Places for People Group Limited (202217519)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217519

Places for People Group Limited

6 October 2023

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:
1. handling of the tenancy sign-up process.
2. handling of repairs.
This service has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 28 April 2022.
The resident is an older person, with a formal diagnosis of anxiety and depression, which the landlord was aware of prior to offering the tenancy. During the sign-up process, the resident said she told the landlord about difficulties with her eyesight. During the complaint process, the resident mentioned another medical condition which affected her balance.
The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of the resident and the landlord. The landlord is obliged to:
1. “Keep in repair, the structure and exterior of the premises, including….outside doors; internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames”
2. “Keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including….basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes”.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint handling procedure, however, residents who remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response, may ask for their case to be reviewed by its independent complaint panel. The procedure states:
1. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged in 5 working days and are resolved in 10 working days. However, if the issue is straightforward and does not require investigation, an “on the spot apology, explanation or other action to put the matter right” will be given within 24 hours.
2. If the landlord knows it is unable to resolve the complaint within 10 working days, or a full investigation is required, “it should be handled at stage 2 immediately”.
3. Stage 2 complaints are acknowledged in 3 working days and are resolved in 20 working days.
4. The landlord will be mindful of the complainant’s vulnerabilities and will provide support to vulnerable residents in a variety of ways. Examples given include, helping a resident access independent support or advocacy services, to help a resident communicate their complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation where a complaint has been investigated and is not upheld.
The landlord has a sign-up policy which states:
1. It “is vital that the appointment is a pleasant experience for the [resident] with the aim of ensuring a thorough understanding of their rights and responsibilities as a tenant”.
2. The resident should “always be informed in advance of what to expect”, and “the importance of the tenancy sign-up appointment”. “Before leaving the sign-up appointment we must be satisfied the [resident] understands the agreement they have signed and their obligations to the landlord”.
3. “The sign-up process should be used to confirm that the [resident] is the right person for the home”. To “identify any needs that the new [resident] may have in order to move into their new home smoothly” and achieve “a long standing and successful tenancy”. If the landlord “is not satisfied the let would be sustainable during the sign-up appointment, staff have the autonomy to decline a sign up by delaying or declining in entirety”.
The landlord’s sign-up process indicates that residents are sent a copy of the tenancy agreement and its sign-up pack prior to signing for the tenancy. The sign-up takes place at the property but can take place at other venues if the customer would be more comfortable. On the day of the sign-up, the resident is issued with several documents including its lettable standards, an asbestos safety letter, and an asbestos plan. The asbestos safety letter explains what asbestos is, its health effects, where it can be found, and what to do about it. A sign-up checklist guides the dialogue between the landlord and the resident, which is signed by the resident and is kept as a record of matters discussed. Documents that require a signature are signed digitally by both parties and are emailed to the resident once completed.
The landlord’s lettable standards set out the property standards that resident’s can expect at the start of a new tenancy. Of particular note, “space permitting, there will be a washing-machine point”. The landlord will “inform you if there is any known asbestos in your property…You will be given an ‘asbestos in the home’ information sheet at your sign-up”.
The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out the timescales for completion of repairs. Emergency repairs are carried out “in 24 hours”; appointable repairs in “28 days (currently 60)”, planned repairs “in 90 days”. However, “a pre-inspection may be required before the repair appointment can be arranged. This will include circumstances where the scope of the repair is unknown, or if the information given does not provide enough detail. Once an inspection is carried out, the repair will be diagnosed and subsequently issued within the appropriate timescales”. The landlord has since clarified, at the time of the complaint, it had extended the expected timescale for appointable repairs to 60 days. This was in response to a backlog of repairs caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The landlord has provided a copy of its process chart for responding to reports of damp, mould, and condensation. This indicates that once reported, an inspection should take place within 7 days, at which time damp readings will be taken.

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident and landlord have both provided evidence of the landlord’s actions and communications subsequent to completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. However, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s actions and communications between 25 January 2022 and 7 November 2022. This being the period between the landlord verifying the resident’s housing application and completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process. Any reference to historical events, or events which arose after 7 November 2022, are included for background purposes only and to provide context to the complaint.
