Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sheffield City Council (202100059)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100059

Sheffield City Council

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
    1. the condition of the property when let.
    2. gas safety.
    3. complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, and occupies a 2-bedroom house with her young child. The resident is disabled and has mental health issues, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident’s tenancy of her current property, which she received via an emergency priority move, began on 3 December 2018. The resident said she had been advised that, if she did not accept the property, she would be taken off the emergency housing list. On moving in, the resident explained that the property was not fit for let, or for her and her child to live in, as there were “do not use” signs on various gas appliances, and no heating or hot water.
  3. The resident believed that the landlord could not have carried out the proper checks before giving her the keys to the property. She reported a gas leak to the landlord on the day her tenancy began, and the landlord attended to deal with it within 24 hours by attending on that day and the next 2 days. It condemned the living room gas fire that had previously been capped, capped the gas supply under the floor and the gas cooker point, before restoring the heating and hot water on 5 December 2018 and again on 10 December 2018 after the resident reported on 7 December 2018 that this was not working. She said there were numerous repairs needed to bring the property up to minimum letting standard, and that she had reported these issues to the landlord.
  4. The tenant had contacted various representatives including an advice agency, her support worker, and her MP, all of whom wrote to the landlord about the issues with the property at the time it was let to the resident, namely issues with gas, dust, plastering, a door and windows, floorboards, water damage, roof ventilation, and the absence of carpets. The landlord informally responded to a January 2019 complaint from the resident on 16 January 2019 about the repair issues at the property which prevented her from moving in until 1 January 2019, and therefore not returning her former property’s keys until 3 January 2019, so that it had continued to charge her rent for both properties. It apologised to her about this and agreed to investigate the repairs, and it also did so on 8 April 2019 in response to a 27 March 2019 enquiry from her MP.
  5. Between January and June 2019 a number of inspections, visits and works at the resident’s property were therefore carried out by the landlord. On 9 January 2019, the landlord provided an electric fire suite, and on 15 April 2019 it fitted a new boiler, when the property also passed its gas safety record. Its subsequent survey on 3 May 2019 found no condensation or damp due to the roof ventilation, which it found to be adequate and insulated, and that the front bedroom and living room plastering had been completed by it, with no defects found in the living room window. The landlord’s survey identified that a lining section was required for the back bedroom window, and there was an outstanding front bedroom door repair, which it completed on 29 May 2019.
  6. On 3 June 2019, the landlord responded to a disrepair claim made on the resident’s behalf by her advice agency on 12 April 2019 relating to the above issues with the property’s roof, front and back bedrooms, and living room. The landlord said that repairs had been carried out, or were scheduled to be carried out within a reasonable timeframe, and no offer of settlement was made. The resident contacted the landlord a number of times again between 2019 and 2021, expressing her dissatisfaction with its handling of the above issues, and her concerns about being passed around various departments when she was trying to get the issues resolved. The resident said that she had been unable to properly move into the property until January 2019 and had frequently stayed with a relative.
  7. The resident also stated she was charged for gas that she had not used, which she attributed to a gas leak, and in addition raised concerns in June 2019 about the poor condition of the overgrown and rubbish and debris-filled garden that caused a rash on her child. She was also unhappy that she had to pay for new fencing to establish a boundary to the property and said when she visited the property on 24 November 2018 the fence was present but by 3 December 2018, when she moved in, the fence had been torn down. The resident said that the repairs had taken 6 months to be carried out, and only following intervention by her advice agency.
  8. On 7 November 2019, the landlord provided responses to another enquiry made on 30 September 2019 by the resident’s MP. It stated that its voids inspectors did visual checks on properties to bring these up to lettable standard, which could not foresee plastering issues under wallpaper until this was removed, that it repaired in January 2019 after this was reported, together with her floorboards that its joiner had not previously reported as rotten. The landlord also described the resident’s gas supply as not being able to be reinstated until further pipework repairs had been done, after which defects came to light when the gas supply was turned back on, which would not have been evident while the property was vacant and the gas supply capped, which it said was not unsafe.
