Somerset West and Taunton Council (201909201)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909201

Somerset West and Taunton Council

16 April 2021

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 was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

(a) reports of disrepair at Property A.

(b) reports of disrepair at Property B and C (her current property).

(d) housing application.

(e) concerns about building work and enforcement of planning permission.

(f) associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Complaint of disrepair of Property A: The resident has complained about the condition of Property A. In October 2018 she raised a complaint with the landlord about the disrepair, asking that she be moved and preferably to a 4 bedroom property. The resident was subsequently decanted from Property A on 31 March 2019 and moved into Property B – a 4 bedroom property. The Ombudsman considers that effectively addressed the complaint at that stage as it was the outcome the resident had sought and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the resident was unhappy with the outcome at that time.
It was not until after the resident had been at Property B for six months and was raising a formal complaint about the condition of that property that the resident complained about the landlord’s previous response to her requests for repair at Property A.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not be considering this aspect of the complaint. This is because paragraph 39(e) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
In the Ombudsman’s view, if the resident had been unhappy with the outcome of her earlier complaint it was open to her to raise it at the time. But as the resident left Property A in March 2019 and did not put her formal complaint about her remaining concerns to the landlord until October 2019, that puts this aspect of the resident’s complaint outside the six month timescale stipulated in the Scheme. The complaint of disrepair will not therefore form part of this investigation.
Complaint about housing application for/from Property C: The resident is currently seeking a housing transfer from Property C and her application is in the process of being dealt with by the landlord. As part of her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has raised her dissatisfaction with aspects of the landlord’s handling of her application for transfer, including the banding she has been allocated. This has been responded to by the landlord and it has offered £500 compensation which she has declined. She has also said the landlord ought not to have offered her a transfer to Property C as it was not suitable for her and her family’s needs.
However, paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.’ The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can potentially consider complaints about a local authority’s assessment of a re-housing application, including the award of points, banding or qualification for preference. It can also consider complaints about the suitability of accommodation offered under its choice–based lettings schemes.
This means that the Ombudsman will not be considering the circumstances surrounding the process by which the landlord considered Property C suitable to offer the resident under its choice-based lettings scheme or its handling of her subsequent application to transfer from Property C. The Ombudsman, can, however, consider how the landlord responded to the concerns the resident raised about its suitability once she had accepted the property and determine whether its response was a fair and reasonable one.
Building work and planning enforcement: The resident has told the Ombudsman that she is concerned that a neighbouring new build property and nearby building work, which she says are detrimentally impacting her property and her family’s wellbeing, are in breach of planning permission. With respect to the building work, it is not clear what connection the landlord has to this, but under paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme complaints concerning planning and building control at properties owned by a social landlord are matters that potentially fall to the LGSCO, not the Ombudsman to consider. With regard to the neighbouring property, any complaint concerning a potential breach of planning permission would be for the local authority’s planning team to investigate and ultimately be for the courts and not the Ombudsman to determine. As such, both matters do not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives with her four children, all of whom have learning disabilities. Her landlord is a local authority. Her complaint concerns three properties, all owned and managed by the landlord. The first two – Property A and B – were of a prefabricated build and were due for regeneration. The third – Property C – was a buy-back which the landlord was letting for the first time.
On 18 March 2019 the resident was temporarily decanted from Property A to Property B. (Property A was due for later demolition in the course of a regeneration scheme.) Prior to moving in the resident inspected the property and some work was undertaken by the landlord.
On 29 March 2019 the resident submitted a claim for a disturbance payment for her move to Property B. [Prior to May 2019 claims were determined in accordance with government guidelines and from May 2019 in accordance with the landlord’s new ‘decanting policy and operating procedure’]. Under the policy the landlord can pay a resident disturbance compensation for the cost of moving to either permanent or temporary decant accommodation. Compensation could cover items bought for Property A and items purchased for Property B. The landlord has said that the resident was involved with the creation of the terms of this policy as she was part of a tenant involvement group. In support of her claim the resident submitted receipts, estimates for intended purchases, and bank statements as proof of expenditure.
On 3 July 2019, having already paid the resident £600 upfront in advance on receipt of her inventory, the landlord offered her a further £679.01 for the work she had done to Property A comprising 100% the cost of some items and 80% the cost of others. It noted it had also already paid directly for a shed. It outlined the process for her to claim a home loss payment [a statutory lump sum payment to compensate for the need to move].
On 2 September 2019 the resident discussed with the landlord her concerns about Property B which included a broken fence panel and difficult to use driveway. The landlord asked her to provide outstanding receipts to finalise the disturbance claim and on 10 and 24 September 2019 the fence was fixed and driveway widened.
