One Manchester Limited (202105048)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105048

One Manchester Limited

2 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
   1. delays to his property transfer;
   2. the condition of his new property;
   3. delays to repair works to rubber seals on the door at his new property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 26 April 2021. The resident was an assured tenant at another property of the landlord prior to this. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process.
4. The landlord introduced ‘pandemic guidelines’ following the introduction of government regulations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidelines included using video viewings of new properties as opposed to in person viewings where possible.
5. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord will aim to complete ‘appointable repairs’ (as opposed to emergency repairs) within 45 working days (this was increased from 20 working days during the period of COVID-19 restrictions). This timeframe is subject to the availability of resources and materials. The resident will be kept informed about the progress of the repairs.
6. The landlord uses a lettings standards policy. The policy notes that when a property is made available, all floors will be clean and safe, all walls will be free from cracked or loose plaster, and all internal woodwork will be free from decay.

Summary of events

7. Based on the summary given in the landlord’s stage two response, in 2020, the resident requested a property transfer. The resident was initially awarded priority 4, the lowest priority, however, after submitting evidence relating to his fear of violence from his neighbour, the landlord awarded priority 1, the highest priority, on 21 May 2020. The resident initially made a number of bids on properties, and discussed moving into one property in October 2020, before determining it was not suitable for his needs. At this time, the resident’s neighbour was in hospital, which reduced his urgency to move. Following the neighbour’s return in November 2020, the landlord identified a suitable property and made a direct offer to the resident, which he accepted. This service has not been provided with any original correspondence relating to the above events but understands this version of events is undisputed.
8. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the period of the complaint. As part of the voids process, the landlord carries out a fire risk assessment, which it endeavoured to do on 23 November 2020. Its operative reported, however, that there was a significant leak at the property which had left it severely flooded and covered in excrement. They further noted that the property would require a full refurbishment which may take some time and noted that other properties were available which could be offered to the resident.
9. On or around 24 November 2020, the landlord’s internal communications indicate it spoke with the resident to express there would be a delay in the property being ready, and that there were other possible properties, however, the resident indicated he wished to wait for this property. The landlord has not provided this service with any file notes or call logs relating to this conversation.
10. The landlord’s internal communications detail the works required to get the property ready, which initially included using an external contractor to deep clean the property given its unsanitary condition. The landlord noted that the contractor was unable to give an indication when this would be completed and that although the landlord had requested this property be prioritised, the contractor had a further 20 properties that had been prioritised, meaning it could not give an indication of how long it would take. The landlord further identified that a new fire door was required, which could take up to six weeks, and could also be delayed by the Christmas shut down. The landlord referenced having been in communication with the resident over this period and that it had advised the delays were ongoing and that it could not give a strict timeframe.
11. Throughout early 2021, the landlord also identified that a new electricity meter was required, and that the supplier would not be available to fit this until late April 2021. The landlord relayed these further delays to the resident and in early April 2021, on the basis of the delays, the resident agreed to move into an alternative property.
12. On 14 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a video viewing of the new property and the resident subsequently moved into the new property on 26 April 2021.
13. On 29 April 2021, the resident made a formal complaint in relation to the delays to moving and also for the state of repair the new property was in. He noted that the bathroom floor was in an unacceptable condition, as were the walls and skirting boards throughout the property.
14. The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 May 2021. It acknowledged that its service had not been delivered in line with its standards, for which it apologised. It outlined the causes of the delays to the initial property being ready to move into but accepted it should have made the decision that this property was not going to be ready in a reasonable timeframe and made an alternative offer. Regarding the state of repair of the new property, it agreed the conditions did not meet its lettable standards. It noted it had subsequently carried out works to the property, which were completed on 17 May 2021. It accepted this would have caused the resident distress and agreed to waive the rent due up until the works were completed to reflect this.
15. In June 2021, the resident reported a number of further repair issues including repairs to the wiring and to the toilet seat. These concerns were subject to stage one complaints, however, it is not evident these were progressed to stage two and so are not the subject of this investigation. The resident also reported a leaking door seal on 8 June 2021. On 18 June 2021, the landlord advised its operative would attend on 23 July 2021 to repair the door seal. Following the inspection on this date, the landlord’s operative took samples of the seal as specialist replacement parts were required. The landlord has not provided this service with any repair notes, and it is not evident that this was explained to the resident at the time, nor whether any follow up appointment was arranged. The resident subsequently raised a formal complaint.
16. During this time, the resident reported his concerns about the delays to the property transfer and the condition of the property to this service. He noted that the landlord was delaying his request to escalate the complaint to stage two pending a further inspection of the property. The landlord completed this inspection on 13 July 2021, following which, on 15 July 2021, they confirmed these complaints had been escalated to stage two.
17. The landlord provided a stage one response for the complaint relating to the door seal on 6 August 2021. It noted that specialist parts were required and that a new appointment had been booked for 15 September 2021. It advised that it was not upholding the complaint as this was a non-urgent repair and that there was a back log of works due to COVID-19 restrictions which had caused further delays.
18. The landlord provided a stage two response relating to the delay to property transfer and condition of the new property on 10 August 2021. The landlord noted it had discussed the resident’s concerns at length and that while it had offered him compensation, he also wanted a detailed response to his concerns. Regarding the delays to the initial property being ready, the landlord provided a detailed account of the issues that had caused delays. It accepted, however, that these repair works had been poorly coordinated and that it was unacceptable that it had not been able to provide indicative timeframes of when the property would be ready.
19. Regarding the state of repair of the new property, the landlord acknowledged the resident had felt pressured to accept it and that it had not been ideal that he was unable to view it in person prior to having accepted it. The landlord reiterated its stage one finding that the property had not been in a lettable condition and noted it should have noted this itself from the virtual viewing video but had failed to do so. The landlord noted the resident’s query as to why he had not been offered one of the other properties that were vacant and explained that these properties were not ready to be offered at the time the new property had been offered to the resident. The landlord also noted the resident had expressed concern that a neighbour regularly had loud parties, which he had not been warned about despite requesting he be informed of any ASB issues at the new property. The landlord confirmed that at the time of his query, there were no open ASB cases, but that it had advised him at this time that there was always the possibility of issues to which it had not been made aware.
20. The landlord also noted the resident had raised concerns that he was not allowed to move into the initial property not because of work delays, but because the landlord’s caretaker of that building was discriminating against him due to his religion, and that because the caretaker’s brother lived in that building, they did not want the resident to live there. The landlord advised it had investigated this concern, and that the caretaker had made multiple requests for updates about the availability of the initial property on behalf of the resident and had not displayed any indication of discrimination. This service has also been provided with the communications from this person which indicate that on multiple occasions they attempted to prioritise the repairs to this property on behalf of the resident. Given that the resident had advised there were no specific incidences of discrimination, the landlord did not uphold this element of the complaint.
21. The landlord upheld the elements of the complaint about the delays to the move and the condition of the new property and noted it had offered to relocate the resident, which he had declined. It offered compensation of £1,147.34 to clear the resident’s rent arrears and a further £750 for the resident. It also reiterated its apology for the distress and inconvenience its service failure had caused.
22. On 14 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response for the complaint in relation to the door seals. It noted it had missed its follow up appointment on 15 September 2021 due to its operatives not being aware of where the new parts had been stored. It confirmed the repair works had been completed on 28 September 2021 but accepted there had been a significant delay between the resident’s initial reports and the works being completed. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience this had caused and offered £300 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Property transfer

