Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202342198)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342198

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of remedial repairs following a mutual exchange.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident lived in a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy began on 1 May 2023, by way of a mutual exchange. The tenancy was an assured shorthold fixed term tenancy. The resident lived at the property with her 3 young children. She was pregnant with her third child when she first accepted the property.
The resident reported a pest infestation soon after the mutual exchange took place. She said that when she accepted the property, it was cluttered with the outgoing resident’s belongings. This meant that the pest issues, and other repair issues, were not obvious at the time of the viewing.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property on 18 May 2023. They found mice and rat droppings throughout, and multiple areas where rats/mice were entering the property. They informed the landlord that the property had multiple problems. They said the bathroom floor underneath the bath was damaged. The living room was in a poor state with no skirting boards and noticeable holes where rats were entering. The kitchen units appeared to be water damaged. The kickboards were broken and there were heavy amounts of fresh and historic droppings. The garden was heavily cluttered and there was a build-up of rubbish down the sides of the property which was an ideal place for rats and mice to shelter. They also reported that the upper floor of the property was “in a state of disrepair”.
The landlord agreed to decant the resident from 25 May 2023, whilst the pest proofing works were carried out. The landlord also agreed to complete additional works to the kitchen, bathroom, living room and hallway whilst the resident was decanted. The property was confirmed as being in a habitable state by the local authority on 22 June 2023.
In July 2023 the landlord agreed to replace the subfloor in the bathroom as it was rotten. Although the repairs were completed, the resident continued to report a smell of damp in the bathroom. The landlord requested a further inspection of the bathroom sub floor on 11 October 2023. It asked its contractor to remedy any damage they found.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 October 2023. She said she was unhappy with the work that had been carried out to her bathroom floor. Particularly the work to the floorboards under the bath, as they were still rotten. She said she had paid for her own contractors to inspect the bathroom and they had told her that the floor needed to be replaced. She told the landlord that the floor was unsafe, she was heavily pregnant, and she had small children living with her. She said the landlord had not taken her concerns seriously and it had put her, and her children, in danger.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 13 November 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience experienced as a result of the flooring repairs. It confirmed that the repairs had been completed on 10 November 2023. It offered the resident £250 compensation and said it would remove the rent charge for the period that she had been without a bathroom.
Following escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 14 February 2024. It said it had paid decant costs of £2,820 for May 2023 to June 2023. It said it had also paid the same amount in September 2023. It offered the resident £2278.30 in compensation.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. It told the resident that there had been a mistake in its stage 1 response. It said it could not remove the rent charge for August 2023 to November 2023. However, it offered £400 for the error and any stress and inconvenience it had caused. In addition, it awarded the resident £1031.05 to be allocated to her rent account. It also awarded a further £1,800.
The resident referred her case to this Service on 21 February 2024, as she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The HRA 1998 requires all public authorities, and other bodies carrying out public functions, to respect and protect individuals’ rights. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the HRA 1998, this can only be done by the courts. However, the Ombudsman can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the HRA 1998 as part of our consideration of a complaint.
The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health, particularly her pregnancy. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of remedial repairs following a mutual exchange.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the walls, floors, ceilings, foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. It must also keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation, heating and hot water. This includes basins, sinks, baths and toilets.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to ensure a property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. A home is unfit if it is defective to the point where it is not reasonably suitable for occupation. Where there are hazards in a property that make it unsafe or unfit, the local authority can take action. Local authorities use the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards in rented homes. Potential hazards include damp and mould growth, pests, and structural collapse.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property during the mutual exchange process. This was sometime between the application date of 18 January 2023, and the approval date of 27 April 2023. It has not provided this Service with a copy of the full inspection report. The assessment and approval form notes that there were “slight repairs needed to the tiles in the bathroom and to the wall at the bottom in the kitchen”. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident viewed the property.
The mutual exchange took place on 1 May 2023, although it appears from the evidence provided that the resident did not move into the property straight away. The evidence shows that she reported pest issues, and some repair issues, to the landlord within the first few days of her tenancy.
The landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the property on 18 May 2023. They found mice/rat droppings throughout the property and large holes where rats were getting in. They put down bait and placed tracking in the kitchen, bathroom, and boiler cupboard. The contractor told the landlord that the property needed a full refurbish due to the condition of the walls and flooring.