Formal complaint: On 29 October 2019 the resident submitted a complaint about the condition of Property B and said she had still not received her home loss payment for Property A. She chased the disturbance compensation while acknowledging she had only submitted outstanding receipts to the landlord the previous day. She requested compensation for the landlord’s handling of repairs and decant, which she said had left her financially worse off.
On 13 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained its disturbance payment for the move to Property B. It said it had already paid £3,400 directly for works to Property B and had reimbursed her a total of £1279.01 in two payments of £600 (the advance) and £679.01. It explained this left £206.37 for items yet to be reimbursed, for which it would reimburse 80 – 100% of the value or make a contribution.
On 4 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident again explaining the process to claim a home loss payment and the resident submitted her claim on 5 December 2019. On 4 December 2019 the resident complained about the landlord’s decision to only compensate a percentage of the cost of items.
On 12 December 2019 the landlord met with the resident. It said the home loss payment had been approved, that it would investigate her report of water ingress at Property B and confirmed compensation for flooring and wallpaper at Property A would be included in the subsequent disturbance payment for her move from Property B, as she wished. The landlord agreed to pay a further £251.37 as a result of additional receipts submitted. The resident signed to accept the disturbance payment.
On 18 December 2019 the landlord inspected for water ingress, found some evidence but noted that further investigation would necessitate random visits and scaffolding, neither which were wanted by the resident. On 23 December 2019 the landlord told the surveyor to only visit with prior notice and to only use scaffolding as a last resort. In the immediate term action to remedy water penetration to the side door and downstairs toilet was completed on 12 January 2020.
Complaint response: In replying to the resident’s complaint on 20 December 2019 the landlord summarised the following action in resolution of the issues: home loss and disturbance payments made; compensation for flooring and wallpaper at Property A to be carried over to next move; and repairs raised for water ingress. [It also offered £500 compensation for its mishandling of her housing application; which she declined.]
On 9 January 2020 the landlord offered the resident a permanent move to a 4/5 bedroom house – Property C – which she accepted. On 13 January 2020 and 6 February 2020 the landlord met with the resident, discussed a liability list for non-standard items at the property for which she would be responsible; a two week moving in period that would also allow her to inspect the works undertaken; and agreed to investigate a disabled parking option and nearby vacant garages.
Prior to moving in, on 12 February 2020 the resident met with the landlord and noted that other than a small amount of snagging and cleaning the decorating and carpeting was on schedule, although she was unhappy with her liability for some of the works.
On 13 February 2020 the landlord discussed with the resident her concern for the need for disabled parking. The landlord explained it had consulted Adult Social Care who advised on options and the need for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment for her children. It confirmed it had made the necessary Social Care referrals for OT assessment of her children.
On 14 February 2020 the resident signed the inventory of items detailing the landlord’s and her respective liability for their repair and maintenance (‘liability list’).
On 17 February 2020 the resident moved into Property C on a permanent basis.
On 27 April 2020, as the complaint remained open, the landlord asked the resident if she now wished to accept the compensation in order to resolve the complaint.
On 1 May 2020 the resident submitted a disturbance payment claim of £6298.14 for her move to Property C and told the landlord she wanted it considered before it closed her complaint. The landlord’s internal records indicate that by 13 May 2020 it considered it was considering the disturbance payment for Property C in line with its procedures and that the resident’s complaint in relation to Property B had been resolved through her move to Property C, and so the complaint would be closed. It explained this to the resident.
Between May and June 2020 the landlord and resident discussed aspects of the disturbance claim and the landlord requested additional details and supporting evidence in the form of receipts and photograph evidence of items. On 15 June 2020 the landlord confirmed details of the items it would compensate for but asked for further supporting documentation with respect to some outstanding items. The resident replied to dispute the proposed payments and in particular why she was only being reimbursed 80% of the cost of certain items.
Complaint closure: On 3 July 2020 the landlord notified the resident it was closing the complaint, summarising the action taken and undertakings made to resolve the complaint.
On the same day the landlord provided the resident with an updated disturbance compensation offer of £849.23, with a list of what it considered reasonable to claim and a breakdown of costs, including the carried over compensation for flooring and wallpaper at Property A. It asked the resident to keep any concerns she might raise about the offer separate to those about its closure of her complaint.
On 13 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its disturbance payment offer for Property C. It detailed the £3414.25 it had already paid direct for items, and offered her the £849.23 as well as undertaking to pay a further £299.99 for a shed on receipt of evidence of purchase. The landlord had declined to pay for replacement furniture which, on the basis of its own calculations, could fit into Property C. [The resident did not receive this letter.]
Complaint via Councillor: In October 2020 the resident engaged the help of her Councillor to whom she reported that she had been waiting since March 2020 to have the ‘plumbing and heating sorted’ at Property C; that there were problems with the windows; and she had yet to receive the disturbance compensation. On referral to the landlord, its internal record indicates it considered only the £500 compensation (which the resident had rejected) remained outstanding from her previous complaint and noted its disturbance payment offer had not been signed by the resident. But it undertook to enquire of its repairs team to see if it had an outstanding order for the plumbing and heating system and the windows at Property C and if in doubt for a surveyor to inspect and action as necessary.
Response to complaint via Councillor: On 6 November 2020 the landlord replied to the resident. In summary it noted:

