracks in plaster.
The landlord’s complaints policy says in order for it to consider a complaint at stage 2, a resident must submit their request within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome of its stage 1 complaint response.
Paragraph 4.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a landlord must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. Reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint.
The landlord does not have a separate compensation policy. When providing evidence for this case, it explained that it follows the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when calculating compensation offers.
The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance encourages landlords to have their own remedies policy or guidance, as this provides a framework for staff to refer to when considering individual cases. Whilst a landlord may have guidance in place, its staff should nevertheless decide each case on its own merits and consider the use of discretion as appropriate.
The landlords void lettable standard sets out what residents can expect when they move in. This includes:
1. The completion of a deep clean that removes the domestic appliance left by the previous resident; all painted timber material within the property washed down and cleaned; floors swept and tiles washed down; the removal of deposits of dust, grease, and cobwebs from surfaces.
2. Mould and mildew from walls washed down and disinfected; plaster renewed where severely blown, damaged, or when unable to clean if badly tobacco stained; holes in plaster repaired (minor decorating cracks may remain).
3. Latches and handles to doors repaired and/or replace if damaged or missing.
4. All vegetation cut back to a manageable level (excluding established shrubs and small trees); all furniture, builders’ rubble, and general rubbished removed from the garden.
5. A securely fitted bath, basin, toilet. Bathroom water supplies and waste pipes checked and free from leaks.

