Salix Homes Limited (202213341)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213341

Salix Homes Limited

12 May 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

1. The resident complained about:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property after the mutual exchange, including the resident’s reports of damp and mould..

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a four bedroom semi-detached house, owned by the landlord.  On 8 June 2022 the resident applied for a mutual exchange and the property was inspected by the landlord on 17 June 2022.  The mutual exchange was completed on 22 July 2022.
3. When she took possession, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the condition of the property and explained she was unable to move in.  She emailed her landlord and requested an inspection citing concerns about damp and the state of the kitchen, and advised of her concerns about the impact on her child with special needs. An inspection took place 28 July 2022, in which it corroborated the resident’s reports about the condition of the property and as such, the landlord agreed to undertake a programme of remedial work to resolve various issues including mould, plaster repairs, shower bar and spray, WC seat, floorboard in bedroom, guttering to front and to review the condition of the kitchen.
4. On 5 August 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to her landlord via email.  She complained that the mould treatment was not completed on the first visit and required follow-on visits and the subsequent delays, the neglected condition of the property including cleanliness and safety concerns for her children, repeating that she remained unable to move into the property.
5. On 19 August 2022, her landlord issued its stage one response reporting the resident agreed not to proceed with her complaint subject to completion of a deep clean and kitchen repairs and mould eradication.  Following which it would re-inspect the kitchen to assess requirement for its kitchen ad-hoc replacement programme. Her landlord clarified the mutual exchange process stating that the exchange took place after the resident accepted the property condition and signed to confirm she had visited it. It reported that the property passed its inspection with minor repairs (which were the previous tenant’s responsibility) and no mould or damp was mentioned in the inspection feedback. Therefore, the landlord concluded it was appropriate to allow the mutual exchange to proceed.
6. On 25 August 2022, the resident requested escalation of her complaint and said her landlord was not supportive and she is no closer to moving in. She expressed dissatisfaction that the property passed the mutual exchange inspection in its current condition and with damp issues.  She reported the kitchen remained unsafe for food preparation following the deep clean and was unhappy with the length of time the repairs were taking.
7. On 13 September 2022, the landlord issued its final response in which;
   1. It repeated its mutual exchange procedures and pointed out cleanliness is tenant responsibility and not included in its inspection. The landlord reflected that the resident’s case highlighted the need to consider cleanliness, and as such, it changed its process for mutual exchange. The landlord accepted its inspection should have identified more of the repairs which have since come to light and therefore stated it upheld this element of her complaint.
   2. In relation to time to complete the repairs it explained except for the damp and mould work the repairs were treated as non-urgent and subject to its usual response times. The landlord acknowledged the damp and mould was unable to be treated on the first occasion. A subsequent visit did not proceed due to the resident’s dissatisfaction with remedial repairs and condition of the wall. A surveyor arranged to visit and organise completion. The landlord partially upheld this element of the resident’s complaint because the mould works were not completed on the first visit.
8. On 22 September 2022, the resident raised her complaint with this Service. She remained dissatisfied with the damp and mould issues and delays to repairs and stated her landlord is not resolving the issues. She would like the standard repairs to be done timeously and an award of compensation of £5,000.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.

9. In her mutual exchange application of 8 June 2022, the resident signed to say, “I have visited and inspected the property … to which I propose to move and I am fully aware of its condition and I am prepared to accept it in this condition.”
10. It is unclear when the resident visited the property prior to the mutual exchange. Due to the extensive reports about the condition of the property it would have been reasonable if the resident highlighted her concerns about the property at that time which would have given the landlord the opportunity to investigate further. The resident accepted the property and there is no evidence of her voicing her concerns about the condition until she completed the mutual exchange.
11. The landlord’s mutual exchange survey of 17 June 2022 reports “Overall condition/Well lived in property but everything works.”
12. The evidence submitted by the landlord as part of this investigation includes its internal emails in relation to this case. This included emails which reported the results of the inspection requested by the resident when she moved into the property of which took place on 28 July 2022. The landlord’s inspection report states, “This tenant has moved in last week on a mutual exchange and the kitchen is disgusting and may need replacing due the grime. The whole property is in a poor dirty state which she is willing to do herself, but the kitchen is the worse. One of the doors are damaged along with 2 of the draws. These units are also obsolete now. The unit to the side of washer will need removing to replaster and treat the mould. I could try and deep clean it but would it be worth it.” This confirmed the resident’s reports about the condition of the property and is at odds with the mutual exchange survey from 17 June 2022. 
13. The scope of works the landlord agreed with the resident was extensive and points to neglect of the property. The Ombudsman suggests that this indicates the property may have been unsuitable to be selected as a mutual exchange.
14. It is noted that whilst a deep clean of the kitchen was identified in the report of 28 July 2022, it is unclear when this took place.  This investigation suggests it was undertaken between 19 August 2022 and 25 August 2022. It is unreasonable that the deep clean was not arranged timeously when identified and this resulted in further delays in getting the property to a habitable state.
15. In its stage one response of 19 August 2022, her landlord reported “No mould or damp was mentioned in the inspection feedback”. This indicates a failing on the behalf of the landlord to effectively survey the property and assess its condition and suitability for a mutual exchange. Additionally, it is contrary to its own policy on damp and mould which states “We have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and are committed to resolving any issues of this nature as quickly as possible.” With this in mind, it would be reasonable to expect a property survey to include checks for mould and damp.
16. In its final response, the landlord reported that cleanliness was not part of the mutual exchange survey and was considered tenant responsibility. This Scheme requires landlords to demonstrate learning from complaints to reduce the risk of similar issues re-occuring in the future. Following a review of this case, the landlord has implemented a more robust mutual exchange survey to include cleanliness and maintenance of the property. This will enable the landlord to delay future exchanges until it is satisfied the property is maintained to an expected standard.
17. The landlord agreed that the mutual exchange survey it conducted was basic but acknowledged it should have identified more of the repairs which have since come to light. Its final response is not clear whether the above changes extends to disrepair and condition of the property in addition to cleanliness and maintenance. It is reasonable that this is included in the more robust survey implemented by the landlord and the Ombudsman expects to see this demonstrated. 
18. Whilst this improvement it welcome, these changes would not be of benefit to the resident and her household. As such, it was appropriate that an apology and a further remedy was offered by the landlord. The resident stated her desired outcome is an award of compensation around £5,000. This investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange. The landlord has acknowledged its failings but has failed to address the detriment to the resident and as such an order has been made, including compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s guide to remedies.

The landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property after the mutual exchange, including the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Damp and mould

19. The landlord published its policy on tackling mould on its website in which it states, “We have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and are committed to resolving any issues of this nature as quickly as possible. Please report to us any signs of damp and mould as soon as you spot them.  Once we receive the report our dedicated team will be in touch as quickly as possible on the next working day and no later than two working days to arrange mould treatment or an in person inspection. We will also check with you if you have any signs of damp and mould when visiting you at your home or when speaking to our customer service centre.”
20. It is noted that at the initial inspection following the mutual exchange, the landlord identified that the kitchen unit required removal to enable mould treatment to the kitchen wall. The job was not allocated as such and when the contractor attended, they were unable to access the wall behind the cabinets. This resulted in repeated visits and further delays resolving the problem. As a result, this impacted the resident and her family by delaying her move into the property which she deemed unsafe for her children. Correspondence between the resident and her MP which were copied to her landlord demonstrated she advised that one of her children has respiratory issues.
21. There were further delays after subsequent visits however this Service is unable to determine the cause for the further delays. Evidence suggests the resident was dissatisfied with the proposed remedial repairs and the condition of the wall and requested a further inspection.
22. In its final response dated 13 September 2022, the landlord suggested the mould treatment in the kitchen was completed the week prior following a subcontractor visit and the living room mould treatment would go ahead following a survey because the resident was unhappy with the condition of the wall.  However, this investigation finds evidence of ongoing mould treatment into October 2022, the landlord wrote in its internal emails detailing work due on 12 October 2022, “Dining room: Remove radiator and carry out 3 stage mould treatment approx. 4m2. Mould treatment in the kitchen round window and in corner of kitchen after tenant removed unit.”  Additionally, it does not present as reasonable that the resident had to remove kitchen units herself to enable mould treatment.
23. Whilst the landlord suggests it responded to the mould issue urgently, this Service finds that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property did not act in accordance with its own policy to resolve such issues as quickly as possible.
24. The resident felt unable to move into the property until the mould issues were resolved. She explained she was compelled to remain living at her mother’s one bedroom flat where her children slept on blow-up mattresses and the resident on the sofa. The resident described the impact this had on them and that she was unable to settle her children into their new home or spend quality time with them. She complained that she was paying rent for a property she could not move into. Whilst the landlord partially upheld this element of her complaint in its final response, it did not apologise for the distress and frustration caused by the delays and there is no evidence that the landlord offered any gesture of goodwill to put things right and recognise the detriment to the resident.

Handling of repairs

25. In its final response the landlord narrated its timescales for repairs. It stated that work outside of the damp and mould was deemed non-urgent and allocated as such. Its repairs policies for “appointed repairs” state, “Appointed repairs are carried out on a date and time chosen by or agreed with the customer in advance. This enables customers to book an appointment time to suit their needs and preferences. To ensure all appointed repairs are completed in a timely manner a system generated target date 8 weeks from the date the repair is reported is allocated to all repairs.”
26. Whilst it is noted that repairs came to light on an ongoing basis as further work was undertaken, it does not appear that the initial scope of work was completed within her landlord’s target for appointed repairs.  Furthermore, there is evidence of a no access appointment due to the resident being unavailable at school drop off but it is acknowledged that her landlord put that right for future appointments.
27. This investigation finds there to have been occasions where the resident was uncertain about appointments or timescales and has spent time and trouble chasing up with her landlord.
28. This Service is unable to comment on whether the scope of works aside from the mould treatment prevented the resident from moving into the property. However, this Service has considered the lengthy delays and the impact this has had on the resident including loss of enjoyment of the property. This investigation found despite partially upholding the complaint, the landlord did not apologise or offer a reasonable remedy to the resident to reflect the adverse effect she experienced and as such, an order for compensation is outlined below.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs required to the property after the mutual exchange, including the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within four weeks of the receipt of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of compliance of the orders as follows:
    1. The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
    2. To review any outstanding work at the property and to meet with the resident to discuss a plan for completion including timescales.
    3. Pay the resident compensation the total sum of £300 comprising:
       1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of the mutual exchange.
       2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of repairs to the property including the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

32. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord undertakes a self-assessment of the improvements it has made to its mutual exchange survey to review the effectiveness of the changes and assess whether they are robust enough.