i. Repairs: It had since contacted her on 3 November 2020 and logged the following repairs: kitchen/bath sinks blocked; bath overflow loose; water pressure low and causes hammering especially when washing machine in use; shower mixer tap loose; water only warm; chimney cowl loose; windows in poor condition and draughty/mouldy; next door building works have encroached onto garden; toilet over refilling. It said a plumber appointment had been arranged for 6 November 2020 and its surveyor would visit on 10 November 2020 to review her concerns about the windows and neighbouring property.

ii. Disturbance payment: Noting she had not received its 13 July 2020 letter it reattached the offer.

On 7 November 2020 the resident replied, saying she had been offered the property ‘under false pretences’ as the landlord was not compensating her for items which no longer fitted into the new property and that she had not been advised of the impact of aspects of the neighbouring property.
In response on 10 November 2020 the landlord’s surveyor visited the property and reported as follows:

i. Windows in reasonable condition but to replace loose sealant and trims. General condition of house was good, no obvious/serious defects noted, water hammer/pressure being looked at.

ii. Resident concerned about neighbouring property’s right of access across garden – surveyor assured resident prior permission and notice would always be needed. The resident had said she would not have accepted the property had she known. The surveyor explained access rights were common and would not have been considered an issue.

iii. Resident said garden too small for bigger shed and soil insufficiently drained for son’s gardening needs. Surveyor noted no issue with guttering but minor defect around drain to be addressed, garden otherwise well enclosed, relatively private safe space for children.

iv. Resident thought garage came with the house – surveyor noted originally marketed with, but not bought by landlord. Resident said had been promised disabled parking space but not provided.

v. Surveyor concluded property to be ‘a nice 4 bed family house in good condition which was warm and free from damp at the time of [my] inspection.’ Size and layout of garden and proximity of new build house would have been apparent to resident on viewing and causing no detriment to property.

47.On 19 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident responding to the issues she had raised with its surveyor and in response to its reply to her Councillor:

Disturbance compensation for Property C:

The landlord said its 3 July 2020 letter explained its calculation and basis for the disturbance payment and had addressed the non-receipt of the offer in its 6 November 2020 email.