The resident has stated that that issues referenced in the complaint have led to a deterioration in her mental health. This service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, consideration has been given to the resident’s general distress and inconvenience. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she feels her health has been affected by its action or inaction.

Summary of events

In August 2021, prior to the resident’s occupation, the landlord applied for an injunction to control the behaviour of a resident living in the block of flats. From here on this resident will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’. On 23 February 2022, the neighbour gave a legal undertaking not to cause a “nuisance or annoyance” to anyone living in the locality. In addition, he was to refrain from using “abusive, intimidating or threatening behaviour” towards any person within the locality.
The resident’s housing application was verified on 25 January 2022. The landlord provisionally offered the property to the resident on 24 February 2022, via email. The landlord told the resident that there were “various pieces of essential information” that the resident needed to read and familiarise herself with, prior to signing the tenancy agreement. Attached to the email was a copy of the tenancy agreement “and all other relevant paperwork”, however this service cannot be sure from the evidence provided what documents were attached.
The landlord has provided this service with a copy of a letter dated 24 February 2022, which was not addressed directly to the resident. This was titled “asbestos in your home”, which identified the locations of asbestos within the property. A declaration, digitally signed by the resident on 28 April 2022, indicated that the resident had received and fully understood the asbestos information provided to her.
Internal landlord communications on 7 March 2022, raised awareness of a longstanding anti-social behaviour (ASB) issue with the neighbour, which had resulted in a “behavioural order” being put in place. It said incoming tenants should be “made aware of the issues”. It visited the neighbour and reminded him that breaching the judgement could put his tenancy at risk.
The resident met the landlord at the property on 28 April 2022, to view the property and complete the sign-up. The tenancy agreement and sign-up checklist were electronically signed by the resident on this date. The resident said the landlord completed the sign-up over a mobile phone, using her signature from her housing application form. The resident said that she did not have time to see what she was signing as the pages on the phone flicked by so fast. When the resident told the landlord that she had an eyesight condition, she was told not to worry and just press the green button. The resident states that the landlord did not go through all the documentation before she signed. She did not know there was asbestos in the flat until she later received a copy of the sign-up paperwork. This service has seen documentation, digitally signed by the resident, agreeing that she had “received and understood the asbestos information and guidance”.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 May 2022. The resident said:
1. The tenancy was offered in January 2022. The resident was given a copy of the tenancy agreement to look over in February 2022, which did not mention asbestos. It took some time before the property was ready for letting.
2. She had refused to sign for the tenancy unless a washing machine could be put in. The landlord had responded by taking a door off a cupboard to provide access to the “points”. However, the resident was still unable to plumb in her washing machine.
3. The wet room stayed wet after a shower and did not drain for days. As a result, the resident had to wear sandals in the bathroom, the cat drank the dirty shower water, and the corridor became slippery. This was of concern to the resident, as she had a condition which caused imbalance.
4. She had specifically asked the landlord about issues with neighbours, in view of her anxiety. The landlord indicated that the only person to be concerned about, was someone who was causing problems for the landlord’s staff. The resident suggested that this was a “lie”, as 8 neighbours later told her that the neighbour was a drug addict and had previously attacked neighbours.
5. She was unable to make an informed decision about the property. The landlord had misled her and hidden the truth, which had put her health, and the health of her cat at jeopardy. The resident would be seeking legal advice.
This service has seen no record of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint. However, a “put it right” enquiry was raised on 23 May 2022. There were several internal landlord communications between 23 May 2022 and 25 May 2022, as the landlord attempted to allocate the enquiry to the right team. It is unclear from the evidence seen if the matter was formally allocated. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident directly about her concerns. There is no evidence of a stage 1 complaint response being issued.
