Settle Group (202207221)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207221

Settle Group

8 September 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 repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property;
2. response to the resident’s concerns of alterations made to the outhouse by the previous tenant;
3. handling of drainage and groundworks;
4. communication with the resident regarding repairs;
5. handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Background

The resident moved into a 2-bedroom bungalow via mutual exchange on 13 June 2022. She held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2022 as she was dissatisfied that upon moving into the property, there were a number of outstanding repairs. She explained that a contractor had visited the property and she wanted the repairs to be completed as soon as possible.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 11 July 2022. It outlined:
1. The resident agreed to the mutual exchange on 13 June 2022.
2. The landlord arranged a property inspection and safety check which was signed by the resident agreeing to the property in its current condition including details of items the landlord would not be responsible for.
3. There was no void period for the landlord to inspect the property and therefore, the repairs raised would be addressed as responsive repairs.
4. Rubbish left by the previous tenant had been cleared and the landlord assigned a point of contact to oversee repairs at the property.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 11 July 2022 as her calls to the landlord had not been responded to, and repairs were still outstanding. She advised the condition of the property was impacting her mental health.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 September 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for occasions where the resident experienced delays and a lack of communication about the next steps. It offered £250 compensation.
2. The landlord met the resident at her property and agreed to further works including groundworks and internal repairs.
3. The kitchen was in good working order and the wall, base units and worksurfaces would be replaced when the kitchen was due for upgrading as part of a planned maintenance programme.
4. The previous resident added a conservatory which the landlord did not have supporting documents to suggest that permission was granted. It arranged for a structural engineer’s report to ensure the structure was sound.
5. It anticipated the remaining repairs being completed within 8 weeks.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered, the standard of work carried out, and the level of communication from the landlord. As a resolution, the resident is seeking a higher level of compensation.
The landlord provided a further offer of £150 compensation to the resident on 1 November 2022 for delays the resident had experienced receiving a stage 2 response. The resident has advised this Service that she no longer resides at the property and has since moved to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Following the landlord final response, it is noted that the resident has reported concerns to the landlord including damp and mould around windows of her property, issues with her heating system, and the conduct of landlord contractors. In addition, the resident requested for the landlord to move her to alternative accommodation. As these matters were raised to the landlord after the stage 2 final response, and there is no evidence that a complaint about these issues has exhausted the complaints procedure, this Service will not consider these matters as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property.

