Mansfield District Council (202014650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014650

Mansfield District Council

28 April 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The level of redress the landlord awarded in respect of repair issues the resident reported while she was moving into the property;
2. The landlord’s response to reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the resident’s neighbour;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and the tenancy began on 22 December 2020. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The landlord is the resident’s local authority. The property’s back door adjoins the living room.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions show the resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the property. Having searched its online policy library, the Ombudsman was unable to find a specific document confirming the landlord’s process for quality checking empty properties prior to re-letting them.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms its approach is centred around prevention, intervention and enforcement. It shows the landlord will “investigate all reported incidents of ASB… where it is possible to do so”. Further, it can accept reports from members of the community and share relevant information with the police.
The policy shows the landlord will establish a complainant’s preferred outcome at an early stage, and this approach helps it to manage expectations. It will assign a case owner to address issues with a view to preventing and deterring further incidents. ASB cases will be closed, with the approval of a senior colleague, where all possible and reasonable options to resolve a case are exhausted.
The landlord operates a two-stage formal complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows complaints will be acknowledged within two working days at both stages. At stage one, the landlord will respond to complaints within ten working days. At stage two, it will respond within 15 working days. Complainants will be kept informed if additional time is needed at either stage.
The resident is elderly and moved to the property because mobility issues made her previous accommodation increasingly unsuitable. She received help complaining from a personal representative. For readability, the assessment makes no distinction between the actions of the resident or her representative. The representative has said the resident is “physically and financially vulnerable”.

Summary of events

The landlord compiled a timeline to aid its investigation of the resident’s complaint. It shows she began searching for alternative accommodation online on 18 November 2020. No information was seen to show the resident disputed any aspect of the landlord’s timeline.
The landlord’s inspection document from 10 December 2020 records the property was “in good order” and only needed some decoration. Its timeline shows the resident was invited to arrange a viewing the same day.
The timeline shows the resident viewed the property on 16 December 2020. It shows her representative was also present, along with a representative of the landlord. It said the living room needed carpeting and the bare concrete floor was exposed. No evidence was seen to show any repair issues were noted during the inspection.
On 22 December 2020 the resident signed the tenancy agreement and received the keys to the property.
On 29 December 2020 the resident’s brother-in-law notified the landlord of an ASB incident on 27 December 2021. He said several members of the resident’s family attended the property to help her decorate. While working, they were alerted to a neighbour deliberately denting one of the party’s vehicles by witnesses to the event.
He said the neighbour had left an irate note on the car and was aggressive when confronted in person. He also said the incident, prompted by a dispute over parking arrangements, was reported to the police as “criminal damage”. However, he said the landlord should capture the details on the neighbour’s tenancy records and issue a warning about their conduct.
The resident raised concerns about the property’s condition, with a number of the landlord’s representatives, during correspondence between 2 and 5 January 2021. She said the back door “threshold” had failed resulting in water ingress. Further, excessive moisture from the build-up of water resulted in condensation “to the whole” of the living room.
This was, “A problem that would have persisted had we not caried out a temporary fix, in desperation, to stop water entering the property and creating further problems.” Other correspondence from the resident referenced the ASB incident and said urgent repairs were needed before she could inhabit the property.
On 5 January 2021 the landlord confirmed it had arranged an operative to fix the door the following day. Its repair records show a works order to clear and seal the rear door threshold was completed on 6 January 2021.
On 7 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. It said the resident’s family had planned to complete cleaning, decorating and a partial move over a three-day period from 28 December 2020. The move would then be completed on 31 December 2020. However, the family noticed paint on the living room walls was “still wet and patchy” on 30 December 2020. The main points were:
1. After investigating, the family identified the threshold was leaking and stopped decorating until the problem could be resolved. Further, “(The resident) could not take up residency in such an unsatisfactory environment, particularly in wintertime…with a pandemic raging.”
2. Since the landlord’s offices were closed over the festive period, silicone sealant was applied to the back door to prevent the situation from worsening. Further, after identifying the problem, the property’s heating was left fully on to remove damp air, along with a bathroom fan. “This proved successful and the room has dried out over a period of days”.
3. Delays meant the resident was living out of boxes at her previous accommodation. Further, the belongings she had already moved to the property were uninsured while it was unoccupied. Orders for carpets, a cooker and white goods were placed on hold and the highest level of lockdown restrictions were in effect after the holiday period.
4. Her experience demonstrated a lack of care on the landlord’s part and its previous correspondence lacked empathy. The delays could have been avoided if the landlord had surveyed the property prior to offering the tenancy.