Repairs:

Previous plumbing works were raised on 11 March 2020 and completed on 13 March 2020. Through lockdown only emergency works were undertaken. The next repairs raised were on 3 November 2020 for plumbing, gas and lighting and were completed on 11/18 November 2020. The landlord said no jobs were outstanding, though non-emergency reports raised from March 2020 may not have been logged (as it was only dealing with emergencies).

Concerns raised during 10 November 2020 survey:

The surveyor found that the newly built neighbouring property had no detrimental impact on Property C or its garden.
The right of access for the neighbouring property across Property C’s back garden for the purpose of repairs was discussed when the resident first viewed the property, when it was explained this would only be for essential works and advance permission would need to be obtained from the landlord and notice given to the resident. It said it strongly understood the resident’s concerns for the welfare of her children with people accessing her garden.
The lack of guttering of the neighbour’s garage was not a requirement and there was no evidence of it causing waterlogging of the resident’s garden.
Parking – The landlord referred the resident to the discussion and action on this on 13 February 2020, prior to her moving in.
Windows – Its surveyor on 10 November 2020 had found the windows to be ‘a little draughty’ but not in immediate need of maintenance although as a goodwill gesture it could address the loose sealant and internal trims and to contact the landlord if she wished to progress this. [A works order for this was raised on 29 January 2021.]
Decent Homes Standard – The resident had raised at various points her concern that Property C did not comply with the Decent Homes Standard. The landlord said that following its recent inspection it was of the view that it did. [It later provided the resident with its surveyor’s finding on this.]
Mould – This had not been raised prior to 17 November 2020 email and not during the survey, but it offered to attend and review the matter. [It subsequently arranged for a surveyor to inspect the mould once Covid restrictions allowed.]

On 12 February 2021 the landlord responded to various further issues raised by the resident:
1. noisy pipes and boiler – December 2019 gas inspection found new boiler not required, had not been told of noisy pipes and boiler until 29 January 2021.
2. loose floorboards – repairs to floorboards addressed prior to her moving in and no other issues had been logged on its repairs system to suggest an ongoing problem with floorboards but it was open to her to raise a repair request.
3. waterlogged garden – it reiterated the surveyor’s view that more saturation normal in winter but it would look again in spring if she wished.
The landlord has since updated the Ombudsman with regard to the reports of mould and problems with the windows. It said that its surveyor found only one ‘very small spot’ of mould in the corner of a bedroom due to inadequate ventilation. The resident said she was unable to open the window on account of her son being distressed by spiders, but declined the landlord’s offer to fit a vent to help reduce humidity. With respect to the windows, on 3 March 2021 its contractors found all but one small window near the front door to be in reasonable condition and it had informed the resident that her windows would be replaced within the next three years as part of its planned programme of works.

Assessment and findings

Repairs – Property B:

The evidence indicates the landlord’s voids survey in advance of the resident moving in found the property in good condition, and concerns raised by the resident in advance of moving in were attended to by the landlord if found to be justified, ie installation of new heating system. Subsequent repair requests in September 2019 were also attended to by the landlord, including the widening of the driveway, and the resident’s December 2019 report of water ingress (checking for leaks to the back and side doors and determining the need for more investigation of ingress through the floor and eaves).
The fact that this did not happen immediately appears to be down to the landlord taking appropriate account of the potential upset the more intrusive investigations (involving scaffolding and ad hoc visits) would cause the resident’s children. That was an appropriate response, albeit one that naturally protracted the investigation of the issue. [The landlord has told the Ombudsman that although subsequent investigations failed to identify the cause of the ingress there has been no subsequent report of the issue.]
Having reviewed the repairs history, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord failed to respond to repair requests, eg back gate, fence panel, widening driveway, or that its responses were unduly delayed. The Ombudsman also finds that in responding to the requests, the landlord took appropriate account of the particular needs of the resident’s family.

