Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202004670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004670

Nottingham City Homes

20 January 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 the landlord’s
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let to her.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The tenancy commenced on 26 February 2020. The property is a two bedroom terraced house. The resident lives at the property with her two daughters, who were aged five and two at the time of the complaint.
On 28 February 2020, the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property and that she had left several messages with the voids manager asking that they contact her to discuss her concerns but had not received any response. The resident reported:
1. Holes in external walls going into kitchen which were creating drafts into the kitchen.
2. The backboards did not fit on all kitchen cupboards, two drawers could not be opened, two top kitchen cupboards were loose and had screws missing and there was sticky tape holding the shelves together in the kitchen cupboards’
3. The bath panel was broken and two of the electric sockets had holes in them.
4. The loft could be seen into through the boiler cupboard.
5. Skirting boards were falling off in children’s bedroom.
6. The chimney breast skirting board was not fixed.
7. The wooden flooring in the children’s room and in boiling cupboard was damaged and looked unsafe.
8. Two windows had gaps in the wall to frame, causing drafts.
9. The pipe work in the kitchen was not boxed in.
In an internal email of 3 March 2020, the lettings officer confirmed that they had spoken to the resident that morning, that an electrician would be attending that day and that an appointment had been arranged for her and the Voids Manager to attend on 5 March 2020. The lettings officer said that they would advise the resident when the joiner would attend and that, if necessary, the tenancy start date could be changed.
On 6 March 2020, the Voids Manager confirmed that, following their visit to the resident’s property the previous day, the following works had been agreed:
1. Extra decorating vouchers were to be arranged.
2. An inspection of the fencing and the neighbouring properties guttering.
3. To replace the lounge and kitchen architraves and skirting.
4. Fill gap round fire with beading.
5. Refit/secure back panels in all kitchen units and adjust drawer/unit door.
6. To apply filler or piece of ply to the interior of the front door step.
7. To renew the bath panel, fill ‘‘tiny’’ hole behind cistern near pipe, grout bathroom tiles, replace plastic pipes in bathroom.
8. Reverse door to front bedroom and lounge or replace if unable to do so.
9. Renew skirting in front bedroom
10. Repair seal to front bedroom window.
11. remove sticky residue from window.
12. Rear bedroom, remove wood from behind the tank, ply patch to tank cupboard ceiling and ply floor in tank cupboard, renew skirting and reverse door or renew if unable to do so,
13. External window wall, fill gap surrounding the house.
14. Landing, replace small section of skirting that has become loose.
15. The clearance team to sort out the back garden.
On 3 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain that she was struggling to get the outstanding works to her property completed. The resident said that her skirting boards had been replaced and she was advised by the contractor that a plasterer would be attending the following week but she had heard nothing further. The resident that she was also still awaiting an amended tenancy start date. The resident sent a follow up email to the landlord on 6 April 2020 to confirm that she had now spoken to the Voids Manager and was happy that she had received an update.
The landlord issued its Stage One response on 29 April 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint but did apologise for the delay in its response. The landlord said that;
1. its Voids Manager had visited the resident’s property on at least three occasions, on one occasion with the lettings officer.
2. The property was let to its Lettable Standard, that all of the repairs documented were caused by the resident ‘‘ripping off architraves, skirting and the backs of cupboards’’ and that on two occasions its operatives had witnessed the resident doing so.
Following a report from the resident on 21 May 2020, of mice entering her kitchen through the back of the property, on 26 May 2020, a bricklayer attended the resident’s property to seal the gap in the rear wall and point the brickwork near the pipes.
On 3 June 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident challenged the landlord’s allegations that she caused the damage to her property and asked that the landlord explain how it had come to that conclusion. The resident said that:
1. When she initially viewed the property with the Lettings Officer, her grandmother and support worker, the skirting boards and architraves were missing, damaged and in bad repair.