At this stage, the resident’s formal complaint did not refer to the previously reported ASB incident.

On 11 January 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. The main points were:
1. The landlord undertook a full inspection prior to re-letting any void property. This was to ensure it met the required standard and that any necessary repairs were identified. Inspections included various checks to ensure the landlord met its health and safety obligations
2. The landlord occasionally missed issues, such as the leaking door threshold, that weren’t evident during an inspection. Since the property’s repair history showed there were no previous reports of water ingress through the rear door, the landlord felt the issue must have presented itself at a later stage.
3. The landlord felt the condensation was due to the property being void at a cold time of year. It said the property would not have benefited from heating or ventilation to prevent condensation from arising.
4. The landlord was sorry for any distress or inconvenience the situation caused. The resident was encouraged to get in touch if the problem remained ongoing.
On 13 January 2021 the resident escalated the complaint. The main points were:
1. The landlord had not acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident. She experienced delays in moving to the property and spent additional time and effort addressing associated problems.
2. The resident wanted a copy of the landlord’s pre-let inspection documents. Since the guttering was full of water and debris, she felt there were shortcomings in its inspection process.
3. The property’s heating was on from 22 December 2020 and the resident began decorating on 28 December 2020. From this point, various steps were taken ventilate the property. Heating and ventilation over nine days was not sufficient to address the moisture in the air. The living room was so damp the resident could not safely inhabit the property.
4. An apology was not sufficient because the resident had spent the past 13 days living out of boxes in “someone else’s home.” The landlord should reassess its response based on the level of distress and inconvenience caused.
On 22 January 2021 the resident asked for an update on the complaint. This was on the basis the landlord did not respond to her escalation request. The landlord confirmed her comments would be passed to the relevant department on the same day.
On 22 January 2021 the landlord expanded on its stage one response. It said the leaking threshold was unforeseen and blocked guttering would not have prevented the resident from moving in unless there was an underlying structural issue. Further, while it would take time for the property to reach normal temperatures, the landlord could inspect for damp at the resident’s request.
It said it would work with the resident to address any outstanding repairs. However, the issues raised were either not evident during the inspection or, in the case of the lack of heating or time of year, beyond its control. Though the landlord was sorry for any distress or inconvenience, it did all it could in advance of the resident’s tenancy and could not predict the subsequent impact on the resident.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint again on 25 January 2021. The main points were:
1. Water ingress through the threshold created an unsafe environment in the property. As a result, the resident was unable to move in on 31 December 2021 as planned. Her family assisted the move and were also inconvenienced by the delay.
2. Water leaking from the guttering could be seen entering the property through the threshold, after hitting the doorstep, on days it wasn’t raining. Recent rain and snow compounded the water ingress.
3. As a result, a section of the concrete floor, in front of the door, was “soaking with standing water” and area of the internal wall was damp. The evaporating moisture resulted in condensation “far in excess of normal” in the living room. Condensation was not present in the other rooms.
4. The resident had been forced to live out of cardboard boxes in someone else’s home for a period of 21 days. The landlord needed to evaluate the worry, stress and inconvenience the situation had caused.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint had been escalated to the second stage of its complaints process.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 11 February 2021. This was around four weeks after the resident’s first escalation request. The landlord apologised for a delay in responding to the complaint and said its operations were impacted by the pandemic. The main points were:
1. The landlord recognised the situation was upsetting for the resident and her family. However, it was pleased it offered the resident a property in her preferred location, which also met her physical and emotional needs. Further, that the property was obtained quickly given the demand and supply of bungalows in the area.
2. If water ingress or guttering issues were apparent during the inspection, the landlord would have carried out the relevant repairs and maintenance. The issues were rectified as soon as possible after they were brought to its attention.
3. The landlord understood the ASB incident with the neighbour was resolved by the police using “restorative justice”. While this was deemed a police matter, any further ASB should be reported to the landlord.
4. The resident automatically benefited from two weeks of free rent based on taking the property over the Christmas period. The landlord offered to refund a further two weeks rent, as a gesture of goodwill, given the inconvenience caused. It also offered a £50 goodwill payment in respect of additional heating costs the resident incurred from 22 December 2020 (while drying the property).
5. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The landlord later told the Ombudsman that the resident’s rent account was credited with £190.67, a refund of two weeks rent, on 10 September 2021. However, it was unable to pay the £50 because the resident had not provided her bank details.