Repairs – Property C:

The evidence indicates the landlord took all reasonable steps prior to the resident moving in to ensure she was happy with the property. It met with her a number of times at the property both in advance of carrying out the works and after, so that she could assure herself that she was content with the condition of the property. In addition, the landlord agreed with the resident which items would be left at the property for which she would assume responsibility for repair and maintenance but also which items it would supply or repair, ie it would provide a shed, remove carpets, remedy a creaking floorboard, and ensure connections for appliances were working. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any significant or emergency repairs being required as a result of the survey undertaken prior to the resident moving in, and this was consistent with the landlord having assured itself the property met the lettable standard and the surveyor having found the house to be in good condition.
Within a short time of the resident moving in, however, Covid restrictions meant the landlord would only respond to emergency repairs – which it made clear on its website – and it has told the Ombudsman that it was advising customers who called in non-emergency repairs during the first lockdown to callback at a later stage. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of routine repair requests from the resident during this time or of the resident chasing these with the landlord. But once she had raised the issue of repairs with her Councillor in October 2020 the landlord responded appropriately in undertaking to ascertain the repairs position and have the property inspected if necessary; which it did. That indicates a genuine attempt by the landlord at that point to understand the overall repairs issues for the resident.
By this stage the landlord had reverted to its pre-Covid service standards for routine repairs, being that it would aim to address repairs within 28 days of being reported. At the beginning of November 2020 the landlord had logged a number of routine repairs for the resident and the evidence indicates its response to these, eg shower hose, water pressure, draughty windows was undertaken within its 28 day response time, with her requests for emergency repairs – boiler error message, kitchen light fittings – attended to within the landlord’s 24 hour emergency call out time.
The Ombudsman recognises that despite the routine nature of some of these repairs, owing to the specific vulnerabilities of the resident’s children these were more upsetting than they might have otherwise been for another resident. The hammering of the plumbing was one such example. Nevertheless once this was reported at the beginning of November 2020, the landlord ensured this was addressed within its service standard response time. This is not to minimise the distress such a problem caused the resident’s children, but the distress was the result of the issue, and not the result of service failure by the landlord in addressing it.
The Ombudsman has seen that for some repair requests no action was considered necessary at that time, eg garage guttering; water-soaked garden. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude this and in doing so it appropriately explained its position to the resident. It is also clear this was not done for expediency, as evidenced by the landlord’s undertaking to further investigate the garden issue during drier weather, and its more recent inspection of the windows and for mould. The Ombudsman considers this a proportionate but fair response by the landlord, and indicative of it taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
It appears to the Ombudsman, from the available evidence, that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of the property stems less from her concern about its need for repair, than her concern that it failed in certain respects to meet the particular needs of her family. The Ombudsman has therefore considered how the landlord responded to those concerns.
These centred predominantly on parking issues, the impact of the neighbouring property and issues with the garden. With respect to parking, there is no evidence the resident was told the property came with its own garage, although the surveyor’s November 2020 report considers why she might have initially thought that it did. Nevertheless, by the time of her 13 February 2020 meeting with the landlord prior to her moving in, it is clear the resident was aware of what parking was available at the property and that this did not include a garage.
It is equally clear that the landlord knew parking was important to the resident because, prior to her moving in, it undertook (in January and February 2020) to investigate parking options, including the possibility of a vacant garage, and more importantly the possibility of a disabled parking bay through its OT referral. Despite the resident’s claim, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord promised her that the property would have a designated disabled parking space. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s action to investigate options was an entirely appropriate response by the landlord at the outset to the resident’s understandable concern and the evidence of her signing the tenancy indicates she was content to accept the property on that basis.