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy outlines that each property must have an inspection before the exchange can take place. Following this, a conditions letter detailing the outcome of the inspection and any non-standard items in the property should be sent to and subsequently signed by the incoming tenant. If essential works or repairs are required to the property before the move, the landlord should determine whether these are the landlord or outgoing resident’s responsibility.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property in April 2022 which was signed by the resident. No essential works were identified in the property for completion prior to the resident moving in. However, it was noted that the kitchen and bathroom were due for potential replacement in 2023-2024.
The resident raised initial repair concerns on 14 June 2022 after moving into the mutual exchange property. She reported minor repairs including a fallen gate, broken extractor fan, noise from the airing cupboard, light fittings not working, and a kitchen radiator leak.
The landlord’s records show a responsive manner to all the initial minor repairs which were completed within 17 days of the repairs being reported. This was in line with the landlord’s repair policy whereby the landlord aims to complete all appointed repairs within 18 days.
In addition, the resident reported a leak in her kitchen following the installation of a washing machine which caused damage to the flooring. Upon inspection of the kitchen leak, the attending contractor identified further repairs. The repairs included to trace and access any further water ingress behind the sink, and for the flooring, sink, drainer, and kickboard to be replaced. The landlord decided an asbestos survey of the kitchen lino floor was required before the repairs could be attended to. It promptly contacted the asbestos team on 27 June 2022, and having not received a response by 30 June 2022, it sent a follow up email. The asbestos survey was subsequently completed on 12 July 2022.
The kitchen repairs were completed by 28 July 2022 after the survey confirmed there was no asbestos present in the flooring. The landlord evidenced good internal communication when arranging these repairs, it monitored progress until completion, and efficiently dealt with the kitchen repairs over 2 visits to the property (one for the survey and the second to complete repairs).
The resident felt that the repairs raised with the landlord should have been attended to before she moved into the property. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that due to the nature of mutual exchanges, there was no void period where the landlord could undertake repairs before the resident moved in. In addition, the resident had agreed to accept the property in the condition as seen when signing the conditions letter. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with the mutual exchange policy, as the initial repairs reported to the landlord would not be classified as essential repairs. Further, the damage caused by a leak was a new issue since the resident had moved in. It was reasonable for the landlord to address the repairs after the resident had moved in as per its repairs policy.
The resident raised concerns that the landlord had not removed the rubbish left by the previous tenant. As per the mutual exchange contract, rubbish left by previous tenants was the resident’s responsibility to remove. However, landlord records show that the rubbish was cleared by the landlord on 27 June 2022. Further, it contacted waste services about reports of the resident’s brown bin being filled with mud and grass on the same day. The landlord took a proactive approach in response to the resident’s concerns of rubbish left in the property.
On 11 September 2022,the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the standard of completed repairs. In response to this, the landlord staff member overseeing the repairs contacted the resident on 15, 21 and 26 September 2022 to discuss her concerns. Following discussions, the landlord agreed to complete further internal repairs.
The additional repairs included the landlord agreeing to order a second kitchen sink of a stronger grade, as the resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the previous sink which the landlord installed. Further, the landlord advised it would install an infill panel at the end of the kitchen units. It explained that overall, the kitchen was in good working order and that the wall, base units, and worksurfaces would be replaced when the kitchen was due for upgrading as part of its planned maintenance programme scheduled for 2023/2024.
Further, the landlord agreed to replace a dripping tap in the bathroom and quote for upstands to be removed and skirting boards to be installed. The landlord explained that this fell outside of its repair obligations but would still be happy to replace them. The landlord evidenced good customer service by listening to the resident’s concerns and agreeing to further works, including some which were not its responsibility. The landlord advised this Service that the skirting boards were not installed at the resident’s request due to the disruption it would cause.
This Service has not been provided with any evidence that repairs completed by the landlord were not of a satisfactory standard.
Although it is acknowledged there was a high number of repairs to the property after the resident moved in, she had agreed to the condition of the property when accepting it. The repairs identified after the resident moved in were completed in a timely manner, and the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the repairs, agreeing to further works. In light of this, there was no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident moving into the mutual exchange property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of alterations made to the outhouse by the previous tenant

In April 2022 prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord was made aware by the existing tenant they had added a conservatory at the rear of the property to an existing outhouse. The landlord noted that it had not granted permission or been made aware of this alteration. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that, “if the outgoing tenant has made major alterations without consent, the neighbourhood officer must be made aware. A possession notice may be served against the tenant and the exchange could be refused.”
The landlord failed to survey the conservatory before approving the mutual exchange. Within the landlord’s mutual exchange inspection, the landlord noted a “small utility area/outhouse at rear”, with no further comments made. The landlord should have completed a detailed inspection and survey of the outhouse/conservatory given it did not know whether the alterations made by the outgoing tenant were structurally sound. The landlord approved the mutual exchange and failed to complete checks or confirm that the structure of the outhouse was safe. This was a failure on the landlord’s part.
The resident was made aware that the landlord had not granted permission for the conservatory to be added to the outhouse, and raised concerns after moving in that it had not been built correctly. The resident was in the property for two months before a survey was completed on the outhouse. During this time, both the landlord and resident did not know whether the outhouse was structurally sound. This uncertainty would have caused distress to the resident which was not acknowledged in the landlord’s complaint responses.
The landlord instructed a survey of the outhouse which was completed on 15 August 2022. The survey found it to be structurally sound but recommended that the outhouse roof should be replaced.
The landlord advised this Service that as it had not correctly picked up the alterations made by the previous resident during the mutual exchange process, it sought to put things right by offering to remove the outhouse or replace its roof. The resident advised the landlord that she did not want the outhouse removed. Further, the resident was actively seeking to move to alternative accommodation at the time and the landlord therefore did not replace the roof. The landlord advised it has since taken steps to strengthen its mutual exchange procedure in particular the inspection to prevent the matter recurring.
Overall, although the landlord has taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue, it did not go far enough to put things right for its failings. Within its complaint responses, the landlord failed to apologise for not carrying out sufficient checks on the outhouse prior to the resident moving in. In addition, it did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the period of time where there was uncertainty regarding the structure of the outhouse before the survey was completed.
In light of the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and it is ordered to compensate the resident £200 for its failure to survey the outhouse prior to the resident moving in, and not adhering to its mutual exchange policy.