An internal communication from the landlord’s letting officer on 25 May 2022, set out the timeline between verification of the resident’s housing application and the tenancy sign-up. The timeline showed regular updates being given to the resident. Of additional note:
1. Arrangements were made by the landlord to provide space for the washing machine.
2. The resident was made aware of ASB related issues on 9 March 2022.
3. The asbestos form was part of the sign-up pack, which stated there was asbestos in the artex ceilings and floor tiles. The resident was told not to drill, sand, or smash the ceiling. If she wanted to replace the flooring this should be done over the floor tiles, which should not be removed.
4. All paperwork was explained at sign-up and beforehand over the phone. The resident did not stand with the landlord while completing the sign-up and “kept wandering off”.
The resident has provided this service with photographs, which she states were taken in May 2022, which showed continued puddling or water in the wet room that caused her toilet rolls to become wet and her toilet brush holder to rust.
The landlord raised a works order enquiry on 19 August 2022, regarding the wet room and washing machine, as it could not locate any notes on the system regarding these matters. It is unclear what prompted the enquiry. However, the landlord inspected the property on 23 August 2022, to assess the pooling water and investigate the issue with washing machine. Repairs were also carried out to the back door on this day. No contemporaneous notes, or inspection report has been seen by this service.
The landlord’s records from 7 September 2022, reference the landlord enquiring when its trades supervisor would be visiting the property to assess the repairs. It is unclear what prompted this enquiry. However, the landlord has stated that it attended the property on 13 September 2022, to remove a kitchen worktop and end panel, and make space for the washing machine. On the same day, its repairs operative connected the washing machine as “a goodwill gesture”. The resident has explained until this time, she had to rely on neighbours to wash her clothes.
The resident raised an additional complaint on 14 September 2022, about the lettings process and outstanding repair issues relating to kitchen and wet room. She said that she no longer felt safe in her home and could not sleep, due to noise nuisance and the criminal activities of her neighbour and his friends. She was considering involving her member of parliament or the Housing Ombudsman, as it was “all too much” for her to cope with in view of her “disability and mental health”. The resident could not understand why the landlord put a vulnerable lone woman in a flat with drug addicts and dealers. The landlord had not declared issues with the neighbour when asked. The door did not lock properly, the kitchen was too low down, there was damp in the property, the wet room flooded and there was no place for a washing machine even although there was plumbing for one.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 September 2022 and said that it would be in contact shortly to discuss this further. It did not indicate at what stage the complaint was being considered or when it would respond.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 September 2022. It said it had tried calling about repairs. It would arrange for its trades supervisor to schedule an inspection.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2022, to escalate her complaint. The resident outlined 6 areas of complaint. The resident said:
1. After waiting months for the property, she was told to sign on a phone. She said she had informed the landlord that she had poor eyesight and was concerned about signing digitally. She was told to “just press the button, I don’t need to read”. She subsequently received a contract and after the fact a report of asbestos. She said had she known about this, she would not have signed the contract.
2. She had been advised 3 times prior to signing the tenancy, not to worry about the neighbour, as his anger was only steered towards the landlord. The resident said this was a “lie” and produced a witness statement and copy of the neighbour’s “conviction” as evidence. She asked why the landlord had not told her about this, knowing she had a mental health disability.
3. The landlord had not told her about another neighbour in the block who was a convicted drug dealer.
4. She had made it clear that she would refuse the property if it did not have a washing machine point. The landlord had taken the door off the cupboard and had removed shelves. However, she had now lost a whole work top. The resident was unhappy with the response of the landlord’s repairs manager.
5. A repairs assessment had been carried out the previous month. The landlord had since rung to arrange another assessment. The landlord had already assessed the property more than once, but nothing had been put right. The wet room still flooded causing dampness, and the resident had spotted silverfish.
6. She wanted a manager to phone her and for the landlord to find her alternative accommodation.
The landlord assigned the resident’s complaint for investigation on 23 September 2022. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it had formally logged the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. The landlord did not give an indication of when the resident could expect a response. A manager attempted to make contact with the resident on 26 September 2022, to discuss her email. The resident agreed to phone the landlord the following day.