The contractor sent an email to the landlord on 19 May 2023. They passed on the comments from the technician who had carried out the inspection. He said:
1. The bathroom flooring underneath the bath was damaged and had a large, deep hole in the floorboards. When any pressure was applied to the bath, the floorboards underneath moved.
2. The living room was in a poor state with no skirting boards, noticeable holes/entrance points and rat/mice droppings. There were also large holes and cracks near the gas pipes in the living room.
3. The kitchen had rotten/broken kick boards with heavy amounts of droppings both fresh and historic. The units themselves looked water damaged.
4. The boiler cupboard in the conservatory had a considerable and deep hole in the floorboards.
5. The garden was heavily cluttered with broken wood panels and fences. There was a build-up of rubbish down the side of the property which was an ideal shelter for rodents.
6. The upper floors were also in disrepair with uneven flooring.
The landlord responded on the same day and raised a number of carpentry jobs with its contractors. It said the issues were not seen at the time of the mutual exchange inspection as the defects were covered by the flooring. The landlord also asked the pest control contractor to undertake the proofing works. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances. However, as the pest control technician had reported that the property was in such a poor state, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to carry out its own full inspection of the property at this point.
The resident told the landlord on 22 May 2023 that she would be contacting environmental health and her local MP about the state of her property. She told the landlord that she had been effectively homeless since 1 May 2023.
The landlord put all “making good works” on hold on 23 May 2023, due to the heavy pest activity in the property. The pest control contractor said that the resident moving in with her belongings would obstruct access and impact on the effectiveness of the treatment works. The landlord was aware at this point that the resident was ‘sofa-surfing’ with her children as she had nowhere to stay whilst the pest control/proofing works were undertaken. The landlord agreed to either place the resident in a hotel or pay her decant expenses of £50 per night to stay with family or friends.
The landlord informed the resident on 23 May 2023 that it would place her in a hotel from 25 May 2023 until 1 June 2023, whilst the pest control team carried out the proofing works. The resident turned down the landlord’s offer of a hotel on 24 May 2023. She told it that she had found a caravan for her and her children to stay in. Therefore, she would prefer it to pay her the £50 per night it had offered. The resident said she had been advised to keep hold of her keys until her property had been inspected on 26 May 2023.
The landlord’s decant policy for emergency situations says in circumstances where the move is for a short period of time (up to 10 working days) it may offer the tenant a cash incentive to stay with friends or relatives. If hotel accommodation is more convenient, it will cover the cost of the alternative accommodation and any agreed reasonable expenses. Where the landlord provides alternative accommodation on a temporary basis, the tenant will still be responsible for the rent and service charges for their original (permanent) property. If the tenant makes their own accommodation arrangements, the rental charge on the permanent property will be set to zero.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the £50 per night payment provided by the landlord covered the full cost of the caravan, although the evidence suggests there may have been a shortfall. Under the terms of the decant policy, this payment was meant to be an incentive to stay with family or friends and not payment for alternative accommodation. As the resident made her own accommodation arrangements, according to the policy, the landlord should have set the rent charge on her property to zero.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered the resident’s ability to be able to meet her ongoing rent obligations whilst she was staying in the caravan. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord explained or made it clear to the resident that she was still liable for her rent. Or that it made assurances as to whether the £50 per night was sufficient to cover the cost of the caravan. The failure of the landlord to properly apply its policy and its inability to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s individual circumstances was unreasonable and unfair and could have caused hardship to the resident.
The resident informed the landlord that she had been in hospital with a serious health issue on 26 May 2023. She also told the landlord that she was struggling to provide food for her and her children as she had not received any decant payments from the landlord. The landlord chased the payments internally on 29 May 2023. On 1 June 2023 the landlord confirmed it would be sending a payment of £660 to cover food costs from 25 May 2023 to 4 June 2023 (£60 per day x 10 days). The resident asked the landlord to confirm when it would pay the £50 per night for the payment of the caravan.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 June 2023. She said since the landlord had agreed to pay her decant expenses, food expenses, and travel expenses she had only received £350 (1 week accommodation costs) and £200 for food costs. She said her family had missed vital meals on many days due to not receiving payments from the landlord. She said she had chased the landlord daily and, on some days, she did not get a response. She told the landlord that she had to sleep in her car because the accommodation payments had not been sent. She said her family had been homeless since 1 May 2023 due to their home being uninhabitable. She said the landlord should not have expected a pregnant woman and 2 small children to live in a rat infested property. She said the landlord should not have approved the property for a mutual exchange in the condition it was in. She also told the landlord that the work that had been completed in the property was substandard.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and said that her email had been sent to the housing manager to investigate and contact her directly. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the housing manager did this, or that the landlord took her concerns seriously. The resident was pregnant. She told the landlord she had been sleeping in her car with her children, and missing meals, as she could not pay the accommodation expenses. This should have prompted the landlord to, at the very least, urgently reconsider the decant arrangements. The failure to do so was unreasonable and unfair.