  9. The landlord additionally cleared the resident’s rent arrears for her current and former properties up to 11 October 2019, due to her urgent need to move and the impact on her health and wellbeing, as a goodwill gesture on the grounds of hardship and to help her sustain her tenancy. It also offered her £350 compensation towards her increased gas bill and debt collection fees at her current property, and another £350 compensation towards the cost of her fencing.
  10. However, the resident said on 26 November 2019 that some of the landlord’s responses were incorrect, and that there were factual inaccuracies in its job completion dates, seeking for it to resolve the condition of her garden and reimburse her rent from 27 November 2018 to 15 April 2019. The resident complained about this again to the landlord on 14 May and 25 November 2020 and 31 January 2021, as well as via her support worker on 20 November 2020 and her representative on 2 March 2021, but she did not receive a formal complaint response from it at that time. The resident then contacted the Ombudsman on 1 April 2021, as she had attempted to raise a number of formal complaints with the landlord but, despite chasing, the landlord had not provided a formal response. The resident felt the landlord had not followed its procedures properly and had not taken her complaints seriously.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 April 2021. It noted that, on moving into the property, issues with the plastering and floorboards were identified, and the required works were completed in January 2019. It said that the plastering issue had not been visible when the property was void. The landlord stated that void properties are checked by an inspector before being re-let in order to ensure that the work required to bring a property up to lettable standard has been completed. It said that this process was carried out in the normal way, and minor jobs that came to light on tenancy were completed as quickly as possible. The landlord also said that the issue with the gas supply was not apparent while the property was vacant, as it had been capped off following the end of the previous tenancy, and was not unsafe. The landlord made another offer of the compensation it had previously offered the resident, confirming that it had agreed that the resident’s rent arrears be cleared.
  12. The resident then informed the Ombudsman that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and handling of the above issues, and that it had not gone through its complaints procedure, which she sought up to £6,000 compensation for, and we asked it on 15 July 2021 to respond to her under the complaints procedure. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 2 response on 4 August 2021. It reiterated the position taken in its stage 1 response, noting that its response at stage 1 had been factually accurate and that the correct process had been followed. It apologised for the delays in its response and restated its offer of £700 compensation.
  13. Following further discussion with the resident’s representative, who sought a total of £13,146.53 compensation, the landlord issued a revised final offer of compensation on 2 February 2022. In this response, it apologised for the failure in its service, acknowledging that it had failed to have the property at even the minimum standard for letting, and that it had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in an effective way, both informally and formally, when she moved in. The landlord said its offer of £3,189.39 was comprised of:
    1. £500, as requested, for gas and debt collectors’ bills, upon her providing it with evidence of her utility bills and collection agency costs;
    2. £656.60 for new carpets after the existing ones were damaged during plasterwork, which she had requested £1,600 for;
    3. £130, as requested, for damage to curtains caused by plaster delamination;
    4. £150, as requested, for cleaning costs as a result of plaster delamination;
    5. £300, as requested, for damage to decorations;
    6. £350, as requested, for fencing;
    7. £20, as requested, for travel costs;
    8. £560.27 rent reimbursement from 31 December 2018 to 22 April 2019 in recognition that the property was not fit to let, which she had requested £1,608.41 for from 3 December 2018 to 22 April 2019;
    9. £22.52 rent refund for the 2-week period in September 2021 when plastering works were taking place, which she had requested £125 for;
    10. £500 for the disruption and inconvenience caused.
  14. The landlord did not agree to the resident’s requested sum of £3,000 for the effect the issues had on her health and well-being. It stated that this type of claim, where no material loss can be shown, was difficult to assess and it instead offered the above £500 in respect of disruption and inconvenience. With regard to the garden, the resident had asked for £4,770.90 for garden improvement work. The landlord said this did not fall within its remit, and said there was no evidence that damage was caused to the resident’s garden when work was carried out. It also did not address the £400 rent reimbursement and £317.42 housing benefit credit that she requested for her former property.
  15. The resident’s subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman confirmed that all repairs had been carried out at the property by June 2019 and that, by April 2019, the property was habitable. She advised that she has not accepted the landlord’s final compensation offer of £3,189.39. As a resolution to her complaint, she is seeking further compensation of £13,146.53, and to know why her property was passed as fit to live in.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement and policies

  1. The conditions in the resident’s tenancy agreement set out that the landlord will keep the property in a good state of repair. Additionally, the landlord has obligations to repair the structure and exterior of the building, inside walls, ceilings, doors, door frames, floors, gas pipes, and heating equipment such as fires and boilers, and keep them in proper working order. The tenancy conditions also say the resident must pay rent for the property when due.