Summary of events

During March 2021 the landlord recorded the completion of gas and electrical safety inspections while the property was empty (void). It reported that the boiler was in good condition and the electrical installation condition report advised that the inspection was satisfactory.
During March to April 2021 the landlord completed an extensive list of internal and external works and repairs to the void property ready to hand it back to the housing stock. This included new plasterboard (as existing walls were tobacco stained), decoration, new roof felt, and a “clean and clear” of the property. It remained unoccupied until the resident accepted it and signed tenancy paperwork on 30 July 2021. The tenancy started the following week. Photographic evidence was supplied to the Ombudsman.
On the first day of the resident’s tenancy, 2 August 2021, a heating contractor attended the property. The landlord’s repairs record shows that they reported that the resident’s child had pulled a radiator off the bedroom wall. The damage required a builder to repair the wall and plaster. The resident denies this and highlights that her children were very young at the time. The contractor attended again on 6 and 8 August 2021 due to reports of heating loss. The attending engineers explained to the resident how to correctly use the programmer and immersion heater. No repairs were required.
On 10 August 2021 the landlord completed a post let visit. On the following day it replaced door handles and latches, a garage door lock, and repainted the porch ceiling as marks from a historic leak had come through the decoration. The door latches were replaced due to “workmanship” and marks following repainting work.
Between the 10 to 20 August 2021 the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord and said that she wished to complain. Her emails contained various issues related to historic matters, previous properties, historic ASB, and matters related to the current property. The summary of those related to the property were:
1. Water had escaped while bathing her children damaging personal possessions and had entered the fuse box, lighting, and smoke alarm. The alarm sounded for 3 hours which caused distress to her children.
2. The property was dirty when she moved in.
3. There was a tree stump and weeds in the garden.
4. There were difficulties with the back door lock.
Around this time the landlord’s records note that bathroom tiles had been displaced while removing the bath panel to inspect the bath waste pipe. The operatives repair notes advised that the waste pipe was ok.
On 21 August 2021 a heating contractor attended that day due to reports of a leak from a hallway radiator. It recorded that a solder elbow had been pulled clean off the pipework through the wall. A builder was required to chip away access, solder the pipework, and make good the wall. The heating system was drained down and made safe. The resident was provided with electric fan heaters while arranging the repair.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord supplied additional fan heaters while repair works remained on going.
On 7 September 2021 the landlord instructed a gas emergency contractor to inspect the property. The resident had reported an escape of gas. The report recorded that there was no trace of a gas leak but noted that the resident had reported a smell from around the cylinder on the landing. It advised that this required further investigation.”
On 9 September 2021 the landlord’s surveyor attempted to complete an inspection in response to the resident’s complaint. This visit was unsuccessful as the resident did not allow access. She said that she was unhappy with his attitude towards her. An appointment was rearranged for the next day.
On the same day the heating contractor completed the pipework repair in the hallway and the gas central heating was switched back on.
On 10 September 2021 the landlord inspected the property and completed silicone sealant works to all window frames, bath edges/tiles, and regrouted a lower section of tiles on the bathroom wall (that had been damaged investigating the recent leak). A door was adjusted at the resident’s request following recently fitted carpet.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord’s teams met internally to discuss the resident’s concerns and agreed a schedule of works to address matters raised. It agreed to visit to review any medical advice concerning her conditions and assess whether adaptations were required.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident. It was sending its stage 1 response and refers to her raising new issues during a call, such as moving a radiator by the fridge. It arranged another inspection visit.
On 17 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 response.
1. It understood the resident’s complaint to be:
  1. That she was unable to use the bathroom at the property due to the possibility of leaks.
  2. That she had had no heating or hot water for 2 weeks. That her young children were unable to use the facilities in the property.
  3. That she had been expecting a contractor to attend but it cancelled on the day as another job came up.
2. It had carefully considered the points raised and had, for completeness, included additional issues that the resident had raised since her complaint.
3. It noted that following inspections and work by its contractors she remained unhappy. It agreed to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property to go through the issues with her.
4. It had agreed to an extended complaint response date with the resident. This was to ensure that it could account for the surveyor’s inspection. It explained that the inspection on 10 September 2021 had considered all internal and external issues raised.
5. It acknowledged that she had expressed issues about the kitchen, living room, rear garden, hot water cupboard on the landing, bathroom, and bedrooms. Following the inspection it agreed to provide the following remedies:
  1. Silicone seal all windows and frames as the resident had identified some holes in the ends of the uPVC window edge trim.
  2. Silicone seal the bath edge and grout the lower section of tiles on the bathroom wall.
  3. Adjust the doors throughout the property and repair and replace hinges.
  4. Replace a missing kickboard under a kitchen unit.
  5. Install some feather board fencing to cover a gap at the side wall.
6. Following the inspection it advised the resident of things that did not need additional works:
  1. The extractor fan in the kitchen was in working order. Therefore it did not need replacing.
  2. There was a sufficient gap between the radiator and the resident’s fridge freezer. Therefore it would not need to move it.
  3. It would not remove the buried rubbish that the resident had found having turned over the garden soil herself.
  4. It could not identify the smell or noise reported by the resident from the hot water cupboard. It suggested, as a remedy to reduce any noise, that she may wish to purchase an additional water tank cover from a DIY store.
  5. It demonstrated how to use the shower attachment and hoped that this would address the resident’s concerns regarding the bath.
7. It said that all work orders had been raised and it would arrange dates with the resident to rectify the works.
8. It would send her a copy of its letting standards.