The landlord’s internal communications on 26 September 2022 indicate that there was still some question over which team should lead on the complaint. To progress this, the landlord’s customer focus team said “please can you all decide between you who is picking this up please. Ultimately someone just needs to pick it up collate all the information and issue a stage 1 response letter for the customer”. A complaint lead was agreed the following day.
The landlord’s lettings officer provided an account on 27 September 2022, of her interactions with the resident prior to and during the sign-up, which were later incorporated into the landlord’s stage 1 response. Of additional note, the resident was reminded about an earlier phone call about the neighbour’s behaviour, however the resident “waved it off as not an issue”.
There is evidence of the landlord making internal enquiries about its actions in connection with the washing machine and outstanding repairs on 28 September 2022 and 29 September 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that its repairs team were aware of “repairs required” and were “getting the issues resolved”. However, the nature of the repair issues being dealt with was unclear.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2022, in response to an earlier conversation between the parties. A record of this conversation has not been provided to this service. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2, although she felt the matter was already at stage 2, as the original complaint had been made in May 2022. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not taken her disability into consideration, and it had implied that she was only complaining to get rehoused. The resident also emailed the landlord’s chief executive on 28 September 2022. The resident repeated her earlier complaints. In addition, the resident reported continued unresolved issues with damp.
The landlord and resident exchanged several emails on 29 September 2022. The landlord said that all complaints received at stage 1 had to be responded to before being escalated to stage 2. The resident felt that the landlord was calling her a liar and it was her word against the word of its lettings officer. The landlord said its stage 1 response would be provided by 7 October 2022. The resident suggested that her complaint was being handled poorly, by different departments, who were unaware of what each other was doing. She said that this was impacting on her health. She requested that someone senior take ownership of responding to the complaint. The landlord reassured the resident that a senior lead officer was leading its complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 September 2022. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it had not identified any service failure. In summary, the landlord said:
1. It had discussed and provided written documentation regarding the presence of asbestos in the flat before and during the let process. The landlord had discussed the ‘asbestos in your home’ information sheet with the resident, had pointed out areas in the property where asbestos was found, and had given relevant advice.
2. The main parts of the tenancy agreement, the asbestos letter, and points on the sign-up checklist were discussed with the resident. The resident was advised to “only press the finish button if [she was] happy to proceed and complete the sign-up process”. It said, had it been aware that the resident had problems with eyesight, it could have made reasonable adjustments.
3. It had told the resident, before and during the sign-up, about the ASB that it was aware of at the time. It had offered to arrange for a member of staff to discuss the situation more fully, which the resident declined. At no point, had the landlord suggested ASB was just directed toward itself.
4. It had adjusted the kitchen layout to accommodate a washing machine on request. The installation of the washing machine was done as a goodwill gesture beyond its normal repair service.
5. It had managed the resident’s ASB case, in line with the tenancy agreement, explained the action that it had taken to date and next steps.
6. It had attended the property to fulfil its repair obligations in line with the tenancy agreement. In summary:
  1. It had attended the property shortly after the tenancy started, to remove a door where the washing machine was to be positioned.
  2. It had inspected to assess an issue with pooling water in the wet room on 23 August 2022 and the washing machine not fitting under the worktop. On this day, repairs were carried out to the back door.
  3. It attended again on 13 September 2022, to remove a kitchen worktop and end panel, as the washing machine was unable to fit under the original units due to their height. At this visit, “the operative also connected the washing machine as a goodwill gesture”.
  4. Regarding the pooling of water in the wet room, it had instructed its flooring contractor to assess requirements to provide a quotation to level the floor and replace the floor covering if required. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange a convenient time for the work to take place, which would take place outside of the complaint’s timescale.
7. It was unable to uphold the complaint regarding the repairs service, as the repairs had been arranged within the present repair timescales of 60 days from notification. However, it would manage the remaining work so it was completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
8. It had reviewed the resident’s current health and wellbeing circumstances and would be willing to consider making the resident a property transfer. This would be a ‘like for like’ property in an area of the resident’s choice. The resident was asked to contact the landlord if this was something that she wished to be progressed.