It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the local authority carried out the initial inspection of the property, and what the results of the inspection were. However, the local authority sent the landlord an email on 19 June 2023 confirming that since their last visit there had been a significant improvement. All holes had been proofed to satisfaction, and no further signs of rodent activity had been found. The local authority confirmed that the property was safe for the resident to move in to. It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that the property was not considered habitable by the local authority prior to the 19 June 2023.
Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) requires the landlord to ensure a property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. As the property was not deemed fit for human habitation by the local authority until 19 June 2023, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to comply with its obligations under the LTA 1985. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and unfair to the resident and her children.
The local authority sent an email to the landlord and resident on 22 June 2023. The officer said:
1. The pest proofing was satisfactory and there was no further risk under the HHSRS.
2. The old flooring used underneath the bath did not pose a risk. However, as agreed, it would be removed along with the debris under the bath. The holes under the bath had been filled and covered, and there were no further signs of rodent activity. Therefore, there were no risks under the HHSRS.
3. The landlord had agreed to remove the rubbish in the garden. Under the HHSRS there was no risk, however, it should be removed to avoid build up.
4. The loft had been inspected. There were no visible holes or gaps. Therefore, under the HHSRS, there were no further risks.
5. Following the second visit to the property, and after reviewing all the pictures and videos shared by the landlord, all defects and disrepair reports had been checked under the HHSRS. All defects and disrepair were deemed as no risk, with 1 low risk. Therefore, the property was habitable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2023 as she had received a message relating to rent arrears. She said she did not feel she should pay rent on the property as she had not yet been able to move in. The landlord checked its decant policy on 23 June 2024 and said, in an internal email, that it “could set” her rent account to zero as she had made her own decant arrangements. The landlord’s internal response contradicted the original agreement made with the resident. This demonstrates the landlord’s confusion as to the agreed decant arrangements, its policy, and the inconsistent information given to the resident.
The resident told the landlord on 12 July 2023 that the bathroom floor was still rotten. She said it had been covered up with new vinyl flooring. She told the landlord on 19 July 2023, that her garden had not been cleared as agreed. She also said her depression was at an “all time low”. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident. This was unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of customer care and an overall lack of empathy with the resident’s situation.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email on 24 July 2023 that it had agreed to replace the bathroom subfloor. It said the section under the bath had already been replaced, so the bath did not need to be removed. The landlord said the toilet and wash hand basin could be re-used. This suggests that whilst the work was carried out, the bathroom would be unusable. It also appears that this was the only toilet in the house. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm how long the work was expected to take. There is also no evidence that shows that it considered how the resident would manage living in a house with 2 small children, whilst pregnant, with no usable toilet in the property whilst the repairs took place. This was unreasonable and unfair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 August 2023. She requested an update as to how long the bathroom repairs would take, as she could not move into the property without a toilet. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the repairs to the sub-floor were due to take place or how long the toilet would be out of use. However, the resident clearly informed the landlord that she was not living in the property at this point. It was aware she was pregnant, and that she had 2 young children to support, yet it did not enquire as to where she was living or how she was managing to fund alternative accommodation.
The lack of professional curiosity, and the landlord’s failure to act proactively was unreasonable and shows a lack of empathy and concern with the resident’s circumstances. As soon as the landlord became aware that the resident was not living in the property, it should have been prompted to make further enquiries as to why she had not moved in. If appropriate, it should have offered temporary accommodation/decant costs in line with its decant policy.