The landlord’s repair records show the property’s guttering was checked on
11 February 2021. They confirm the guttering was clear and a neighbour advised its operative that the resident had addressed the blockage.
The resident responded on 15 February 2021. She said the landlord’s comments about the offer process weren’t relevant to her complaint. Further, its failure to provide a safe environment delayed the move and led to the resident organising temporary accommodation. This was during a period of high-level pandemic restrictions and involved her mixing with additional people.
She also said she had temporarily sealed the back door, to prevent further water ingress, cleared the property’s gutters and checked it for additional issues such as damp. Further, the landlord had a responsibility to prevent the neighbour from causing other parking related ASB issues. The wording of the resident’s correspondence confirms she had contacted the LGSCO about her complaint and was asked to provide additional information.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord confirmed the resident had completed its complaints procedure and reiterated she could approach the LGSCO if she was unhappy with its response.
On 19 February 2021 the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service. She said the landlord had provided details for the Service. Around this time, she again said the move was delayed by 21 days.
In January 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman it was aware of the reported vehicle damage. It said the neighbour had denied the incident to the landlord’s local representative. It also said the matter ‘appeared to have been dealt with by the police as restorative justice’ and the landlord had no further involvement. This suggests the neighbour was the landlord’s tenant and it conducted some investigation.
On 25 April 2022 the resident confirmed she was seeking a written apology and financial compensation in relation to the threshold and guttering issues she identified during while moving in. She also said she was seeking a written apology in respect of the ASB incident, in addition to appropriate action from the landlord against the neighbour responsible.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident encountered complications during the moving process and that she experienced distress and inconvenience as a result. She has consistently said she lived out of boxes for a period of 21 days, during a period of strict lockdown restrictions, because her move was delayed. From the complaint correspondence, it was unclear whether her family began decorating on 27 or 28 December 2020. This had little bearing on the assessment overall.

The landlord’s level of redress in respect of repair issues

In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s inspection document confirms the property was quality checked before the resident viewed it. Its stage one complaint response suggests the landlord has a process for conducting pre-let inspections, but the full details could not be confirmed. On that basis, no evidence was seen to show the landlord failed to comply with any required inspection procedures in respect of the property.
There was also no evidence to show any party present at the viewing raised issues in need of repair. For example, that the concrete floor was wet or that the threshold was failing. As a result, it cannot fairly be said that the landlord should have reasonably identified and repaired this defect before the resident began moving in. The information seen suggests the fault was ultimately highlighted during typical winter weather conditions.
Similarly, no information was seen to show the property was deemed unsafe for habitation by a professional qualified to make such a decision. The resident’s complaint correspondence, from 25 January 2021, said other rooms were unaffected by the condensation arising from water ingress through the back door. Overall, the information seen shows the decision to delay her moving plans was taken by the resident, and her family, based on the level of condensation in the living room.
The timeline shows the resident’s move was affected by issues that were beyond the landlord’s control. For example, the weather conditions, the fact it took place during a holiday period or that increased pandemic restrictions took effect during the timeline. In relation to what the landlord could control, the timeline confirms it reacted promptly to the leaking doorway report and the information seen shows this was both acknowledged and appreciated by the resident.
Having considered the landlord’s overall level of redress, which it said was a goodwill gesture rather than compensation for an avoidable error, the information seen shows the resident ultimately benefited from a rent-free period of around four weeks. This was greater than the period of 21 days which the resident’s correspondence suggested was representative of the overall delay to her move.
Since the landlord also offered a £50 payment in respect of the resident’s additional heating costs, incurred while drying the property, no information was seen to show she was left out of pocket as a direct result of its actions (or inaction). The wording of the landlord’s formal complaint responses shows it recognised the resident experienced distress and inconvenience during her move. The landlord demonstrated it was sympathetic by apologising that this was the case.
Given the above the landlord’s total compensation offer of £240.67 in respect of the repair issues the resident identified while she was moving into the property was fair and sufficient to put right the complaint.