2. When the Voids Manager and Lettings Officer attended at no point did they refer to her causing any damage, there was no disagreement with the issues she had raised and she was told that the landlord would amend the start date of her tenancy agreement due to the issues raised.
3. The landlord’s conclusion was an insult and that the required repairs had not yet been completed and that these should be remedied as quickly as possible.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day.
On 24 July 2020, the resident reported water coming through the hall ceiling from the bathroom. A job was raised with a target date of 25 July 2020. The repair records do not indicate whether this job was completed.
On 3 August 2020:
1. The resident emailed the lettings team to say that she was still waiting to hear about her amended tenancy start date, decorating vouchers, parking permit information and her kitchen. The lettings team responded the same day, providing the resident with details of how to apply for a permit and to confirm that they would look into her other queries
2. The Customer Relations team chased the Head of Voids asking that someone to contact the resident that day to advise what work was being done and when, as the repairs team had advised that there were currently no outstanding jobs with them.
3. The Void Manager advised that the property was a fast turn round, was in ‘‘fantastic’’ condition, that she attended with the Lettings Officer who could confirm that there was nothing hanging off, and that an operative was inside the property when the resident starting to remove the skirting and architrave. The Void Manager provided photographs of the inside of the base unit sink cupboard, the architrave and the kitchen. In a follow up email later the same day they also advised that as far as they were aware they had no further works to carry out at the resident’s property as the urgent jobs were being picked up by repairs and that, when they spoke to the resident, they did not specify on what date that conversation took place, the resident had been advised that ‘‘all she needed to do was to make an appointment’’.
On 30 September 2020, the resident’s property was visited by a different Voids Manager who later confirmed that when he had discussed the resident’s issues with her, she had agreed that for most no further action was necessary. However, there were some outstanding issues which he agreed to complete and which he said were planned to commence at some point the following week. This included:
1. To check with repairs that a fencing and guttering inspection has been raised.
2. For a contractor to check front door tolerances.
3. To replace a missing plinth (which the resident removed), replace ill-fitting blank panel to washer space and check 2gang socket next to the central heating timer in the kitchen.
4. To level off the ground to the back of the shed and remove an old door.
5. Renew the handrail to the party wall of the stairs and remove old brackets on living room wall and renew smoke detector as this was water damaged from the bathroom leak.
6. To fit a new piece of UPVC window board to small rear bedroom, repair UPVC to right hand side casement in large front bedroom, change locking handle and use UPVS cleaner to remove stains from window frame, timber fill old hinge positions to front bedroom and large rear bedroom door frames and refix loose trunking in the large front bedroom.
7. To replace missing skirting (which resident removed), grout and silicone sealant in the bathroom.
8. To remove old aerial from the loft.
On 26 October 2020, in an internal email, the Voids Manager that attended the resident’s property on 30 September 2020 confirmed that the repair to the bath, which he described as the most urgent had been completed on 20 October 2020. The remaining works had been due to be completed the previous week but due to covid related absences had been delayed. The resident had been informed that the works would be completed in the following week.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that considering the time taken to progress the matter and the significant effort the resident had to put into pursuing it, it would like to offer the resident a discretionary payment of £500 the maximum amount it could offer under its Discretionary Policy. The landlord also advised that this would not affect the conclusion of her escalation request.
On 20 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the length of time she had been waiting for the landlord’s final response to her complaint. The resident also complained about a call she had received from the lettings officer arranging a visit for her to sign her tenancy agreement. The resident said that the lettings officer had been inappropriate and unprofessional, advising that they were only able to discuss the signing of the tenancy and nothing else and that at this stage of her complaint she would have expected the situation to have been handled with a lot more consideration and professionalism.
In an internal email of 20 November 2020, the Voids Manager confirmed to the Customer Relations team that all the outstanding works had been completed.
The landlord issued its final response on 23 November 2020. The landlord apologised for the amount of time it had taken to respond to the escalated complaint, explaining that this was due to Covid lockdown, revised ways of working and the time taken to compile the information required. The landlord acknowledged that:
1. The resident had not been treated in timely manner by the landlord for which it apologised.
2. There may have been several repairs that were missed by the voids team prior to the resident occupying the property and that some of the repairs carried out by the same team may have been below standards, and either unsightly or unsafe.
