North West Leicestershire District Council (202306960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306960

North West Leicestershire District Council

31 July 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

1. This investigation is about:
   1. The condition of the resident’s home when he started his tenancy.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that its actions caused the death of his pets and the loss of frozen food.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in January 2023. He moved there from another of the landlord’s properties.
3. The property had been empty before the resident moved in. The landlord conducted an empty home survey in December 2022. The survey concluded the property was in a “fair” condition.
4. Prior to, and immediately after moving to the property the resident raised a wide range of concerns with the landlord about its condition. He also asked the landlord whether it intended to install an air source heat pump (ASHP). The landlord initially explained in February 2023 that it had inspected photos of the property taken at after its survey inspection and felt the property met the relevant standards and was not in need of further work. It also explained there were plans for installing ASHPs but specific details were not yet available, and it would update the resident when more was known.
5. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s view about the condition, and re-emphasised his concerns. The landlord agreed with him to treat his concerns as an informal complaint and revisited its original decision. It subsequently confirmed a range of repairs it would undertake. These included some windows not closing properly, possible pest ingress points, lifting kitchen tiles, minor damage to a pipe, and holes in the sub-floor and the ceiling where pipes had been removed.
6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 March 2023. He complained about the condition of the property at the time he started his tenancy, and listed a range of repair and cleanliness issues. He also complained that the landlord had prematurely disconnected the utilities at his previous home, which meant his frozen food had been spoiled, and his aquarium fish had died.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 March 2023.
8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023. It explained the complaint response would be delayed as it wanted to inspect the property to have a fuller understanding of the issues he had experienced. It said it would send its response within 10 more working days.
9. The landlord inspected the property on 4 April 2023. Its inspection recommended repairs to some brickwork, renewing a smoke detector, and checking the bathroom extractor fan and vents. It also noted that: the windows were impacting on the property’s heat retention, there were plans to replace the front door, there was possibly insufficient roof space insulation, and an ASHP would help the property’s energy efficiency.
10. The landlord sent two complaint responses on 14 and 15 June 2023 respectively. The first focused on the resident’s complaint about the property condition. It explained that following its inspection in April it had arranged a range works and repairs to the property, and that most of these had now been completed. The front door still needed renewal, which was being arranged, and an ASHP was scheduled for installation. The landlord acknowledged that some of the repairs should have been done prior to the resident’s tenancy, and explained his experience would form part of its upcoming lettable standard policy review.
11. The second complaint response centred on the resident’s complaint that the landlord had incorrectly arranged for the electricity to be cutoff at his previous home. The landlord explained it had discussed the matter with the utility provider (the provider), and confirmed that the electricity account had been transferred from the resident to the landlord during the period he had been moving. However, it said this had not interrupted the supply. It said it had been told the system used a pre-payment system which had not had credit at the time. It explained that on learning this it had discussed it with the resident at the time, but that was the reason the why the electricity cut off. Because of that it did not accept responsibility for the loss of food or the death of the resident’s fish.
12. The resident spoke with the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint on 22 June 2023. He did not dispute what the landlord had said in its complaint responses, but reiterated that the property should not have been in the condition it was when he started his tenancy. He complained that only one of his several physical and mental health issues had been referred to as being impacted by the landlord’s actions, and clarified that he had started reporting problems earlier than stated. He explained he felt the responses were one sided, and portrayed him as being a “pest”.
13. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 18 July 2023. It referred to one of its senior managers visiting the resident to discuss his concerns about the poor standard of the property. It acknowledged again that the property did not meet the required standard, and that this had had an understandable impact on the resident’s experience of moving in, and afterwards. It confirmed an ASHP was being installed shortly, and that the other work was underway. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and offered him £250 compensation. The response was signed by the chief executive.
14. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident repeated his concerns about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy. He also complained that the landlord’s actions lead to the loss of his aquarium fish and food in his freezer, and about the landlord’s overall approach to him.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

15. Since the landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2023 the resident has explained to the Service concerns he has with further repair and structure issues in his home. The Ombudsman will usually not investigate a complaint until the landlord has looked at the issues of complaint and issued its own responses first.
16. Because of that, this investigation examines the resident’s complaints to the landlord and its responses to the issues he raised, up to its final response in July. The resident is entitled to raise further complaints with the landlord about matters arising after that point, and can ask the Ombudsman to conduct a new investigation once he has received the landlord’s complaint responses.
17. The Ombudsman has previously determined a complaint from the resident about the landlord, in relation to the property he lived in prior to moving to the one involved in this investigation. While there are apparent connections between the two complaints, this investigation centres on the new property issues, along with the complaint about the interrupted power supply at the previous one. The issues considered in the previous investigation cannot be reconsidered in this one.
18. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the loss of his aquarium fish and food at the first stage of its complaints process in June 2023. No evidence of the resident escalating his complaint with the landlord has been seen. He has told the Service that he did not receive the landlord’s response.
19. The information and evidence provided by both the resident and landlord explain their account of events, and include information they both received from the provider in relation to the events of the complaint. The issue was one of the key elements of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman. While these issues did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, there are sufficient grounds and evidence in this particular case to use the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the complaint.
20. There are other specific repair and condition issues which were variously included in the original repair reports, the first complaint, or in the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, but which were not referred to in the resident’s escalated complaint. These included issues with pests, the front door, and heating. Because they were not part of the escalation the landlord did not respond to them. They have therefore not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, and, unlike the electricity complaint, there is insufficient information or grounds on which to exercise discretion to include them in this investigation.
21. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has explained how his experiences with the landlord have affected his physical and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman considers general distress and inconvenience experienced by tenants following a landlord’s service failure, but any concerns about actual physical or mental injury are outside the Service’s remit. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by insurers or the courts as a personal injury claim. The resident should seek appropriate advice if his concerns in this regard remain.