The resident has complained that she would not have accepted the current property had she known about the right of access to her garden and issues related to the proximity of the neighbouring garage, ie its foundations limiting gardening possibilities for her son, and not being able to put a shed up against it. The resident claims that the landlord misrepresented the position prior to her signing the tenancy. Putting aside her concerns that the garage breached planning permission (as that is not for the Ombudsman to consider), the Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence and can see no indication that the landlord withheld information about this from the resident before she signed the tenancy or that it could reasonably have anticipated the issues the resident subsequently raised in relation to the garden and taken steps to investigate these.
But when the resident raised her concern about access in November 2020 the landlord’s surveyor appropriately reassured her about how this would operate in practice, with advance permission always being sought. This point was then comprehensively covered by the landlord in its 19 November 2020 response, where it emphasised the welfare of the resident’s children would be safeguarded. The Ombudsman considers that was an appropriate and sensitive response from the landlord to an issue that had arisen for the resident through no fault on its part.
With regard to other issues with the garden, the resident’s concern about its size and shape would have been apparent when she accepted the tenancy, and her issue with the garage’s foundations limiting the depth of soil could not have been reasonably known or anticipated by the landlord as an issue of any consequence. Should the matter be of significance to her son’s well-being it remains open to the resident to seek an OT assessment of the garden in relation to her son’s needs.
With respect to the shed, there is no evidence that prior to signing the tenancy the resident asked about permission to fix a shed against the garage, nor indicated that this or having to have a smaller shed would give her cause to reject the property. The landlord was aware of the resident’s need for a shed and has provided one at the property. The Ombudsman sees that as a reasonable response to the fact that the resident had previously had a shed which she had had to leave at the previous property.
Similarly, in relation to the resident’s subsequent concern about the garden becoming waterlogged, there is no evidence this was apparent at the time of viewing to either the landlord or the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, the resident was able to see that garden as it was at the time of viewing, raised no concerns, and the landlord was entitled to consider it to be – as the surveyor noted – good for children in that it was a well enclosed, safe space, quite private and not particularly overlooked.
In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has detailed the various repair requests she raised at Property B and now at her current property and considers these, together with her associated concerns about the current property show the properties were not of a requisite condition and fit for purpose. However, for the reasons explained, the Ombudsman considers the landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps prior to the resident’s tenancy of Property B and C to ensure the properties met its lettable standard, the resident chose to accept the properties as viewed, and that since doing so the landlord has responded appropriately and reasonably to the repair requests raised by the resident.
With respect to the resident’s complaint that some repair requests were never registered by the landlord, aside from any repairs that might have been called through during the landlord’s restricted lockdown service, the evidence indicates that repairs were actioned. Although these were not always reported through the established channels but direct to the officer dealing with her move, where there is a record of a repair request or issue having been raised by the resident directly with a landlord’s officer either in a meeting or in attendance at the property the evidence the Ombudsman has seen indicates these were appropriately followed up by the landlord.
The resident has told the Ombudsman she is unhappy with a suggestion by the landlord that it was not responsible for some of the work it was undertaking at the property. The details of what items this related to are unclear, nor has the Ombudsman seen evidence to suggest the landlord has charged the resident for repairs for which it was responsible. As the Ombudsman sees it, the landlord consulted the resident prior to drawing up a list of their respective responsibilities for repair and maintenance of specific items at the property and the resident signed her agreement to this.
Furthermore, the resident’s responsibility more generally for repairs, improvements and decorations are made clear in the terms of her tenancy agreement and these are detailed on the landlord’s website. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the agreed list of liability did not accord with these responsibilities. While the resident might be unhappy with the extent of her liability, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that either in undertaking its repairing obligations or pointing out to the resident her responsibilities, the landlord has not done so in accordance with its repairing obligations under the tenancy or the list of liability. If the resident considers that it has, it remains open to her to raise a complaint with the landlord with regard to her dispute of any specific item. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that she has yet done so.