The landlord’s handling of drainage and groundworks

Contractors visited the resident’s property to assess the drainage on 15 August 2022. The landlord identified that groundworks were required including for the ground level to be reduced, a surface water gully to be introduced, and existing downpipe to be connected to the below ground drainage gulley.
Internal emails show that the findings and recommendations from the survey were shared with the relevant team and the resident within her stage 2 complaint response. The landlord agreed with the resident for the groundworks to commence on 22 August 2022. Landlord records show that the drainage works began as scheduled and were completed on 30 August 2022. In addition, the landlord decided to reduce the size of the steps from the outhouse to the garden and remove all existing trip hazards whilst completing the drainage works. The landlord identified and completed the drainage works and groundworks in a timely manner.
Within its final response letter, the landlord noted that the agreed groundworks had been completed. However, the resident was dissatisfied following completion of the works. In light of this, the landlord agreed to complete snagging repairs which included: redefining the first step onto the patio, replace 4 patio slabs, and replacing the entrance timber with concrete. It was reasonable for the landlord to listen to the resident’s further concerns and take steps to address the remaining issues.
Overall, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about the drainage and groundworks within a timely manner. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these matters.

The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding repairs

Having reviewed the landlord’s records, it is clear that at the start of the complaints process there was a lack of communication with the resident. From when the resident began reporting repairs on 15 June 2022, the landlord’s records evidence that the resident attempted phoning on occasions and did not receive responses to her concerns. On 30 June 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and advised that it would provide her with a schedule of repairs outlining what works it intended to complete and when. Although the landlord’s records show that it was arranging repairs and communicating internally with relevant departments, the landlord should have provided further updates to the resident.
The resident was not provided with a schedule of repairs until the stage 2 response was issued on 6 September 2022. The delays in this being issued would have caused a lack of clarity for the resident not knowing what works the landlord was intending to complete, and when. Although the landlord phoned the resident to book individual appointments, it would have been helpful for the resident to have been provided with an overall plan for the repairs at an earlier stage given the number of repairs.
Within its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its communication at times had been poor and the resident was not updated as she should have been. In light of this, it offered £250 compensation. This was a reasonable offer to put things right for the landlord’s lack of updates to the resident between 15 June 2022 until 30 June 2022 and for not providing a schedule of works to the resident until 6 September 2022.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2022, communication with the resident was frequent. The landlord contacted her to arrange suitable times for all repair appointments, a point of contact was assigned to oversee the repairs and provide updates, and the resident did not have to chase the landlord. Despite its poor communication at the start of the complaints process, the landlord took steps to improve this moving forwards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

As per the landlord’s complaints policy, a stage 2 response should be issued 20 working days after the landlord acknowledges the escalation request. In this case, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2022, 39 working days after the complaint had been acknowledged.
On 1 November 2022, 2 months after the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord emailed the resident to offer £150 compensation for failing to update the resident that her stage 2 response would be delayed. In limited circumstances, the landlord may need to reopen a complaint after a final response has been issued. However, there needs to be transparency as to why the landlord decided to reopen the case. By not addressing its complaint handling within the complaint’s procedure, the subsequent response can be seen to undermine the quality and consistency of the landlord’s decision making.
This Service considers the landlord’s offer of £150 reasonable to put things right following the failures experienced at stage 2. However, it does not go far enough to account for the delays for the landlord to address the poor complaint handling during the complaints process. In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident moving into a mutual exchange property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding alterations made to the outhouse by the previous tenant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of drainage and groundworks.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with respect to the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £650 comprising of:
1. £200 for the landlord’s failure to complete a survey of the outhouse prior to the resident moving in, and not considering the alterations made by the previous resident prior to approving the mutual exchange.
2. £250 as previously offered by the landlord to account for its poor communication with the resident.
3. £200 for the landlord’s complaint handling. This amount is inclusive of the £150 already offered by the landlord.
The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failure to complete a detailed inspection or survey of the outhouse prior to approving the mutual exchange.
The landlord should confirm compliance of these orders to this Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to consider its approach to reopening complaints after a final response has been issued.