9. It acknowledged that she had been visited by “a number of contractors” regarding her heating and hot water. It hoped that it was now working and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It acknowledged that it would have been frustrating that its contractor cancelled an appointment on the day she was expecting it.
10. It was satisfied how it and its contractors had responded to the resident’s repairs at the property when reported.
11. It had addressed additional issues raised since the complaint was made and suggested remedies that it would undertake where possible.
12. It acknowledged that since the surveyors visit, she had raised a new issue about an uneven floor. Its surveyor who would arrange another visit to inspect and discuss.
13. It was partially upholding the resident’s complaint due to the problems the resident had experienced when she first moved into her property.
14. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On the same day the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she remained dissatisfied and would send a full response in the coming days. Within her email she referred to being told by a surveyor that the property had had a historic leak. She considered that this had not been fully repaired and considered that the walls were uneven and swollen. She said that she would go into detail in her reply.
On 19 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to update her regarding the additional work agreed during the complaints process. All had been completed apart from her request for it to remove/grind down a tree stump in the garden. It had completed 2 inspections and was satisfied that the property met letting standards.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord completed work to the wall and fitted a new radiator in the bedroom. It was noted during the repair that the pipe work for the radiator had been bent since its previous visit.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 17 September 2021. It was disappointed that she remained unhappy and acknowledged her intention to request escalation to stage 2. It provided an email address to submit her request and attached a copy of its complaints policy.
On the same day a heating contractor attended the property due to reports of a smell and noise coming from the airing cupboard. The attending engineer found no faults, no sounds, and no smells.
On 29 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. The email was extensive and referred to multiple health and family issues. Many of these points were historic, about previous housing, historic ASB, or relating to issues with the resident’s daughter’s school. The resident refers to issues with the walls and the floor. A surveyor attended later that day to respond to comments of “warped walls” and “risk of asbestos” that she had referred to.
Following its surveyor’s inspection the landlord emailed the resident on 1 October 2021. It said no further void work would be carried out as the property met the required letting standards. It summarised the discussion:
1. The hallway ceiling had previously been repaired following a leak. Sanding and repainting would be for the resident to complete should she choose to.
2. There was no issue with the walls and floor in the living room and no danger to the resident or her family. Visible marks were from an old stud partition. There was no fire issue.
3. There was no safety issue with an electrical socket in an under stairs cupboard. It would fill a small hole to resolve remedial work.
4. The hand rail on the stairs that the resident said would get loose was tight and secure when inspected.
5. A seam on a dry lined wall on the stairs was opening slightly. This was considered a decoration issue and not a safety issue. Therefore this was the resident’s responsibility.
6. The landing banister that the resident said was loose was secured with steel poles and bolted into floor joists. There was a slight movement at the top but there was no safety issue.
7. The front bedroom door was not warped. It fitted correctly and closed fully. It noted its finish was rippled following painting over the old surface and required new hinges.
8. It would be its heating contractor’s responsibility to investigate the “random in time” noises from the water cylinder that the resident reported.
9. There was no reason carpet or laminated floor could not be installed as the resident had stated.
10. That no water damage was observed to the resident’s property.
Between 1 to 19 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord multiple times. Some emails were extensive and included a variety of issues. Many of which were requests for adaptations and not part of the original complaint. She advised that her new flooring had been successfully laid and asked for an update for her stage 2 complaint.
On 8 October 2021 a heating contractor attended the property due to reports of a radiator leak. The engineer attended within 24 hours and reported finding no leaks and the radiator was working fully.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord responded by email to the resident. It explained that following its stage 1 response on 17 September 2021 her complaint was now closed. It acknowledged that she had emailed it on 17 September 2021 and said that she intended to escalate her complaint. It had responded to her on 23 September 2021,provided the process to formally request escalation to stage 2and supplied contact details of a housing officer who she could contact if she required additional support. As it had not received anything from her, the complaint had been closed.
On 20 October 2021 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord following contact from the resident. The letter was a first request for action letter requesting that it provide the resident with a stage 2 response. Her complaint was about:
1. Disrepair to the property.
2. The property had not been cleaned and disinfected prior to her accepting the tenancy.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged this request and informed us that it had been allocated to the relevant member of staff.
On 29 October 2021 the resident requested a single point of contact. The landlord’s housing officer became the main point of contact, however communication continued to be received by multiple officers/departments.
On 4 November 2021 the landlord completed works to grind a tree stump. This was recorded as out of void standard but completed at the resident’s request following a visit by a surveyor.
A heating contractor attended the property on 15 November 2021 due to reports of a leaking radiator in the living room. The attending engineer reported finding no leaks and the radiator was working fully. The contractor recorded that the volume of calls from the resident was an increasing concern and it sought advice from the landlord.
On 18 November 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman on several occasions by email and telephone. She raised multiple issues, some of which were outside of her original complaint. We advised the resident that she needed to wait for the landlord to issue its final stage 2 response.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 6 December 2021 regarding pests at the property. The resident was informed that she should contact the landlord and report the issue. We would only be able to review complaints once they had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) and it had been given an opportunity to resolve her concerns.