The condition of the resident’s home when he started his tenancy

22. The evidence confirms that the landlord did an empty home survey prior to the resident’s tenancy, and the property was considered to have met the relevant standard. Internal records confirm the landlord’s officers’ views that the property was lettable.
23. The resident clearly and understandably had a different view of its condition, but it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make subjective decisions on qualitative disputes without appropriate evidence. In this case it is clear that the landlord believed the property was of a sufficient standard, but it was not of the standard the resident expected or anticipated for his new home.
24. Given the landlord’s initial position, it is not wholly apparent from the evidence why it subsequently changed its mind. Nonetheless, the change was to the resident’s benefit, as the landlord then undertook further repair inspections and committed to act on their findings. In its first complaint response it acknowledged that the repair issues he had reported had been confirmed by its inspection and should have been addressed before he moved in.
25. The landlord explained it was currently or soon to review its empty property standards and would use the resident’s complaint to help inform that review. It apologised for not adhering to an agreed meeting with the resident, listed the repair issues which had been completed or were planned, and confirmed it intended to install an ASHP. The resident did not dispute its actions or explanations in his subsequent escalated complaint.
26. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s complaint addressed the issues he had raised. The remedies it offered at that point, along with the compensation it offered in its final complaint response were proportionate to the scale of its failings, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for putting things right.
27. In his escalated complaint the resident repeated his concern that the property should not have been in the condition it was when he started his tenancy. He also explained he did not feel the landlord had taken account of the full range of his disabilities and the added impact on him because of them, and that its response had been one-sided. The landlord’s chief executive responded to him.
28. The chief executive acknowledged the distress and frustration the resident had experienced due to the condition of the property when he moved. Amongst other things, she acknowledged he had moved partly to have a better environment for his mental and physical wellbeing, and that “your new home should have offered a fresh start for you to recalibrate, settle down and make new friends and neighbours.”
29. The chief executive referred to having had one of the landlord’s senior managers visit the resident, and repeated the previous acknowledgement that the standard of the property meant the resident had not been able to move in and enjoy his new home immediately. She confirmed work was underway to install the ASHP, and recognised steps the resident had taken to settle in to his home and assist with communal gardening.
30. The response demonstrates the landlord was aware of the serious impact the resident’s experience had on him, and the part it had played in that. It acknowledged his specific circumstances, both mentally and physically, and in the reasons he had moved to the property in the first place. It is clear the landlord agreed with the resident’s view the property should not have been in the condition it was in, and the steps it took in light of that failing were reasonable and appropriate both to the failing itself, and the resident’s circumstances.

Response to the resident’s complaint that its actions caused the death of his pets and the loss of frozen food

31. The resident complained that during his move to the new property the landlord cancelled his electricity supply too early, while he was between both properties. As he was away from his old home for several days the loss of power meant that his aquarium equipment stopped and his fish died. The freezer defrosted, and the large quantity of food in it was spoiled.
32. At the time the issue arose the landlord had made enquiries of the provider to find out what had happened. In response to his complaint the landlord explained the provider had confirmed the electricity account had been switched from the resident to the landlord, but it had not been cut off by that action. The landlord has provided its emails with the provider which show the multiple enquiries it made to find out why the power had been interrupted. The provider was not able to clearly say why, but said it had written to the resident explaining what was happening with his usage meter and when it would “go back to prepayment and how he would repay any usage.”
33. The resident provided an email he received from the provider following his own enquiries of it. The email confirms the electricity account was switched from him to the landlord at the landlord’s request. This was done on 8 February 2023, which the provider said “would have reset your meters.” The email makes no reference to the power being cut off.
34. Accordingly, while the evidence does not show why the power was interrupted, nothing suggests that the landlord acted to do so, or that its explanation to the resident was inaccurate.

Determination (decision)

35. In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the condition of the resident’s home when he started his tenancy.
36. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that its actions caused the death of his pets and the loss of frozen food.

Reasons

37. The landlord acknowledged that the property was not of an appropriate standard when the resident started his tenancy. It apologised, addressed the repair issues he had reported and it found in its inspections, and offered a reasonable level of compensation. The landlord also recognised the additional impact on the resident due to his personal circumstances, mental and physical wellbeing, and the reasons why he had moved to the property. Its response to his complaint reasonably remedied its mistakes.
38. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that it had stopped his electricity supply was supported by the information it had received from the provider. No evidence has been seen indicating the landlord’s actions caused the interruption.