3. The repairs required both assessment and repair/replacement and this was not arranged or completed in a timely manner.
4. There had also been compromising factors by the resident and it had seen evidence that the resident had not yet signed a tenancy agreement for the property.
On 25 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the Lettings Team would be visiting the resident on 27 November 2020 for her to sign her tenancy agreement.
On 30 November 2020, the lettings manager emailed the resident to confirm that non-emergency jobs had been raised to secure the guttering down pipes to the front and back of the property and to repair the welcome/security light, following their ‘‘recent’’ visit to the resident’s property on 27 March 2020. The lettings manager also acknowledged that the 40 decorating points awarded to the resident had not been issued to her, and as a result a further 20 points had been added bring the total to 60.
Following a call from the resident on 4 December 2020, the Voids Manager agreed to attend site on 9 December 2020 to reseal the bath, repair of replace the kitchen plinth as the resident believed that some of her own floor tiles had been left behind it and to empty trade waste from the resident’s bins.
On 9 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord accepting if offer of a £500 Discretionary payment made on 6 November 2020 and on 10 December 2020 the Voids Manager confirmed that all the remaining works had been completed.
On 14 December 2020, the landlord advised this service that the £500 payment was in the process of being made.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an absolute and non-excludable obligation upon landlords to carry out basic repairs. It also requires the landlord to put the premises into repair if it was not in good repair at the start of the tenancy. This obligation is confirmed in Section 4.2 of the tenancy terms and conditions.
The landlord’s New Home Standard goes on to states that the resident’s new home will be safe, secure, clean, in good condition and free from damage and that its aim is to carry out all necessary work to before the resident moves in, although it may need to carry out some repairs afterwards.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards confirm that the landlord has three categories for repairs: emergency repairs, which should be made safe within 24 hours; Priority repairs, which should be carried out within 7 days or as a maximum within 30 working days; planned work which the landlord will aim to attend at the tenants convenience or as a maximum within 90 working days. The Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards refers separately to fencing and hedges stating that it the landlord is responsible for the repair this will be completed within 15 working days and that the landlord always aims to repair fences rather than replace them.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that wherever possible, before any formal complaint is logged, it will continue to work with residents to resolve the cause of dissatisfaction and reach an agreed outcome. If this cannot be done, the landlord has a two stage complaints procedure whereby the landlord will aim to provide its Stage One response within 10 working days and its Stage two response within 20 working days.

Assessment

The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The resident initially raised her dissatisfaction with the condition of her property on 28 February 2020, two days after her tenancy commenced.
Following the resident’s report of 28 February 2020, the landlord recognised its responsibility to repair, raising a job to repair two of the electric sockets in the bathroom which the resident had reported had holes in them and arranging for its Voids Manager and Lettings Officer to visit the resident’s property on 5 March 2020.
The Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards include unsafe electrics under the emergency repairs category. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the resident’s report that two of the electric sockets in the bathroom had holes in them as, an emergency repair and as such to have arranged for an electrician to attend within 24 hours, in accordance with the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards. The electrician did, however, not attend until 3 March 2020, four calendar/two working days later.
Given the extent of the repairs reported it was appropriate for the Voids Manager to draw up a schedule of the works they had agreed to do. It would also be reasonable to expect that the Voids Manager would use that schedule to monitor the progress of those works, addressing any issues or delays as they occurred and to keep the resident updated.
On 3 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint about its response to her repair reports and that she was struggling to get the outstanding works to her property completed. The resident also complained that the repairs to the brickwork she reported on 28 February 2020 had not been completed. It is noted that this repair was not included in the list of repairs agreed by the Voids Manager but was completed on 26 May 2020, following reports from the resident on 25 May 2020 of mice in her kitchen.