23. It is not disputed that the landlord initially applied its property transfer procedures correctly in awarding the resident with priority one requirements, and also making a direct offer when he became at risk of ASB at his original property. Having identified a suitable property that met the resident’s needs, the landlord appropriately began the process of carrying out a fire risk assessment for the property and ensuring it was ready for occupancy. At this time, the landlord’s operative identified significant leak damage, which would require a complete refurbishment of the property. The operative also identified that the landlord’s cleaning contractor would be required to carry out a deep clean.
24. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that it informed the resident there would be a delay to the property being ready and offered alternative properties, which the resident declined. The landlord has noted that it did not know how long the preparation of the property would take and so it had not been able to provide an indicative time to the resident at this stage. It would have been helpful had the landlord provided this service with its telephone logs, or had it followed up its conversations in writing to the resident to demonstrate what information it had provided, however, it has not done this.
25. It is evident that the steps required to get the property ready were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, namely, arranging for its specialist contractor to clean, and for the energy supplier to fit a meter. It is also evident that the landlord took steps to chase up dates for these works to be completed on multiple occasions, and also that it requested the works be prioritised (however, this was unsuccessful due to there being multiple prioritised works already).
26. While the landlord’s continued attempts to organise a date to move in on were appropriate, the period of time from which the landlord initially discovered there was a delay, to the point that it returned to the resident to offer an alternative property was five months, during which the resident remained in the situation where he was at risk of ASB. The landlord’s policies do not state a specific timeframe for which to offer an alternative property when a property isn’t ready, and so an assessment of reasonableness must be made.
27. There were multiple delays caused by the cleaning contractors, sourcing a new door, the installation of a new meter, and also the need for the leak to dry out and refurbishments to be undertaken, and that the landlord was informed on multiple occasions that these delays remained. The resident remained at risk of ASB throughout this period. While the landlord initially appropriately discussed the option of alternative properties with the resident, based on the evidence provided to this service, it did not return to this proposition again until April 2021. It would have been helpful had it offered this option sooner, and it was appropriate that the landlord recognised in its formal response that its delay to offer an alternative property was unreasonable, which the Ombudsman agrees with.
28. In its stage one response, the landlord, having accepted service failure for the delays and having not offered an alternative property sooner, offered compensation to cover three weeks’ rent for the new property. This offer of compensation was primarily in relation to the complaint about the condition of the new property, which is discussed further below, and failed to take into account the impact of the delay to the move on the resident. It was appropriate, therefore, that it revised its offer of compensation in its stage two response.
29. The resident expressed concern that the landlord had initially declined to escalate the complaint to stage two pending a further investigation of the new property. While this element of the complaint was separate from the condition of the new property meaning there was no specific reason for a stage two response to be delayed, it was reasonable for the landlord to continue to treat both elements of the complaint in a single response given that the stage one response had been issued in this format. The resident had also agreed to wait to escalate both responses until this further inspection had taken place, so in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this delay did not constitute service failure.
30. Once it had escalated the complaint to stage two, the landlord appropriately had a lengthy telephone conversation with the resident to understand his concerns. In its stage two response, the landlord provided an appropriately detailed account of causes to the delays to the property being ready. It also addressed the resident’s other concerns, including that there were possible prejudicial reasons behind the delay to the property. The landlord’s investigation of this concern was reasonable, and the communications provided to this service show that its staff had made reasonable attempts to get the initial property ready and do not demonstrate any deliberate delays.
31. The landlord’s offer of compensation in its stage two response was greatly increased being £1,147.34 to clear the resident’s rent arrears and a further £750 for the resident. While there was no specific breakdown as to how this compensation applied to this element of the complaint and also to the complaint about the condition of the new property (discussed below), in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the total figure of compensation, along with the landlord’s apology, amounts to reasonable redress for both elements of the complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not specifically request financial compensation and so did not immediately accept this figure. A recommendation has been made below that the landlord reiterate its offer of compensation.