The case closure notes indicate that the landlord had several discussions with the resident, however contemporaneous records of these conversations have not been seen. In taking learnings from the case, the landlord would in future “write any discussion on the letting checklist to reflect any conversation regarding ASB, renewal of major components etc”.
On 5 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident disagreed that asbestos had been mentioned during the sign-up process. She said, the landlord had not fully informed her about the neighbour’s behaviour or that he had been to court. The resident’s complaint was logged at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 5 October 2022. The landlord said it would provide a response within 20 working days and gave the resident a copy of its complaint procedure. The resident asked if the landlord would contact her to discuss the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it would.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2022, as she had not heard anything from the landlord following her complaint and felt that the landlord was not taking it seriously. The resident said that she wanted to know what the landlord was going to do, as her health was being impacted. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive to express her dissatisfaction.
There were multiple communications between the resident and landlord on 24 October 2022. The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive again to express her continued dissatisfaction. After restating her complaint, she added that the neighbour had threatened to “take her to hell”. The landlord requested agreement to extend the timescale for its complaint response to 9 November 2022, which the resident agreed. The resident indicated that her mental health was deteriorating, and the damp was affecting her physical health.
The landlord’s repairs log from 4 November 2022, indicates that a quote was sought from its contractor for “finishing work” in respect of the wet room floor.
The landlord issued its stage 2 final complaint response on 7 November 2022. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said:
1. In connection with its communications about the neighbour’s behaviour during the letting process, “it is difficult when a customer has one chain of events, and a member of staff has another”. It appreciated that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response but was unable to make further comment on this.
2. The resident had signed the “customer sign-up checklist” and “asbestos in your home” letter on 28 April 2022. This indicated that the resident “understood the asbestos information and guidance provided and that there was asbestos in the home”.
3. An ASB case was opened on 9 September 2022. The landlord had reviewed the actions taken to date. It was collaborating with the police and partner agencies to address concerns raised about illegal drug use and safeguarding matters. It had managed the ASB in line with its tenancy agreement and would continue to support and update the resident on the case.
4. The kitchen layout had been adjusted so a washing machine could be fitted. It had also installed the resident’s washing machine as a gesture of goodwill, beyond its normal repair service.
5. Following reports of pooling water in the wet room, arrangements had been made for its flooring contractor to assess requirements and provide a quotation for remedial works. The landlord would also replace the floor covering if required. The landlord had followed up comments made to the resident by its flooring contractor, that the bathroom was “not appropriate for a wet room and the room has damp”. Its repairs team would contact the resident as soon as it had a response.
6. The resident could escalate her complaint further if she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final decision. The landlord explained that the resident could either do this by contacting a designated person (member of parliament, local councillor, or its independent complaint panel), or she could wait 8 weeks before referring the matter directly to the Housing Ombudsman.

Actions to note subsequent to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

The landlord inspected the property on 25 November 2022 to assess the resident’s concerns about damp, following media interest, and an escalation to the landlord’s chief executive. No damp was found in the walls. It believed the smell of damp was caused by pooling water in the shower tray. The landlord arranged follow on works, which were completed on 2 December 2022. The landlord’s notes indicate that the resident was present at the inspection and was happy with the action proposed.