The landlord raised further repairs to the bathroom sub-floor on 11 October 2023. This was because the resident continued to report a smell of damp in the bathroom. The landlord asked its contractor to remedy any defects found.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 17 October 2023. She again told the landlord that she had not been able to move into her property due to the outstanding repairs. She attached photographs of under the bath and of a cracked step at the front of her property. She said that, as she was heavily pregnant, the outstanding repairs were a danger to her and her unborn child. It is unclear from the evidence provided where the resident had been living since the end of June 2023.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord asked the resident where she had been staying, or that it considered her overall circumstances at this point. Its response told the resident it had forwarded her email on, and it would provide an update as soon as it received a response. There was no clear timescale for a response given. In the circumstances, due to the vulnerabilities of the resident and the length of time these issues had been ongoing, the landlord should have identified a number of potential risks relating to the safety and wellbeing of the resident and her family. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord escalated the matter to an appropriate senior manager, or that it took steps to urgently address the situation. This was unreasonable.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 October 2023. She said the landlord had sent 2 contractors out to complete repairs to her bathroom sub-floor. However, both contractors had failed to adequately carry out the repairs. She told the landlord that she had paid her own contractors to assess the sub-floor. They had told her that the floor needed to be replaced as it was dangerous due to years of damage and could collapse. She said the landlord had put her and her children in danger by not completing the works to a good standard. The resident also sent the landlord videos of the damage under the bath as a third contractor had attended to assess the work required. The videos showed that the previous contractors had covered over the rotten timber. The resident told the landlord that since May 2023 she had been in and out of hospital with health complications due to stress. She said her baby was being delivered earlier due to the complications.
The landlord spoke to the resident and apologised. It said it was not aware of what the previous contractors had done, which was an error on its part. It reassured the resident that it was committed to rectifying the issue as soon as it could. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology, however, it failed to use the resident’s complaint as an opportunity to identify the severity and urgency of the resident’s situation. As such, it again failed to escalate the case to a senior manager for urgent and immediate action. This was a further missed opportunity by the landlord.
A landlord should be able to rely on the expertise of its contractors when carrying out repairs. However, in this case, as the first contractor had already failed to adequately repair the sub floor underneath the bath, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to post inspect the second repair. There is no evidence to suggest that it did this.
The third contractor attended the resident’s property on 2 November 2023. He removed the redundant satellite dish from the roof, disconnected the toilet, removed and disposed of the existing MDF and floorboards under the bath area, two rotten joists, and the debris under the subfloor. The contractor fitted 2 new joists, laid a plywood sub-floor, and filled the gaps. They also removed all the rubbish from the back garden.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 November 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that the works to the bathroom were complete. It offered compensation of £250 for inconvenience and stress and said it would remove the rent charge for the period the resident had been without a bathroom. Although it did not confirm the exact dates this would apply to.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 November 2023. She said she had made the landlord aware on 1 August 2023 that she was not living in the property as it posed a danger to her family. She said it had been 7 months since her tenancy started and her bathroom had only been repaired on 2 November 2023. She told the landlord she had not had a safe environment to call home since her tenancy started. Her children had missed weeks of school because she was still living in a caravan and she could not afford to travel into the city 5 days a week. She told the landlord that it owed her decant payments to cover her living costs. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects an individual’s right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence. This includes the right to peacefully enjoy their home, the right to access a community, the ability to make choices and participate in essential, social, cultural and leisure activities and the right to develop family relations. Under the legislation the landlord must protect and respect these rights.
The evidence shows that the resident had been living in temporary accommodation for more than 6 months at this point. She was living in a caravan away from her home, her children’s school, and her community. The resident reported that her wellbeing, and that of her family, was negatively affected by living in temporary accommodation. Her right to enjoy access to a community, participate in essential, social, cultural and leisure activities was severely disrupted by the inability of the landlord to provide a safe home. The situation was made worse by the children missing substantial periods of schooling and the resident’s inability to afford to travel. The landlord was responsible for maintaining the condition of the property to a habitable standard which supported the resident’s access to these fundamental rights. Therefore, given the resident’s circumstances, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 in this case.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 December 2023. She confirmed she was still living in the caravan. She told the landlord that she needed financial help to get her and her children back home. She said her property had been in an unlivable condition from 1 May 2023 until 2 November 2023. She told the landlord that she thought she was owed decant payments from 1 August 2023, as that was when she made it aware that she was not living in the property. She also asked the landlord to remove the rent charges for the same 3 month period. During the conversation it became clear to the landlord that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 following her request. The landlord confirmed it would escalate her complaint to stage 2. It also suggested the resident accept the £250 offered at stage 1 to help fund her move back to the property. Although this suggestion was not within the spirit of the purpose of redress in the complaints process, this Service can understand why the landlord suggested this course of action in this particular case. Ultimately it wanted to assist the resident to return home. The landlord should, however, ensure that it is not in a position in the future where it would need to make such a suggestion.