  2. The landlord has a vacant property requirements minimum lettable standard for a property to be let. Gas fires and boilers will be in good working order, and all heating appliances will be in good working order and comply with all health and safety standards and regulations. Internal walls and ceilings will be visually free of defects and safe and sound, floors will be structurally sound, properties will be clean, and windows and internal doors will be functioning correctly. The garden will be cleared of all rubbish, rubble, debris, and hazardous waste up to the visible garden boundary, and fencing will be in a good and safe condition.
  3. The landlord’s gas safety policy obliges it to conduct annual gas safety checks on all of its domestic properties with a gas supply and the appliances, hold a valid gas safety certificate for all properties, repair and maintain gas pipework and appliances in a safe condition, and keep accurate records of each safety check.

Scope of investigation

  1. While most of the items in the resident’s subsequent detailed request for compensation to the landlord after she exhausted its complaints procedure with its stage 2 response on 4 August 2021 were later addressed by the landlord’s final offer of compensation on 2 February 2022, this report is unable to investigate its response to every item mentioned. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there are specified complaints that the Ombudsman may not consider. As the resident has requested a housing benefit credit for her former property, this is not considered in this report because we may not consider complaints that fall properly within another Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and complaints concerning housing benefit fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. The resident has also requested compensation for the implications for her and her child’s mental health in relation to the condition of the property when it was let. This is very concerning, and the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her and her child’s health. However, we may not consider complaints where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide, and so this report does not consider her request for compensation for this. This is because it is not within our authority to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of the property and the impact on her and her child’s mental health, or to establish liability or award damages for this.
  3. The resident has additionally asked for compensation for some items for issues that were not part of her previous complaints to the landlord, or addressed in its stage 1 or stage 2 responses to her, but were added later, and so there is no evidence that these have exhausted its complaints procedure yet. These include travel costs, the 2-week period in September 2021 when plastering works were taking place, garden improvement work, and a rent reimbursement for her former property. As the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, these items are also not considered in this report.

The condition of the property when let

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. It acknowledged that it failed to have the property at its minimum standard for letting despite having a signed voids practical completion certificate dated 7 November 2018. It also acknowledged that this was a long-standing case. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether, in the circumstances, the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. It is noted that there has been a significant amount of correspondence between the resident, her representatives and the landlord. While the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses is duly noted, the report will not be addressing each and every specific issue. Rather, the available evidence has been carefully considered and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of this matter and to consider whether it acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies.
  3. The property was vacant before the resident moved in and it was therefore necessary for the landlord to carry out void inspections, which it did on 22 March 2018. It found there was a number of works to undertake and the value of work required totalled £4,375.95. On 12 April 2018, the landlord carried out a standard combined internal clearance to the vacant property as per its standard specification. Additionally, capital works were carried out on 12 June 2018 to the kitchen, kitchen fan, bathroom, bathroom fan and a full rewire and new consumer unit. Further works took place between 15 and 18 October 2018, including a survey for new polystyrene ceiling tiles, a lock to be put on the property and door, windows, and flooring works. Subsequently, the landlord undertook an external clearance of the property on 23 October 2018.
  4. A voids practical completion certificate was initialised by the landlord’s member of staff on 7 November 2018, noting the gas fire was to be fitted on the tenancy, but otherwise indicating the property was fit to let. It is not disputed the landlord made an attempt to bring the property up to its minimum lettings standard by arranging works before the resident’s tenancy started on 3 December 2018. However, it is likely that, despite the works appearing completed on its system, the works carried out during the void period were not done to standard, and it is unclear why a voids practical completion certificate was provided, given the landlord acknowledged the poor condition of the property when the resident moved in.