Following an escalation in the behaviour toward the resident by the neighbour, the resident moved into new accommodation on or around 13 April 2023, via a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the tenancy sign-up process

The landlord’s sign-up procedure indicates that residents will be sent a copy of the tenancy agreement and sign-up pack to read, prior to signing the tenancy. The sign-up pack should include a leaflet about ‘asbestos in the home’. This leaflet gives general advice about asbestos but does not detail the exact location of any asbestos identified and contained in the property. While the resident’s offer letter dated 24 February 2022, refers to the inclusion of the tenancy agreement and “all other relevant paperwork”, the resident is certain that the landlord did not include any information about asbestos. The resident has provided evidence following a subject data access request, which indicates that 6 attachments were included with the offer letter. The ‘asbestos in the home’ leaflet was not included in the list of attachments. Although the landlord has indicated to this service that this leaflet was attached, it has not provided evidence of this. Based on the evidence available, it is likely that the resident was not provided with important health and safety information about asbestos, which it would usually provide, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s sign-up procedure names several documents that it will provide on the day of the tenancy sign-up. This includes an ‘asbestos safety letter’ and an ‘asbestos plan’, detailing where asbestos has been identified and contained within the property. A copy of such letter dated 24 February 2022, was digitally signed by the resident on 28 April 2022, declaring that she had received, read, and understood the information provided. The landlord has stated that it went through this information at the tenancy sign-up, but the resident states there was no such discussion. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not document its discussion with the resident at the time, which was inappropriate. However, the landlord’s case closure notes indicate that in future, its staff would endeavour to record such conversations on the tenancy check list. This shows that the landlord had taken learnings from the case, which was positive.
A good tenancy sign-up lays the foundations for a positive landlord tenant relationship. The landlord’s tenancy sign-up policy acknowledges the importance of ensuring that a resident is comfortable during sign-up, so that vital information can be understood and passed on. The landlord’s comment that the resident did not stand with it while conducting the sign-up, and “kept wandering around”, implies there was a lack of required focus. This was inappropriate and increased the risk of essential messages not being effectively communicated by the landlord or being missed by the resident. If the landlord was finding it a challenge to keep the resident sufficiently focused, it should have halted the process and rearranged the sign-up to a more suitable time and venue.
The resident has stated that she told the landlord that she may have issues signing paperwork digitally, in view of issues with her eyesight. The landlord has countered that had it known about this it would have made reasonable adjustments to its sign-up process. This would have been in keeping with its sign-up policy. While this service does not doubt the resident, it has not been possible to determine based on fact, what was discussed by the resident and the landlord in connection with this.
While it may have caused the resident some distress to later find out there was asbestos in the property, this service has seen no evidence that the resident was oppressed into signing the asbestos declaration form. Neither is there any evidence to suggest that the resident lacked capacity. There was equal obligation on both the resident and the landlord, to be satisfied that any contract being entered into, or any declaration made, was fully understood before it was signed. Nevertheless, if there was any doubt following the sign-up regarding the resident’s level of understanding, the landlord should have contacted the resident to go through its asbestos guidance again prior to her moving in. There is no evidence that this happened which was inappropriate, given the potential health risks involved if asbestos was disturbed. The landlord’s sign-up process did not leave the resident with a thorough understanding of the landlord’s guidance in connection with asbestos. In addition, the resident continued to worry about asbestos in the property.
Based on the evidence seen by this service, it has not been possible to determine based on fact, what information was given to the resident about the neighbour prior to sign-up. The resident has suggested that the landlord did not convey the seriousness of the neighbour’s ASB to her, nor did it advise that it had taken the neighbour to court. This prevented her from making an informed decision when accepting the tenancy. However, this service notes that there was no policy requirement for the landlord to alert the resident to issues with ASB. The landlord’s decision to disclose this, showed that it was acting reasonably. Although the resident may feel that the landlord deliberately hid information from her, there would have been a limit to what information it could have shared due to data protection.
Nevertheless, the resident has expressed a view that the landlord should not have let the property to her, given her declared vulnerabilities, and being aware of the neighbour’s alleged past behaviour towards neighbours. At the time the property was let, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to bring the neighbour’s behaviour under control. It had legal sanctions in place and had reminded the neighbour of the consequences of breaching the undertaking. It would have been unreasonable to have expected the landlord to have kept the property unlet in the event of future, as yet unreported incidents of ASB. Though the landlord was expected to act robustly and expeditiously in the event of future reports of ASB.
However, the landlord’s staff did have autonomy to decline a sign-up, if they were not satisfied that the let would be sustainable. If there was any doubt that the property was suitable in view of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been fairer for the landlord to have exercised its discretion and withdrawn the offer. But, as there is uncertainty about what information was given to the resident about the neighbour or how the resident responded, it has not been possible to determine based on fact, whether the landlord’s decision to proceed with the letting was reasonable.