Disturbance payments

Under the landlord’s decant policy and procedure ((May 2019) paragraph 8.14/8.25) it undertakes to pay for each eligible item and will accept invoices, receipts and approved estimates from a contractor. Compensation is paid for each move, so if a resident moves first to a temporary property before moving to a permanent home the compensation will be paid twice.
The landlord’s decants policy (Appendix 1) lists examples of items for which compensation can be claimed, together with other costs the landlord considers to be reasonable, and a resident can ask to manage some of the disturbance costs which can then be deducted from the payment. Reasonable expenses can include removal costs; disconnection and reconnection fees; curtain and carpeting refit or replacement; refitting of fitted furniture and reimbursement of approved home improvements or adaptations. The policy makes clear the landlord has discretion with regard to what it considers a reasonable cost.
In considering this aspect of the complaint it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine which items and services should have attracted compensation or what percentage ought to have been paid for these. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord’s handling and consideration of the claims were in accordance with its policy and were fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Property A/B: The disturbance payment for moving from Property A to Property B was claimed by the resident on 29 March 2019 and the bulk of the payment was paid by the landlord on 3 July 2019. That amount appears to have been agreed by the resident and was offered within a reasonable timeframe.
The remainder of the disturbance payment, however, took longer to finalise with the landlord having to ask the resident in September 2019 for further supporting receipts and photographs. Indeed, the Ombudsman notes an internal landlord record of 17 October 2019 comments that it had found the disturbance compensation [for Property B] ‘not easy as we had to deal with many invoices and point of sale photos to get a proper figure.’ It also noted it had been waiting several months for the resident to provide details of extra costs of meals and petrol. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord agreed to reimburse items not yet purchased on receipt of evidence of sale price, which in the Ombudsman’s view was a pragmatic and fair approach by the landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has an obligation to account for all items included in a disturbance payment and that it is reasonable that it seeks supporting evidence for a claim.
Once the resident submitted the further evidence on 28 October 2019 the landlord moved relatively quickly to finalise its offer which it made to the resident on 13 November 2019 and was accepted by her on 12 December 2019.
While the overall time taken was clearly longer than either party would have wanted, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to indicate this was down to a processing delay on the part of the landlord or it unnecessarily seeking supporting evidence.
Property C: The landlord’s initial offer of a disturbance payment for Property C took initially over two months but during that time the landlord was in touch with the resident about the evidence it needed and then in providing a full explanation of what it was reimbursing and why. That was not an unreasonable period of time in light of the number of items, the evidence that needed to be obtained and the calculations required to ascertain if particular furniture would fit.
The fact that the final offer letter of 13 July 2020 was not received by the resident until 6 November 2020 was not, it would appear, the result of service failure by the landlord but a failure of the alternative postal service it was using while Covid restrictions were in place. Once it was alerted by the resident’s Councillor to the fact the resident had not received it, the landlord quickly resent its offer. Consequently, there is no evidence to indicate the six months it took for the resident to receive the landlord’s final offer was the result of service failure on its part.
In rejecting its offer, the resident has complained about the landlord’s refusal to compensate for certain items, for example a bath mixer tap, or it agreeing only a contribution towards certain items. The Ombudsman has reviewed the available evidence of how the landlord responded on this point. This indicates that with respect to both Property B and C the landlord provided the resident with detailed schedules of the items being claimed. These schedules included its individual explanations of why it would not compensate or why it would only make a contribution, and when the resident disputed this for Property C the landlord provided a full explanation of its review (3 July 2020) with respect to certain items. That was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take.
Furthermore, the landlord’s decisions with respect to certain items would appear in accordance with its policy (decants policy – appendix 1). The Ombudsman can say no more than that as the decision to compensate for particular items can depend on a number of factors, not only the fact of its inclusion on the list of items for which compensation can be paid. It would also appear – though not entirely clear as not mentioned in its decants policy – that when only 80% of an individual amount claimed was being reimbursed this was because there was insufficient evidence of its purchase price. [The Ombudsman notes on occasion the landlord indicated in the schedule it would reconsider increasing its % contribution on receipt of evidence.] The Ombudsman has therefore seen no evidence to suggest the landlord has failed to act in accordance with its policy in considering compensation for disturbance.
The resident has complained that she has been unable to provide all necessary supporting evidence as she was unaware at the time of the need for her to keep proof of purchase of particular items. With respect to her move from Property A to B, the landlord has explained that as the resident was ‘an active member’ of the tenant group involved in the creation of its decant policy it would consider her to be well-informed on its policy and processes. It must also be noted the resident ultimately accepted the disturbance payment with respect to this move and so presumably accepted the offer as a fair and reasonable one.