The landlord failed to issue its stage one response in accordance with the timescales in its Complaints Policy, its Stage One response not being issued until 29 April 2020, 20 working days after the resident submitted their complaint. In its response, the landlord failed to acknowledged the resident’s concerns, the extent of the repairs required to the property when she moved, to apologise for any delay in completing the agreed repairs or to provide the resident with an update on when they might be completed. Rather than doing so, the landlord said that the property was let to its Lettable Standard and alleging that ‘‘all’’ of the repairs reported were caused by the resident ‘‘ripping off architraves, skirting and the backs of cupboards’’.
Even if the repairs to the architraves, skirting and backs of the cupboards had been caused by the resident, this was not a reasonable response as it is clear from the repairs agreed by the Voids Manager that the works required to the property extended beyond just architrave, skirting and kitchen cupboards. There is also no evidence of the Voids Manager raising concerns about whether the actions of the resident may have resulted in the repairs at the time the repairs were raised. It was only in a later, internal, email on 13 March 2020, that any such concerns were raised. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Voids Manager had advised the resident of their concerns prior to issuing the Stage One response and so it is understandable that, hearing this for the first time and given the extent of the repairs she was chasing, this would have been distressing for the resident to read.
The resident escalated her complaint to Stage Two on 3 June 2020, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The resident challenging the landlord’s allegations that she had caused the repairs, restated that the outstanding repairs had not been completed and chased her amended tenancy start date. According to the landlord’s complaints policy the landlord should have issued its Stage two response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request of 3 June 2020. However, the landlord did not issue its Stage two and final response until 23 November 2020, more than five months later.
Between the resident requesting an escalation of her complaint and the landlord’s final response, the resident’s property was visited on 30 September 2020 by a new Voids Manager. At this point it was agreed with the resident that no further action was required for a number of her concerns. The new Voids Manager also took steps to investigate and address both the outstanding repairs as well as repairs that were not included in the resident’s initial report or in the schedule agreed by the initial Voids Manager. All these repairs were then completed between 20 October and 10 December 2020.
Prior to issuing its final response, the landlord emailed the resident to offer her £500 compensation, the maximum it could offer under its Discretionary Policy, acknowledging the time it taken to progress the matter and the significant effort the resident had to put into pursuing it.
In its final response of 23 November 2020, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in its response and that the reported repairs had not been treated in a timely manner. This was an appropriate position for the landlord to take given:
1. The requirements of the landlord’s New Home Standard and the extent of the repairs reported by the resident two days after she moved in. It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledged that there had been repairs that had been both missed by the Voids team and which may have been below standard, unsightly or unsafe.
2. That whilst the new Voids Manager had taken reasonable steps to address and resolve the resident’s concerns, it had taken eight months to complete all the works required.
3. With the exception of the skirting and architraves which the resident confirmed had been completed in an email of 3 April 2020, it is clear that this did not happen and that the agreed actions were not progressed in a timely manner. These included the landlord failing to offer the resident extra decoration vouchers until 30 November 2020, Inspections of the fencing and the neighbouring properties guttering not being completed until 29 May 2020 and 14 October 2020 respectively, a job to secure the guttering not raised until November 2020 and grouting of the bath tiles, and repairs to the front and rear bedroom windows, not being completed until 10 December 2020
There were also a number of repairs where it is unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to resolve them, there being no repair records related to those repairs. On 3 August 2020 the Voids Manager advised that any non-urgent repairs had been picked up by repairs and that, when they spoke to the resident, they advised that ‘‘all she needed to do was to make an appointment’’. Given that advice, it would be reasonable to expect that the Voids Manager had reported the required works to the repairs team and the appropriate repair records made so that any outstanding repairs could be monitored and actioned. There are no repair records for any of the repairs agreed by the initial Voids Manager and no evidence of them taking any steps to cross reference the outstanding works against the works they had agreed to resulting in unnecessary delay, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In addition, given the extent of the repairs required and that the resident had just moved in, it is difficult to see how the Void Manager could have concluded in their email of 3 August 2020 that the property was in ‘‘fantastic’’ condition when let. This also gives rise to concerns about how much emphasis was put on the condition of the property prior to it being let given that they also referred to it be being ‘‘a fast turn round’’.