On 15 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
1. It understood the resident’s complaint to be:
  1. Its handling of disrepair at the property.
  2. Its failure to clean and disinfect the property following the previous tenants death.
2. It said that it had closed her stage 1 complaint as it did not receive the escalation request that she had said she would send. However, it had agreed to review her stage 1 complaint.
3. It noted that she was due to pay rent but said she was feeling reluctant to do so as property was “not fit for purpose.”
4. That she had raised her complaint in hope of getting help with issues and “no one has been in touch.”
5. It had arranged for a surveyor to visit on 10 September 2021 to discuss any concerns directly. The outcome of this was set out in its stage 1 response, including the actions to remedy her concerns. This work had since been completed
6. Its surveyor also indicated that he could see no reason the bath could not be used and that the property was considered to be in good condition.
7. The surveyor visited on 29 September 2021 and concluded that no further void works need to be carried out as the property met the required letting standards. Confirmation of this decision was sent to the resident on 1 October 2021.
8. Subsequently it had agreed to remove or grind down a tree stump in the garden and this work had been completed.
9. It had cleared the garden in accordance with its void letting standards and any work the resident had carried out digging into the subsurface was her responsibility.
10. It had interrogated her concerns regarding the heating and hot water at the property. It noted that she had contacted its contractor on 20 occasions to report a range of concerns. It noted that she had indicated that there had been no heating or hot water for two weeks and suffered a leak which caused damage to the property.
11. On 5 August 2021 the resident had reported an issue with the hot water. Its contractor attended on 6 August 2021 and identified that she had both the boiler and immersion switched on.
12. On 8 August 2021 the resident had reported no heating. The contractor attended that day and identified that she had switched off the programmer. Its contractor demonstrated how to operate the programmer and how to control the heat with the room thermostat.
13. On 21 August 2021 the resident reported a leaking radiator. Its contractor attended the same day. It was observed that the solder elbow had been pulled off from pipe work coming out of the wall. It was unable to repair this immediately as work was required to chip away the wall. Its contractor left electric heaters for the resident to use.
14. On 7 September 2021 the resident reported that the boiler was defective due to a smell. No smell was identified during the inspection on 9 September 2021.
15. On 10 November 2021 the resident had reported the loss of heating and hot water. Its contractor attended the same day and completed the repair on 11 November 2021.
16. Other service requests were about defective/leaking radiators and operatives had attended and resolved matters.
17. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced heating and hot water loss but it had responded appropriately to these service requests.
18. Although the resident’s comments regarding the pre let cleaning had not formed part of her stage 1 complaint, it had looked into her concerns and was satisfied that the deep clean had taken place. This work was completed to ensure that it met letting standards and was safe to occupy.
19. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with the problems experienced with the heating and hot water when she first moved in, and partially upheld her stage 1 complaint for this. However it said it was clear that it had responded and rectified the issue in a timely manner.
20. Having carefully considered the points raised in her escalation request it could find no fault in relation to these issues. Therefore it did not uphold the other parts of her complaint.
21. The landlord reiterated the steps it had completed to assist her and confirmed that it was satisfied that the property met the letting standards and was in a good, lettable condition.
22. The resident had written to it on 29 November 2021 requesting a response to several points. The landlord provided answers to these within its letter. Information included the dates the kitchen and bathroom were due to be renewed.
23. The landlord provided details of the Housing Ombudsman Service in its response.
On 15 December 2021 the resident acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 response and would send a more detailed response. She also said:
1. That she had asked about “the cooling off period since August” but “seemed to be ignored.”
2. That she had provided photographs indicating that the property had not been cleaned. The Ombudsman has not seen photographic evidence.
On 6 January 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 15 December 2021. It understood that she was unhappy with its stage 2 response. It asked the resident to confirm the specific complaint reference and would respond once the resident had clarified.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord answered the resident’s questions about “cooling off periods” and its post let cleaning of its void properties. It advised:
1. There was no “cooling off period” for her property. She may be referring to Part 7 of the homelessness legislation which provides a homeless applicant a right to a review of a suitable property within 21 days of acceptance. It explained that she had not been homeless upon her acceptance. Therefore the legislation was not relevant to her.
2. It explained that all void properties are deep cleaned before letting and this was required as part of the letting standards. It confirmed that the manager of the void service had visited and was satisfied that the property had been cleaned and was ready to let.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It noted that it had responded to her questions regarding “cooling off periods” and its deep cleaning process of void properties. It attached another copy of its response, its stage 1 and 2 responses, and explained that it had now concluded its internal complaints procedure. It advised that her complaint was now closed and provided the contact details of the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied. It also provided the contact details of the housing officer to discuss her housing options.
On 24 February 2022 the resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman. She remained in the property and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has described her housing issues from dates that include 2007, 2008, and 2017. The resident has requested that we seek to backdate any orders for time at various properties from these dates. This investigation is focussed on the complaint made to the landlord in August 2021.
Within the resident’s contact with the landlord, new repair requests often formed part of her communication. Any issues that did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, nor addressed within the landlord’s ICP will not be considered within this investigation. It is appropriate that the landlord has the opportunity to respond to any new complaints and for it to complete its ICP.