There were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy sign-up, which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right. This service therefore finds service failure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s lettable standards indicate that “space permitting”, the resident would be provided with a “washing-machine point”. The resident expressed disappointment on the day of the viewing, that there was no space to install a washing machine and indicated that she would not accept the property unless this could be resolved. Although there was no policy requirement, the landlord acted reasonably by arranging to remove a cupboard door, to make space for the washing machine. This was completed prior to the resident moving in.
After making a commitment to provide space for the washing machine, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. However, there is no recorded evidence of any timely contact being made with the resident about this, which was unreasonable. This would have left the resident uncertain of how the matter was to be resolved. After noticing there were no notes on its computer system about the washing machine (3 months after the resident raised concerns), the landlord made prompt arrangements to accommodate the appliance. The landlord showed reasonableness by installing the appliance at its own cost, despite being under no obligation to do so. Nonetheless, the resident was caused considerable inconvenience for several months, having to rely on her neighbours to wash her clothes. It is likely that inadequate record keeping contributed to the landlord’s delay in resolving this matter for the resident, which was a failing.
On receiving reports about water pooling in the wet room on 22 May 2022, the landlord had an obligation to investigate and complete identified works in a reasonable timeframe. However, no evidence has been seen by this service to indicate that the matter was investigated until 62 working days after the resident first reported it. This was unreasonable given the resident’s elevated risk of slips and falls, declared to the landlord. Although the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates that it had sought a quotation to level and replace the wet room floor to solve this, there is no evidence of a quotation being sought until 37 working days after its stage 1 response. If an earlier works order had been raised, the landlord has not provided evidence of this. Overall, the length of time taken to complete works to fully resolve the pooling of water in the wet room was approximately double that of expected timescales under its repairs policy. This was inappropriate and caused the resident continued inconvenience and distress.
The landlord has provided no evidence of it responding to the resident’s concerns raised on 23 September 2022, about damp. Nor has this service seen evidence of a damp inspection being carried out within 7 days, in line with its damp process. If the landlord did not feel that a damp inspection was required, it should have at least acknowledged the residents concern and explained the action that it was taking. However, when the resident said the damp was impacting her health on 24 October 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged a damp inspection to rule out evolving issues with damp. While the landlord did eventually carry out a damp inspection, this was not instructed until a month later, after completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process. Although there was no damp detected in the property by the landlord on 25 November 2022, a timelier damp inspection might have offered the resident reassurance at an earlier stage. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp in the property fell short and unnecessarily prolonged the resident’s inconvenience, distress, and frustration.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. The impact on the resident was continued distress, inconvenience, uncertainty, and frustration.

Record keeping and complaint handling

While this service was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. Of particular note, there was a clear absence of records detailing its conversations and contact with the resident. There was also an absence of inspection reports. The landlord also failed to provide important information requested of it by this service to assist with this investigation. For instance, the landlord failed to provide a copy of its self-assessment against the 26 recommendations made in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate, and likely contributed to the landlord not consistently taking appropriate and timely action in this case.
The landlord recognised the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction made on 22 May 2022, as a complaint under its complaint policy. Under its policy, if the matter could not be “put right” within 24 hours, it should have logged the complaint at stage 1. While the landlord allocated the complaint at its “put it right” stage, there is no record of the landlord acknowledging or responding to the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction within 24 hours. This was inappropriate and inconsistent with its own policy. The resident was left uncertain if or how her complaint was being dealt with, which was unfair.
When the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction on the 14 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint but did not explain at what stage it would investigate, nor did it give a timescale for doing so. When the resident tried to escalate her complaint to stage 2 several days later, the landlord logged a new stage 1 complaint. When the resident pointed out that she had already complained at stage 1 on 22 May 2022, the landlord insisted that the complaint must be investigated at stage 1 before it could proceed to stage 2. This advice was in accordance with the Code, however, it is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy gave complaint handlers discretion to jump straight to stage 2 if a full investigation was required.