Whilst the landlord’s apology and acknowledgement of its failures were reasonable and appropriate, it was not reasonable for the landlord to conclude without firm evidence that there had been compromising factors by the resident. It was also not reasonable for the landlord to imply that the resident not yet having signed a tenancy agreement also compromised the completion of the repairs. This is because it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that all the necessary paperwork is completed at sign-up. There is no evidence to suggest that at any point the resident refused to sign her tenancy or any evidence of the landlord taking any steps to ensure that this was done. To the contrary it was the resident who was chasing the landlord for an amended tenancy as early as April 2020.
Within two days of the landlord issuing its final response the lettings team arranged for the resident to sigh her tenancy on the 27 November 2020, which she did, as evidenced by the tenancy agreement provided to this service. This was nine months after the resident moved in. The delay in the landlord ensuring that the resident had signed her tenancy agreement was a clear service failure by the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests compensation in the range of £250 and £700 for considerable service failure or maladministration. Examples given for this category include a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example, to address repairs and the resident having to repeatedly chase updates, resulting in unreasonable time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident.
Having considered all the evidence, whilst the £500 offered by the landlord provides the resident with reasonable redress for its failures with regards to her reports of repairs when she moved into the property, this is not sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the other failures identified in this report in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and to ensure that it took nine months to arrange for the resident to sign her tenancy agreement. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay the resident a further £200, in addition to the £500 it offered and the resident accepted on 9 December 2020, made up of £100 for complaint handling and record keeping. Bringing the total compensation in relation to this complaint to £700.
An order has also be made for the landlord to consider what learning it can take from this report with regards to its Voids and Lettings process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let to her.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

Despite the requirements of the landlord’s New Home Standard there were extensive repairs reported by the resident when she moved in that the landlord failed to progress in a timely manner. There were long gaps between actions being taken and, prior to the new Voids Manager taking over the works, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any proactive steps to investigate what was happening with the repairs nor of the landlord updating the resident as to the current situation and any reasons the delays at the time. The initial Voids Manager also advised that any outstanding repairs would be completed by the repairs team but failed to either cross reference the outstanding repairs with the works they had agreed to or to ensure that there were appropriate repair records made so that the works could be monitored and progressed. During the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its failures and, to resolve the complaint offered the resident £500 compensation thus providing the resident with reasonable redress for the failures idenftied in this report.
There were delays in the landlord issuing both its stage one and final response. The stage one response also failed to address the resident’s substantive concerns but rather raised allegations that the resident had caused the repairs, which had not been raised with her before that time.
The landlord failed to ensure that the resident had signed her tenancy until nine months after she moved into the property, despite the resident contacting the landlord about her tenancy some seven months earlier.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this report:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident a further £200 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. £100 for its failure to ensure that the resident had signed her tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy.
2. The landlord is to apologise to the resident for its failure with regards to her tenancy agreement and to confirm to this service what steps it plans to take to ensure that all the required documentation, in particular the tenancy agreement, are completed and appropriately stored at the start of the tenancy.
3. The landlord is to confirm that it has complied with all of the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

That within 28 days of the date of this determination that the landlord considers what learning it can take from this report with regards to its Voids and Lettings process. The landlord is to confirm to this service what the outcome of that learning was and what steps it plans to take to ensure that:
1. Its Voids staff are aware of and ensure that properties are let in accordance with the requirements of its New Home Standard, and that any subsequent repairs are progressed in accordance its Repairs and Maintenance Service Standards.
2. There is a process in place to ensure that where repairs are passed to another team to complete, appropriate repair records have been created to enable the new team to monitor and progress those repairs appropriately.