Handling of void repairs at the property

Bathroom leak

The landlord’s record’s confirmed that there had been a leak from the bathroom on 11 August 2021 which had caused some water staining downstairs. There is evidence that it attended to the repair within its 24 hour time frame; completing the repair and replacing 2 light pendants and a smoke alarm.
To attend to the repair, the landlord’s operative recorded removing the bath panel to inspect the waste pipe. No leak was identified from the waste pipe but several bathroom tiles on the lower part of the wall had been displaced while removing the panel.
It is unclear to us what precisely caused the water leak. However, following the surveyors visit on 10 September 2021 it raised works to renew new silicone sealant around the bath as well regrout the recently displaced tiles.
Although a leak would cause distress there is no evidence that the landlord failed to undertake the necessary repairs to meet its letting standards prior to the resident moving in. It also responded appropriately and within its repair time frames when notified of a leak. We are therefore unable to determine that a failure of void repairs at the property resulted in a leak from the bathroom.

Uneven flooring

Within the resident’s communication with the landlord after her initial complaint, it is evident that she was concerned by the flooring at the property. She referred to it as being uneven and said that carpet suppliers were unable to lay flooring as a result of its condition. She considered this a failure in the landlord’s void repairs.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord inspected the property and reported that it saw no reason floor covering could not be laid. It saw no health and safety concerns and informed the resident that the visible marks were from a previous stud partition. In early October 2021 the resident confirmed that new floor covering had been successfully laid.
In the Ombudsman’s view it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the floor upon receipt of the resident’s concerns and reasonable for it rely on the findings of its surveyor. There was therefore no service failure identified.

Tree stump

The landlord said that following its post let inspections, it agreed to help remove or grind down a tree stump in the resident’s garden. It explained that this was outside of its normal letting standards. However, it would undertake it for the resident.
The landlord’s void lettable standard policy says that it will cut back to a manageable level and clear all vegetation, excluding established shrubs and small trees. Therefore its offer to assist was reasonable.
There were no reported health and safety risks and this offer was a gesture by the landlord to help the resident. Therefore, although it was agreed in August 2021 and completed on 4 November 2021, the Ombudsman has not considered this delay to amount to a service failure. Therefore we do not consider there to have been any failure by the landlord in relation to the removal of the tree stump.

Garden clearance

The landlord’s void letting standard states that it will remove all builder’s rubble, and general rubbish from the garden. However, the resident says that she dug up and removed rubbish and carpet that was visibly sticking out from the garden after her tenancy started.
The Ombudsman has been supplied photographs of the garden following void works prior to the resident’s moving in. It should be noted that we are limited in the extent to which we can rely on photographic evidence. This is because it is not possible to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. However, although only partially laid to lawn, the garden was cut back, clear, and no carpet or rubbish visible.
Based on the evidence supplied, it is not possible to determine any failure by the landlord to clear the garden as part of the void process.

Door latches/hinges

The landlord’s void letting standard states that latches and handles to doors will be repaired and/or replaced if damaged or missing.
Following a post let visit on 10 August 2021 the landlord replaced door handles and latches stating “workmanship” as an issue. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the repairs to the doors during the void process to a satisfactory standard as set out in the lettings policy. Therefore we have identified service failure for this part of the resident’s void repair complaint.

Damaged radiators

It is unclear how the bedroom and hallway radiators sustained such damage that required the landlord to undertake extensive works to the wall and plaster on both occasions. However these incidents took place after the tenancy started. Therefore we do not consider there to have been any failure by the landlord during completion of void repairs.

Heating and hot water

It is not disputed by the landlord that the resident was without gas fed heating and hot water between 21 August 2021 to 9 September 2021. However the loss was caused by the need to isolate the heating system following damage caused after the tenancy started. The resident was not left without hot water or heating as the immersion heater was operational and electric fan heaters had been provided while the repair was completed. Therefore we do not consider there to have been a failure by the landlord with this part of the resident’s void repair complaint.

Conclusion

There is evidence the landlord generally completed its void repairs within the guidelines of its void letting standard. It also demonstrated responding to additional concerns raised by the resident and included its responses in its communications to the resident.
However, its void letting standard states that it will repair and/or replace damaged or missing door handles and latches. Given that it was required to do this on two occasions, once immediately after the tenancy started, suggests that this had not been completed to a reasonable standard.
The landlord’s stage one response partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It was therefore appropriate that it offered an apology for what it described as “problems the resident experienced when she first moved in”.
However although the landlord identified and acknowledged a failure and took steps to put things right, it made no offer of redress.
Where there has been service failure the remedies guidance available to us provides guidance of the appropriate level of redress. For the reasons set out above the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100.