  5. Given the severity of the condition, the evidence suggests the landlord signed this property off without due consideration for the tenant who would be occupying the home or obtaining a second opinion. This was a significant failing in the landlord’s actions during the void period, as it did not ensure the property was fit to let before the tenancy commenced, which it later admitted. Although the tenancy agreement started on 3 December 2018, the landlord amended her rent for this to begin from 31 December 2018, which was when the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team considered the property was fit to let. The landlord acted appropriately by offering to refund rent. The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes the property was fit to let at this point, as she considers the house was not habitable before April 2019, due to the further repairs that it had to carry out there until that date, including fitting a new boiler.
  6. Regarding the severity of the service failure, the landlord acknowledged that the property did not meet its lettable standard and therefore rent should not be payable. It arranged for repairs to be carried out and completed the repairs within a reasonable period of time from when they were reported. These included providing an electric fire suite on 9 January 2019, the new boiler on 15 April 2019, a survey on 3 May 2019, and bedroom window and door repairs on 29 May 2019, following her reports about these issues in January and April 2019. The resident confirmed all repairs were carried out by June 2019. It was undeniably frustrating for the resident and her family to have works undertaken shortly after moving into the property, and these should have been carried out before the resident moved in.
  7. To put things right, albeit 3 years later, the landlord offered a rent refund for £560.27 for the period from 31 December 2018 until 22 April 2019, and additionally offered £500 compensation for the disruption and inconvenience. In recognition of the damage caused by the plastering, it offered £656.60 for carpets, a decoration allowance of £300, £130 for curtains, and £150 for cleaning costs. These amounts were mostly appropriate, as they matched the amounts requested by the resident, apart from her claims for a larger rent refund from 3 December 2018, when it had removed her rent liability and cleared her rent arrears for, and for more for her new carpets to replace those damaged by the plastering, which is a damages claim outside of the Ombudsman’s authority to determine liability for.
  8. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer to clear the resident’s rent arrears for her current and former properties up to 11 October 2019, as she received an emergency priority move to a property that was not fit to let, as these were actual costs, rather than to pay her rent for a period she was no longer liable for. However, its £500 compensation for disruption and inconvenience was unsatisfactory. It was necessary for the landlord to undertake repairs to bring the property up to lettable standard, which it did, but the resident should have never been placed in that position and it is clear that inadequate checks by the landlord and its contractors had been carried out prior to her moving in. The landlord’s records demonstrate it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that her child was very young at the time, but it let the property with numerous repairs needed and this was a failure which had a significant impact. The redress needed to put things right is substantial. As such, this figure for disruption and inconvenience should be increased. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to do so by paying the resident a further £600 for this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of this for such failures and impacts.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comment that the fence at the front of the property that was present when she viewed the property on 24 November 2018 had been removed when she moved in. The landlord’s records indicate a job was raised to tear down a fence and remove this from site, and this was completed on or before 28 November 2018. The landlord should have informed the resident after her viewing of its intention to remove the fence. It has stated that provision of a fence at the front of the property was not its responsibility, but it has also said that, if a fence in a reasonable state of repair was in situ, it would have left it there.
  10. The resident paid to replace the fence, and her reason for doing so was to prevent her young child running into the road. The landlord therefore offered to contribute £350 towards the cost of the fence, as requested by the resident. This was a reasonable approach to take given that the landlord had no obligation to provide fencing at the front, but the fence was present when she initially viewed the property, the landlord described it as being in a good state of repair, and the landlord failed to communicate about its decision to remove the fence.
  11. The landlord’s records show a job was raised on 22 October 2018 to carry out “standard combined external clearance to vacant property as per standard specification” and was apparently undertaken the following day. The Ombudsman has not had sight of any pictures dated 23 October 2018 with the garden clear, but only of rubbish, debris and overgrown plants in the garden on that date prior to any clearance, and so it would have been good practice for its contractors to also have done so afterwards to demonstrate it had effectively carried out the clearance.
  12. The resident has said that, on moving in, building debris and rubbish was still present in the garden, and she has provided photos which appear to support this. However, she did not raise this issue with the landlord until June 2019, which was a number of months after moving in, and after a number of repairs had been carried out, which may have resulted in building debris being deposited in the garden.