This service would not typically advocate a policy that jumped complaint stages without good reason. However, as this was permitted under its policy, it might have been more appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 2, as it was a continuation of the same matter. The landlord’s complaint handling created unnecessary confusion for the resident and led to increased time and trouble.
It is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy requires complaint handlers to be mindful of a complainant’s vulnerabilities. In its stage 1 response, the landlord indicated that it had reviewed the resident’s health and wellbeing circumstances and would assist the resident with a move if this was what she wanted. This showed the landlord was giving the resident’s vulnerabilities the consideration they deserved. However, since the resident had indicated on 29 September 2022, that the landlord’s complaint handling was impacting her health, the landlord might also have considered offering the resident help in accessing independent advocacy services. This would have been in line with its complaint policy and was a missed opportunity.
This service also notes that the landlord gave incorrect information to the resident in its final stage 2 response about progressing her complaint to this service. Changes to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme took effect from 1 October 2022, which included the removal of the ‘democratic filter’. From this date, residents were no longer required to contact a designated person or wait 8 weeks before referring their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if they remained dissatisfied at the end of a landlord’s complaint process. The landlord’s error had the potential to unnecessarily delay the resident seeking resolution, however in this case the resident was already aware of the changes.
A final observation is made in relation to complaint handling culture. A positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes and their relationship with residents. The Code states that landlords should have a collaborative and co-operative approach towards resolving complaints, working with colleagues across teams and departments. This service noted evidence of confusion, debate, and a reluctance to take the lead in resolving the resident’s complaints in May 2022 and September 2022. This was inappropriate and suggests that the landlord has more to do to promote a positive complaint handling culture within its organisation or there is a training need within its complaints team to ensure complaints are directed to the right members of staff first time.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the tenancy sign-up process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repair issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide the resident with asbestos guidance information prior to the tenancy sign-up, which it should have provided under its policy. The landlord’s sign-up process did not leave the resident with a thorough understanding of the landlord’s guidance in connection with asbestos. The landlord did not check the resident’s level of understanding of asbestos in the property, after she indicated that she had signed the asbestos declaration without properly seeing associated guidance. The resident continued to worry about asbestos in the property.
The landlord was slow to respond the resident’s concerns that the washing machine would still not fit in the space provided, despite its earlier efforts. The length of time taken to investigate and complete works to prevent water pooling in the wet room was double that which was expected under its repairs policy. There is no evidence of the landlord investigating the resident’s reports of damp in a reasonable timeframe.
There were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the residents first expression of complaint, although it was logged as such. The landlord raised a new stage 1 complaint, instead of investigating the complaint at stage 2. The landlord missed the opportunity to support the resident with advocacy services. The landlord gave incorrect details concerning escalation of the complaint to this service. There was evidence of confusion, debate, and a reluctance between departments to take the lead in resolving the resident’s complaint, which was suggestive of a training requirement or issue with the landlord’s complaint handling culture.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £950 to the resident, which has been determined in the line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £100 in compensation, in recognition of the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the tenancy sign-up process.
2. £550 in compensation, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repair issues.
3. £300 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, caused by failures in complaint handling and record keeping.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Provide this service with a copy of its self-assessment against the 26 recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report.
3. Ensure that its standard complaint letters and any other communications, state the correct escalation details for the Housing Ombudsman, if the landlord has not already addressed this.
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the learning in this case. This must include a review of its complaint handling in this case. In particular, the landlord should consider:
1. Enhancements to the landlord’s oversight processes for tracking complaints from allocation through to completion.
2. Enhancements to the landlord’s processes for allocating complaints, where complaints involve more than one team, in order that complaints are directed to the most appropriate staff member first time.
3. Whether there is a need to refresh the landlord’s staff training on complaints. Any training delivered should emphasise how staff individually contribute towards a positive complaint handling culture.
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord’s attention is drawn to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The landlord is encouraged to take learnings from this report in view of the failings identified with its record keeping.
The landlord should write to this service to confirm its intention in relation to this recommendation within 6 weeks of the date of this report.