The resident reported further repairs to the landlord on 8 January 2024. She said her front door was cracked, and both the porch and main door were hard to close and lock properly. She also reported that the first contractor had covered other rotten floorboards and she could hear rats chewing and scratching underneath. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor throughout this case. It often failed to respond to her emails, even when the content clearly required an urgent response. This meant the resident had to keep chasing the landlord for updates. This was unreasonable and unfair and caused unnecessary frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 14 February 2024. It said it had paid the resident decant costs of £2,820 for the period of May 2023 to June 2023. A further decant payment of £2,820 was awarded and paid in September 2023. It said it did not agree to a decant for August 2023 to November 2023. However, it offered a payment of £100 as a gesture of goodwill. In addition to the £250 offered at stage 1, it offered £978.36 (30% of the daily rent from 1 August 2023 to 2 November 2023). This was £1328.36 in total. The landlord also offered an additional £250 for stress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs. The landlord identified some outstanding repairs and confirmed it would follow up with the pest control contractor as the resident had reported further issues with rats. It also acknowledged that there had been unacceptable delays, communication issues, and service failures.
The landlord sent the resident a further stage 2 response letter on 20 February 2024, following contact from the resident. The resident had queried why the landlord had not agreed to remove the rent charge from 1 August 2023 to 2 November 2023, when she had told it that she was not living at the property. The landlord told the resident that there had been a mistake in its stage 1 response. It said it could not remove the rent charge for August 2023 to November 2023. It said it may have acknowledged that the resident was not living at home, but it did not approve a decant.
It offered compensation of £400 for the error and any stress and inconvenience it had caused. In addition, it awarded the resident £1031.05 (30% of the weekly rent from 1 August 2023 to 2 November 2023) to be allocated to her rent account. It said it was unable to award compensation for the loss of the bathroom facility as well as the rental charges. It also awarded £1,100 for the service failures and for the stress and inconvenience caused. A further £250 for stress and inconvenience, and £250 for repairs not being carried out in a timely manner. This was £3,031.05 in total. The landlord told the resident that it was setting up a dedicated complaints team within the next 3 months, which would reduce the number of errors when handling complaints. It also confirmed that there were 2 outstanding repairs at her property: a repair to the roof and a repair to a floorboard in the hallway.
Although the landlord acknowledged that there had been service failures, and it apologised to the resident within the response, it did not acknowledge the gravity of the situation. The stage 1 and stage 2 responses were also confusing. The landlord offered compensation at both stage 1 and stage 2 and then retracted parts of it in the follow up response. The landlord did acknowledge that there were errors within its complaints process, and it detailed the changes it was planning to make to put things right. However, the overall responses and amount of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident and her children.
The landlord has been unable to clarify exactly what payments have been made to the resident, and whether any compensation has been offset against the rent account. This includes both decant payments and compensation.

Events after the stage 2 response

The evidence shows that the issues with the resident’s property continued. On 6 March 2024, during an inspection, the landlord found a further 26 issues. The resident was decanted again from 29 April 2024 to 5 May 2024. The landlord agreed to pay decant expenses of £730 and to remove the rental charge for 7 days. However, when the resident checked her property on 3 May 2024, she contacted the landlord and reported that there were still several unresolved issues.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended the property on 10 May 2024. They told the landlord that the property was in a poor condition. They said it “almost looked like a building site” and recommended a welfare check.
The landlord arranged for an independent survey to be carried out at the resident’s property on 15 June 2024. The survey of the property identified several critical areas requiring further attention. It said that despite extensive remedial works, additional efforts were necessary to address issues related to water ingress, dampness, mould growth, and general habitability standards. The key findings included defects in windows and doors, evidence of water ingress and dampness in various parts of the property, and significant mould growth, particularly in the kitchen. The inspection also highlighted incomplete renovation works and thermal inefficiencies in the property’s insulation.