The landlord’s response to reported ASB

This aspect of the complaint was considered carefully in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider complaints. Although it wasn’t the resident’s vehicle that incurred damage, the incident arguably concerned her occupation of the property since it related to parking arrangements for her visitors. It is reasonable to conclude the situation could also be a source of anxiety during the resident’s tenancy.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The landlord’s ASB policy shows it accepts reports of ASB from residents and non-residents alike. It also shows the landlord will investigate all reported ASB incidents where possible. The above timeline suggests it conducted some investigation by questioning the neighbour about the incident. No information was seen to confirm when this questioning took place. However, the timeline also confirms the matter was not handled in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
For example, the complainant’s preferred outcome was set out clearly in the initial correspondence on 29 December 2020. However, no evidence was seen to show the landlord engaged with this information by setting out its available options, or by managing expectations accordingly. There was also no evidence to show it opened a specific ASB case to collate the relevant information, or that it assigned a case owner to manage landlord’s overall response.
The complainant’s concerns involved the prevention and deterrence of further incidents. While these were key policy objectives for the landlord, its correspondence suggests it left the matter solely to the police. There was no indication of any coordination between the landlord and the police, or that the landlord took any follow up action after the police involvement. Nor was any information seen to show it closed an ASB case, following a review at a senior level and with all options exhausted, in accordance with its ASB policy. From the information seen, it is unclear whether police or legal action was ongoing in relation to the incident.
Overall, the landlord was unable to sufficiently explain its response to the reported ASB. The evidence suggests this was because its response did not conform to its official ASB policy. The wording of the resident’s subsequent correspondence confirms she was aware of the policy and noted a discrepancy between the landlord’s policy aims and its actions. She was understandably dissatisfied as a result.
The landlord should have explained its approach, along with its underlying rationale, following the police involvement in the matter. This explanation should have been provided in the context of a dedicated ASB case. The landlord could have at least signposted the complainant to its ASB team. This may have provided sufficient reassurance that the report was being correctly handled.
Given the above, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the reported ASB. It is reasonable to conclude the incident was upsetting and that the landlord’s response compounded the resident’s distress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, the timeline confirms the resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalation request. It also shows there was a delay of around six working days at stage two. This is based on the period between 13 January, when the complaint was first escalated, and 11 February 2021. Given the above, it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for handling delays in its stage two response and offer an explanation accordingly.
It is noted the landlord’s stage two response referred the resident to the LGSCO in the event she was dissatisfied. This Service is responsible for investigating complaints about social housing providers acting in their capacity as landlords. Since we are responsible for investigating complaints of this type, the information provided was unhelpful given the content of her complaint.
Indeed, the resident’s correspondence from 15 February 2021 confirms she was prompted to approach the wrong ombudsman. The evidence suggests she was eventually correctly signposted to this Service after some back and forth over several days. However, this incorrect referral was not sufficient, by itself, to represent a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Given the above, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of repair issues the resident reported while she was moving into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to reported ASB from the resident’s neighbour.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s total compensation offer was fair and sufficiently redressed the resident’s complaint about repairs she reported while moving into the property.
The landlord failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of its response to the reported ASB. The evidence suggests this is because its response did not conform to its ASB policy. It is reasonable to conclude the incident was upsetting, and that the landlord’s response compounded the resident’s distress.
The landlord’s incorrect referral to the LGSCO was not sufficient, by itself, to represent a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation within four weeks to address any distress or inconvenience she was caused by its response to the reported ASB incident. This is separate to the landlord’s previous offer of £50 towards the resident’s heating costs, which the evidence suggests is still outstanding. If the landlord is unable to obtain the resident’s account details, it can credit these payments to her rent account.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure its final response letters include standard paragraphs containing referral details for the Housing Ombudsman Service and the LGSCO along with a brief explanation of both services.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.