Property condition

32. The landlord’s letting standard’s policy notes that when a property is made available, all floors will be clean and safe, all walls will be free from cracked or loose plaster, and all internal woodwork will be free from decay. The landlord has provided this service with a ‘void survey’ for this property dated 7 December 2020. The survey notes some wall patches are required in the living room, and notes that the bathroom floor and skirting needs to be addressed. Other skirting boards in the property are not mentioned. It is not evident if these works were carried out, nor is it evident if a further survey was undertaken at the time the property was offered to the resident.
33. The landlord has published ‘pandemic guidelines’ which note that where possible, a video viewing of new properties will take place as opposed to an in person viewing. The Ombudsman considers such steps to be reasonable, however, it is evident that not every issue would be identified in this way. The landlord has noted it could observe some issues with the property within this video, however, the resident is not an expert surveyor, and so it was reasonable he did not highlight any issues from the video alone. As noted by the landlord, however, it should have identified these issues and taken steps to rectify them prior to the resident moving in, which it has accepted it did not do.
34. Following the resident moving into the new property on 29 April 2021, he identified issues with the floors, walls and skirting boards, contrary to the standards for lettings as set out in the landlord’s lettings policy. While some reasonable unidentified repairs may be required following a resident moving into a property, the landlord accepted that these repairs should have been identified and completed prior to the resident moving in. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately carried out rectification works on 17 May 2021, which was within its repair timeframes. Given that these repairs should have been identified and completed prior to the resident moving in, it was appropriate that the landlord offered an apology in its stage one response for the inconvenience this would have caused and offered to waive the rent for the period the works were outstanding. As noted above, however, the landlord failed to offer satisfactory additional compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
35. The resident reported a number of additional repair concerns which are not the focus of this report, however, given that the landlord needed to carry out a further inspection to determine what it should reasonably have identified prior to the resident moving in, and what was a new repair issue, it was reasonable that the landlord delayed escalating the complaint to stage two until this inspection had taken place.
36. Following its further inspection, the landlord appropriately reiterated its stage one findings in its stage two response that there had been service failure in relation to the state of repair of the property when the resident moved in. In its stage two response, the landlord identified that additional compensation was required and so greatly increased the compensation to cover the resident’s ongoing rent arrears (£1,147.34), as well as providing an amount (£750) directly to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. As noted above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounted to reasonable redress for both this element of the complaint, and the complaint regarding the delay to the property transfer.
37. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord appropriately provided dates for the additional works raised by the resident to be completed. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with these works, he should raise a stage one or stage two complaint as required in the first instance. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to enquire as to any outstanding works.