  13. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the debris and rubbish was that she could arrange for a third party to remove it and charge the cost to the landlord, which was not unreasonable. However, it should have been the case that, in accordance with the minimum letting standard, the garden was clear of rubbish and debris prior to the resident moving in, and contractors carrying out repairs should remove from the site debris that results from their work. This did not appear to happen and would have caused further inconvenience to the resident. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and a recommendation in relation to this matter for it to remind its contractors of their responsibilities has been made below.
  14. The Ombudsman notes that, based on its complaint responses, the landlord did not appear to have learnt from the outcome of the complaint. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out staff training, and also to talk with its contractors, to ensure their understanding of the requirements of the minimum letting standard. It should make clear at viewings what repairs it would undertake and the timescale in which they would be completed. Further, it would be appropriate to update its lettings procedure to enable residents who may have a mental health condition to discuss any concerns they have prior to the tenancy sign up. Recommendations have therefore been made below for the landlord to do so.
  15. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns she had about the condition of the property when let as not being a safe, secure home, and there is insufficient evidence that the landlord took the necessary steps to ensure the property was up to minimum lettable standard prior to letting. While it tried to put things right, its apology and amount of compensation were not in line with the adverse effect on the resident. As such, additional compensation is due, together with action to prevent the failings in this case from occurring again.

Concerns regarding gas safety

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the resident’s tenancy agreement to ensure that the property is let when it is safe, and that the relevant gas safety inspections have been carried out prior to the resident moving in. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the installations for the supply of gas, and space and water heating within the resident’s property. Where the landlord becomes aware of the need for repair, it should take appropriate steps to make the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The resident states that she has raised concerns regarding gas safety which she does not feel have been adequately addressed. This section will examine the timeline of events, and whether the landlord carried out gas works in accordance with its policies, and did not compromise the resident’s safety in this respect.
  3. From its records during the property’s void period, on 22 March 2018, a gas fitter attended the property and carried out a visual safety check of gas appliances, capped pipework and disconnected existing cooker. It described the “combined” was clear. Given the property was void and not due to be occupied any time soon, these actions were suitable.
  4. There is a large gap from March until November 2018 where the property was vacant. Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord should have undertaken appropriate works during the void period to ensure there was adequate hot water and space heating. In line with its gas safety policy, it is obliged to repair and maintain gas pipework and appliances in safe condition, as well as conduct annual gas safety checks on its domestic properties with a gas supply and their appliances.
  5. After the resident signed for the property around 27 November 2018, she visited the property that day with her patch officer. She has reported that she noticed “do not use” signs on appliances, and that the gas, the water, and electricity were all switched off, but she acknowledged that this was standard protocol for vacant properties. However, a property should, once the landlord’s operative has visited to check that the gas, water and electricity services are in working order and has established to their satisfaction that they are, be made ready for  the resident’s agreed move-in date, by way of the switching on of the services and the removal of “do not use” signs. This was not done in the resident’s case.
  6. On 30 November 2018, the landlord arranged a gas fitter to attend the property to reinstate the gas, however they were unable to do so as a leak was identified somewhere on the gas pipework and the pipework meter was capped. The landlord said this was reported back and a job was raised for the gas after trades to attend to trace and repair the leak. Despite this note, a gas safety record with a declaration of gas safety was produced the same day. It is evident the landlord was aware of this issue of 30 November 2018 and the scheduled move-in date. Nevertheless, it allowed the resident to move into the property and this is of significant concern.
  7. On 3 December 2018, the day she moved in, the resident noticed a gas leak and reported it immediately. The landlord attended the property within 24 hours on the same day and found a gas leak on pipework behind kitchen units. While the landlord attended the property within a reasonable timeframe, the resident should not have been allowed to move into a property that had not had its gas supply checked and signed off. While the landlord has offered to refund £500 of the resident’s utility bills, as requested by her for the cost of the gas for she was charged for but did not use due to the leak, this does not address the issue of having placed the resident in a property without a satisfactory gas supply, which was a failing by the landlord. An order has therefore been made below for it compensate her in line with the Ombudsman’s above remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact so that the redress needed to put things right is substantial. This award has taken into account that the resident explained that she therefore did not move into the property until 1 January 2019 but stayed at her previous address.