The survey made recommendations to replace damaged glazing and missing components, to further investigate and seal potential water ingress points, repair render defects, improve insulation, and ensure proper ventilation throughout the property. It advised the landlord to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen ventilation systems to manage moisture and prevent mould growth, adjust doors, and complete the unfinished renovations to ensure the property was habitable.
The landlord approved a transfer request to permanently move the resident to a different property on 25 June 2024. The resident moved to her new property on 2 August 2024.
In summary, the landlord did not act in accordance with its decant policy, or its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It did not show that it had due regard to its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. It showed a lack of empathy at times and did not consider the resident’s circumstances when making decisions. Its communication with the resident was poor and it often did not respond to her emails. The amount of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident and her children.
As a result of these failings, the significant level of detriment caused to the resident and her children by the landlord’s delays in completing outstanding repairs, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.
An order for compensation has been made taking into account the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance. The order takes into account the resident’s weekly rent of £275.85 as of 1 May 2023.
The evidence shows that the resident did not move into the property until the end of December 2023. Although, the evidence suggests that she may not have moved into the property at all. She did receive some decant payments from the landlord, although the full amounts are unclear. She did not receive any decant payments between 1 May 2023 and 25 May 2023, or between 14 August 2023 and 2 November 2023.
The property was not deemed habitable by the local authority until 22 June 2023. However, the landlord paid the resident decant costs from 25 May 2023 to 22 June 2023. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay 100% of the rent for the period of 1 May 2023 to 25 May 2023. This is a period of 25 days and compensation of £985.18.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware on 14 August 2023 that the resident was not living in the property due to her concerns for her safety and the safety of her children, in relation to her bathroom floor. The landlord did not fix the bathroom floor until 2 November 2023. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay 100% of the rent for the period of 14 August 2023 to 2 November 2023. This is a period of 81 days and compensation of £3191.98.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 October 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 13 November 2023. This was 14 working days from the date of the complaint, and just outside the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 14 November 2023. However, it became apparent during a conversation with the landlord on 20 December 2023 that it had not logged her escalation request. The resident chased her stage 2 complaint response with the landlord on 31 January 2024 and again on 9 February 2024.
The landlord responded on 9 February 2024. It said it apologised for the delay but it was waiting for updates on the repairs. However, it said it would respond based on the information it had and it agreed to send a full stage 2 response on 12 February 2024. The landlord sent the resident the stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2024. This was 3 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord did not act in accordance with its own complaints policy when it delayed in providing the resident with a stage 2 response. Its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as it delayed both the resolution of her complaint, and her ability to refer the matter to this Service.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint, and £100 for stress and inconvenienced caused by the delay in responding to her email.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there was a delay in the stage 2 response, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £200 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of remedial repairs following a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £5,177.16 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount of compensation it has already paid. This does not include decant payments made to the resident) made up of:
1. £4177.16 for the delays in completing the repairs and the associated impact on the property and the resident’s use of it whilst being charged full rent for the property.
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her children by the delays in completing repairs in the property, taking into account the resident’s personal circumstances, of which the landlord was aware, and the urgency of the works.
3. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on, but is not limited to the following:
1. What steps it will take to mitigate the risk of a property being considered uninhabitable following a mutual exchange. What emergency measures it will deploy in the event of a situation where a resident takes over the tenancy of an unhabitable property, such as was experienced by the resident in this case.
2. How it can ensure it has effective oversight of its contractors and quality assurance of repairs, particularly where risks and hazards under HHSRS are identified.
3. How it can improve the process of risk management and the passage of information between relevant departments and teams where potential safeguarding and wellbeing issues affecting its residents are a factor. This should include how it will ensure it meets its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998.
4. Whether its decant policy meets the needs of its service and its residents. The review should consider whether the landlord’s policy provides for the appropriate payments to residents and makes clear, and is unambiguous, as to the circumstances in which it will remove the rent charge. The landlord’s process should include safeguards to ensure a resident’s particular circumstances are taken into account so they are not left in financial hardship by the decant. The landlord should also consider whether it should offer alternative accommodation to residents who have elected to manage their own decant, when it becomes apparent that the decant will be longer than the period initially envisaged.
5. The landlord should also outline the steps it will take to ensure a consistent application of its decant policy is practiced by its staff.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £200 compensation it offered for complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.