Handling of a deep clean before the property was let to the resident

The landlord has provided photographs of the void property which appear to show completed internal void works and a clean and tidy property. The resident has also provided photographs which appear to show unclean areas, particularly inside the radiators and in the kitchen. It should be noted that this Service is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible to determine the time, location and circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not place significant reliance on photographs in reaching our decisions.
The basic social housing letting standards requires the landlord to ensure that a property is safe, secure, and habitable. This includes cleaning. There is evidence of the void works completed at the property and confirmation that the property was cleaned. The landlord’s images indicate that a basic standard had been achieved. However, the resident’s photos show that some areas, notably the side of the fridge and underside of the kitchen cupboards and its handles were missed when cleaning. The resident viewed the property on 29 July 2021 and the acceptance form that she signed does not indicate any concerns with regard to the cleanliness of the property. The resident also did not complain about the condition of the property until after she moved in. As such, the missed areas of cleaning were not obviously apparent.
Although there are minimum standards of health and safety included, the general level of decoration is a basic standard, and may not therefore meet everyone’s preferences or cleaning standards. I am satisfied overall that the property was cleaned during the void period and the basic let standards were met. Therefore, there was no maladministration with its handling of a deep clean before the property was let.

Complaint handling

In this case, there is evidence that the resident first expressed dissatisfaction and made reference to raising a complaint by email on 10 August 2021. Although there was further communication between both parties on 12 August 2021, the landlord directed the resident to an online complaint form and her complaint was not formally acknowledged until 13 August 2021.
The initial delay and directing the resident to an online form was unreasonable and could have caused further distress and inconvenience to her. It is good practice to ensure that residents are able to make a complaint by various channels including ways that are convenient to them and not just the landlord’s preference.
It is evident that there has been considerable communication between the resident and the landlord about many issues. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord attempted to address each new relevant point raised and included them within its responses. This demonstrated that the landlord took her concerns seriously.
Although it took more than its 15 working day response time frame to issue its stage 1 response, it was evident that the landlord had maintained communication with the resident. It arranged additional visits to inspect her concerns, and, for completeness, agreed with her to include the findings of the inspections within its response. Therefore the delayed response in this circumstance was reasonable.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation request was not initially accepted until she sought help from the Ombudsman. The landlord said she had not submitted her request until after its 28 calendar day deadline.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord was adhering to its complaint policy. However there is evidence she clearly expressed dissatisfaction on the day she received the stage 1 response and it was aware of her vulnerabilities. It could have considered further how it could have supported her to complete this complaint process sooner.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman on 20 October 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident the same day and allocated her complaint for a stage 2 investigation. However it did not acknowledge her escalation until 17 November 2021 and issued a stage 2 response on 15 December 2021. This response failed to show that it had considered the resident’s photographs of missed areas of cleaning and instead provided a blanket response that it had cleaned the property. The landlord should have offered an apology and considered a small compensation payment.
By using the 17 November 2021 as the resident’s escalation date, it appears as though the landlord met its stage 2 response time frame of 20 working days. However her escalation date should have been treated as 20 October 2021 when it first spoke to her about her dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. Therefore it issued its stage 2 response 20 working days beyond the time frames set out in its complaint policy. This was not appropriate.
If all or parts of a resident’s complaint are not resolved to their satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2. Reasons for declining an escalation request must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint. Therefore we find service failure as the landlord initially restricted how the resident could make a complaint and she experienced a delay of at least 20 working days before receiving a stage 2 response. An order to offer redress has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of void repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a deep clean before the property was let to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Handling of offers of accommodation in 2018 and the level of priority banding allocated to the resident in 2021.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord apologised and acknowledged the resident’s experience on moving in to the property and partially upheld her complaint at stage 1. However it did not offer redress to recognise the effect this had on her. There is evidence that it did not satisfactorily repair/replace door latches in line with its letting standard before the resident moved in.
The available evidence shows that the landlord met its basic letting standards to clean the property before it was let.
The landlord directed the resident to an online complaint form which initially delayed her complaint. The landlord did not demonstrate an accessible complaints process. It did not provide a stage 2 response for at least 20 working days beyond its policy time frames. The landlord’s response failed to show that it had reviewed the resident’s photographs of unclean areas.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report that landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £230 in compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of void repairs at the property.
  2. £130 for any distress or inconvenienced caused by its complaint handling.
2. Apologise to the resident for the shortfalls identified in this investigation.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so since the time of this complaint, the landlord should consider the accessibility of its complaint procedure. It should provide different channels for complaints to be made. This could include over the telephone, online, in writing, via email, or in person. These options minimise the chance of a resident being excluded from accessing the complaint process.
If it has not already done so, the landlord may consider it beneficial to provide staff with mental health awareness training and consider how it supports vulnerable residents through every stage of the complaint process. This may help provide better understanding of an individual’s needs and when engagement with other services may be appropriate.
Consider completing an assessment to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.
Confirm what action, if any, it intends to take in relation to the roof.