  8. The landlord subsequently arranged for the gas issues to be dealt with, while the resident was occupying the property, with an electric fire suite on 9 January 2019, and a new boiler on 15 April 2019. Nevertheless, there was a lengthy period of time after she moved in of around 3-and-a-half months, during colder months of the year, when the resident was without consistent hot water and over a week without space heating, and so this was a further failing on the part of the landlord. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refund the resident’s rent for this period, along with additional compensation for the increased utility bills, and for the disruption and inconvenience.
  9. The landlord attended the property promptly to make the gas safe and this was a necessary action. In its final response, it said that normally gas supply is reinstated prior to the commencement of the tenancy and it became apparent on 30 November 2018 when the supply was turned on that further work was required. However, as noted above, the necessary work was not in fact carried out prior to the resident moving in, as should have been the case. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord.
  10. The resident was charged for gas during a time when she was not using it, likely because of the gas leak. The landlord offered £500 for utility bills incurred, payable on the provision of evidence by the resident. This was a reasonable approach for it to take to ensure she was not out of pocket. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has offered the amount that was requested by the resident, and she is happy with this.
  11. Moreover, the Ombudsman recognises that, while this issue occurred in 2018, the Regulator of Social Housing’s Regulatory Notice to the landlord of 25 January 2023 relates to this complaint. The Regulator concluded that the landlord did not have effective controls in place to enable it to meet its statutory health and safety responsibilities in relation to gas safety. This is of concern, and so it has been recommended below to arrange an independent expert investigation of its previous gas safety checks and works at the property, and a case review of its policies, procedures and practices in regard to gas safety, to ensure that its failures in the resident’s case do not occur again. With that said, the landlord reported it was currently addressing the issue, and the Regulator will not be taking enforcement action at this stage, as it has assurance that the breach of the standard is being remedied.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, distinguished between cases that it believed it could resolve quickly and those that it believed would take longer. Stage 0 (“problem solving” stage) involves cases that can be resolved quickly, with a resolution timescale of 3 working days. Where this timescale is not met, or where the complaint is not expected to be able to be resolved quickly, Stage 1 (“investigation stage”) applies where resolution has a timescale of 28 calendar days. Stage 2 (“review stage”) resolutions require further investigation and sign off from senior members of staff. There is no listed timescale for the review stage of the process, which is detailed as an “opportunity to review the investigation process, the investigation conclusions, and the steps taken to achieve resolution of the customer’s complaint”. The landlord’s policy has a focus on early resolution, record keeping and learning from complaints.
  2. From the evidence available, the resident attempted to make a number of complaints in 2019, however, these were treated as enquiries by the landlord despite the resident using the word “complaint” in her correspondence. The landlord was reasonably aware the resident wished to complain, as early as January 2019, about the condition the property was in when let and she made excessive efforts to progress her complaint. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident, who only received an informal response from it to a January 2019 complaint from her on 16 January 2019.
  3. Subsequently, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction about how the matter had been handled and multiple complaints were made to the landlord via her and her representatives. This was including via her MP on 27 March 2019, her advice agency on 12 April 2019, her MP again on 30 September 2019, her directly on 26 November 2019 and 14 May 2020, her support worker on 20 November 2020, her directly again on 25 November 2020 and 31 January 2021, and via her representative on 2 March 2021. This correspondence specifically mentioned the word “complaint”, so it is unclear why the landlord did not adhere to its policy and aim to issue a formal response within its 28-calendar-day timescale. This was a significant failing and would have caused frustration and upset to her. Furthermore, there is evidence of emails and telephone calls not responded to which would have exacerbated the resident’s frustration. 
  4. Overall, there is a general theme of the landlord not engaging with the resident’s request to raise a formal complaint about its handling of her concerns despite numerous requests from the resident, representative and other agencies to do so. The resident asserted the landlord only started taking action when her advice agency got involved. Upon receiving an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, the landlord should log a formal complaint. This did not happen, although it is noted that the landlord did respond to much of the complaint correspondence with attempts to try and resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction, in the form of the actions and remedies outlined in the above assessments.