Rubber seals

38. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 45 working days during periods affected by COVID-19 restrictions. The Ombudsman considers increased response times during this period to be reasonable given the reduced availability of staff and materials. Where a repair issue is in dispute, this service would expect a landlord to provide its repair logs and notes, however, the landlord has not done so in this case. It is not disputed, however, that the resident reported a leaking door seal on or around 8 June 2021. Based on the landlord’s repair policy, the Ombudsman would expect this repair to have been completed by 10 August 2021, being 45 working days after the date the issue was reported. Failing this, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide an explanation as to why this target will not be met, and to provide an anticipated new target date.
39. The landlord’s operative attended on 23 July 2021, which was well within the timeframe of its repairs policy. It was noted that the door seal required specialist parts and that samples were taken away for the purpose of ordering these parts. It is not evident to what extent this was explained to the resident at this time. As noted above, notes from the repair, nor any follow up letters to the resident have been provided to this service. It is also not evident that any indicative timeframe for the new parts to arrive, nor a date as to when the landlord might provide an update, was given to the resident at this time. This would have left him confused as to how and when the issue would be resolved.
40. The delay led the resident to make a formal complaint, to which the landlord provided a formal response on 6 August 2021. Based on the evidence provided to this service, this was the first instance the landlord articulated a reason for the delay, i.e. that specialist parts were required and that COVID-19 restrictions had caused a backlog of work, and the first time that it provided a date for the works to be completed, 15 September 2021. While the landlord failed to provide this information in a timely manner when it first became aware it required specialist parts, providing this explanation and date in a formal response within the timeframes of its repair policy was reasonable at this point.
41. The landlord failed, however, to complete the repairs on 15 September 2021, leading the resident to escalate his complaint. The landlord appropriately accepted there had been service failure and apologised for the impact it had had on the resident. It provided an explanation as to why the works were not completed on this date, being that the operative had not been informed where the new parts were stored. While it subsequently arranged to the works to be completed on 28 September 2021, it accepted this delay was not the fault of the resident and that the delay went far beyond its targeted service standards. It subsequently offered £300 compensation to recognise the distress caused, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress for this complaint.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. delays to the resident’s property transfer;
    2. the condition of his new property;
    3. delays to repair works to rubber seals on the door at his new property.

Reasons

Property transfer

43. Having identified there would be a delay, the landlord initially appropriately discussed alternative options with the resident but was unable to provide an indicative timeline for the property to be ready on which the resident could make an informed decision.
44. While the causes of the delays were beyond the landlord’s control and it appropriately made multiple attempts to expediate the delays, given the risk of remaining in the current property for the resident, the landlord should have made the decision to offer an alternative property sooner, which it identified and apologised for in its formal response.
45. While the initial offer of compensation failed to adequately address the distress and inconvenience these delays caused to the resident, its subsequent offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress for the complaint.

Property condition

46. The landlord appropriately accepted service failure for the state of repair of the property when the resident moved in, which fell short of its lettings standards and should reasonably have been identified prior to the resident moving in. While its initial offer of compensation was insufficient to reflect the distress caused to the resident, its subsequent increased offer of compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress.

Rubber seals

47. Based on the evidence provided to this service, the landlord initially failed to provide reasonable information to the resident about the new parts needed, nor did it provide an anticipated date for the works to be completed. While it subsequently provided this information in its formal response, the landlord then failed to complete the works on the new date, which was already beyond its targeted date as per its policy. It was therefore appropriate that it offered an apology to the resident and provided compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Recommendations

48. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following, if it has not done so already:
    1. reiterate its offer of compensation (£1,147.34 and £750) made in its stage two response dated 10 August 2021;
    2. reiterate its offer of compensation (£300) made in its stage two response dated 14 October 2021;
    3. enquire as to any outstanding works.