  5. Formal complaint acknowledgements and responses nevertheless provide reassurance that a landlord is taking a matter seriously, and provide an opportunity to fully understand and address a resident’s concerns. They speak to working with a resident to resolve the matter. However, in this case, there is no evidence the landlord provided any acknowledgement that the resident’s complaint had been formally logged for most of her case. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. Following the stage 1 response of 22 April 2021 after the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 1 April 2021, it is unclear when an escalation request was made, but we asked the landlord to respond to her under its complaints procedure on 15 July 2021. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 August 2021 and included referral rights to the Ombudsman. However, following further discussions with the resident, on 2 February 2022 the landlord issued a revised final offer of compensation. Overall, considering the complaint was first raised in January 2019, its formal responses and final review were issued significantly after the first expression of dissatisfaction, taking more than 2 and 3 years, respectively.
  7. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord should operate a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy suggests a “problem solving” approach, however given the complexities of the concerns raised, it was likely the landlord would have to take this complaint through its formal investigation approach. The Ombudsman does not consider a “problem solving” stage or “stage 0” is needed as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt. This did not happen. 
  8. It is unclear why a revised compensation review was carried out by the landlord in February 2022, as its previous letter of 4 August 2021 had indicated that that was its final response and provided referral rights to the Ombudsman. While a further a review or addition to a stage 2 response is not necessarily a failure, it is concerning given the resident’s stage 2 response was issued in August 2021, and its revised final offer of compensation was issued almost 6 months later. The resident, who already felt the landlord-tenant relationship had broken down, felt ignored and the actions of the landlord with respect to its complaint handling would have exacerbated this and caused further distress.
  9. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider that the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the resident’s concerns, formally confirm its position supported by its policies and procedures, and adequately redress its failings by offering appropriate compensation and learning from these at the time. As the resident reported issues and concerns in early 2019 which she felt were not resolved, the formal complaint responses of 2021 and 2022 were considerably late, and this did not meet its service standards in line with its complaints policy, or our complaint handling code.
  10. Furthermore, while the landlord did acknowledge its failures to respond to the resident’s concerns in an effective way, it did not adequately provide redress for these failings by offering appropriate compensation, specifically for its poor complaint handling. As such, there was failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and orders have been made for it to remedy this below. It has been ordered to compensate the resident within the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident that it failed to acknowledge or attempt to put right, as well as to carry out a review to determine why it did not investigate her formal complaint sooner. Although it is noted that the landlord has subsequently completed and published self-assessments confirming its latest corporate complaints procedure’s compliance with our complaint handling code, addressing the above concerns about its previous complaints policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
    1. the condition of the property when let.
    2. gas safety.
    3. complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation totalling £1,450 within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £600 for disruption and inconvenience given it let a property with numerous repair issues to a known vulnerable resident.
      2. £600 for its poor handling of gas safety.
      3. £250 for the failings identified in its complaints handling.
    1. Pay the resident the £3,189.39 offered in its revised compensation review within 4 weeks, if it has not done so already.
    2. Carry out a review within 8 weeks into why it did not arrange a formal complaint investigation sooner despite complaints made before 2021. The landlord must provide a copy of this review to the resident and to the Ombudsman.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Carry out further training and refresher courses for its staff and contractors and ensure it reviews its void process and that it has taken steps to ensure that, before a resident moves into a property, it has undertaken all necessary checks to ensure the property meets the minimum letting standard, including ensuring that gas and electricity are serving the property safely, and that space and water can be heated adequately.
    2. Update its lettings procedure to enable residents who may have a mental health condition to discuss any concerns they have prior to the tenancy sign up
    3. Remind its contractors when carrying out work in a property that they should remove any waste material or rubbish from the property or the garden before leaving the site. If they are unable to do so, they should make arrangements with the landlord to clear and dispose of, within a reasonable time, any remaining waste material or rubbish.
    4. Engage a suitably qualified, independent gas safety consultant to investigate the previous annual gas safety checks carried out at the property and the various gas works that took place in 2018 in order to establish what happened, what went wrong and if there are any service improvements the landlord needs to make to prevent a similar situation happening in future. The landlord should share a summary of the findings of the independent investigation and any recommended actions with both the resident and the Ombudsman.
    5. Carry out a case review to verify that its (and its gas contractor’s) policies, procedures and working practices in regard to void inspections and gas safety are fit for purpose. The landlord shall identify any required amendments and report them back to the Ombudsman and the resident.
  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.