With respect to her later move to Property C it is not clear which items the resident suggests she was not able to evidence but would have been had she been given prior notice. But as the Ombudsman sees it, the resident was by then not only familiar with the process and the need for evidence as a result of her earlier move to Property B, but it would be reasonable to expect that as a result of her involvement in the draft decant policy she would have had some awareness of the need to be able to provide supporting evidence for a claim. The landlord has also explained that its decant policy is available to residents online. The Ombudsman therefore considers the landlord has taken reasonable steps to alert its residents to the potential need for evidence of expenditure on a new property.
More generally, the Ombudsman recognises that a decision on reimbursement will not always turn on evidence of purchase. For example it is open to the landlord to determine if a purchased replacement was necessary. It is also not for the Ombudsman to speculate about what the resident might have been reimbursed, and by how much, had she been able to evidence the purchase of a particular item.
While it is not for the Ombudsman to review and audit the disturbance payment itself, it does expect the landlord to have a process through which a resident can formally dispute a disturbance payment – and raise all the factors it considers pertinent to individual items in the claim. The Ombudsman notes the landlord has such a process. Its decant policy (paragraph 9.1) explains that if a resident disputes a payment they can appeal to the landlord within 10 days of notification of the offer. An appeal will then be considered at Director/Assistant Director level. The resident did not seek to appeal the decision in this case, ostensibly because by then she had referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and was seeking to raise her dissatisfaction through that alternative channel.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers that, despite the resident being familiar with the decant policy and its right of appeal regarding claims, the landlord ought to have advised the resident of her right to have her claim reviewed under its appeals process. This is because it would only be through an appeal that the resident would have had an opportunity to have her claim reviewed at the Director/Assistant Director level envisaged in the landlord’s decant policy. [The Ombudsman notes that under the landlord’s new complaints process (paragraphs 75-76) the resident would now have an opportunity to formally complain about the decision to Director level for review, but this route was not available to her at the time of her claim.] An appeal would have provided the resident with a fresh pair of eyes on her claim at a sufficiently senior level and while it cannot be known whether that would have resulted in a revised offer, it would at least have provided her with the appropriate reassurance that her claim had been duly considered with effective oversight.
Home loss payment – The resident complained of delay in receiving her home loss payment for Property A and while the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of delay it can appreciate why the resident thought this to be the case. The home loss payment was not automatically made but had to be claimed. The landlord told her of the process for this on 3 July 2019 and said she was entitled to the payment. But the landlord has told the Ombudsman that as the resident’s move predated the phase for which Property A was scheduled for regeneration the home loss payment at the time of her move would have been discretionary and approval for this was only granted in November 2019. Although the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident claimed the payment before December 2019 it can understand why she had thought she was entitled to it before this time. However, once she had claimed the payment on 5 December 2019 it was paid shortly thereafter, on 12 December 2019, and so without undue delay.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was operating a single stage complaints process. As the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes explicit (paragraph 3.6), an effective complaints procedure comprises a two stage process whereby ‘a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.’
The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that from 16 March 2021 the landlord has introduced a two stage process, but has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in light of its procedure in operation at that time.
From receipt of the complaint about Property A & B in October 2019, it was not until 20 December 2019 that it issued its final response, which was significantly outside the 10 working day timescale given in its complaints policy at that time. That said, it had been actively working to resolve the disturbance payment and repairs issue during this time and so the time taken was of no significant detriment to the resident.
With regard to the detail of the landlord’s response, its records note that in discussions with the resident she had said she had not wanted a detailed response to her complaint but had included details in order to demonstrate the distress events had caused her and her family. In the Ombudsman’s view, regardless of any indication from a resident as to how they would like their complaint to be addressed, the landlord must always be able to assure itself that it has adequately responded to a complaint. To do otherwise can lead to potential misunderstandings about what has been considered and the outcome sought.
In the event, when the resident was not satisfied with the response and in the absence of a review stage she understandably considered her complaint unresolved and therefore still open. A review/appeal stage – as now operated by the landlord – would have enabled the resident to have her dissatisfaction with the response considered and for a line to be effectively drawn under matters, as would an appeal hearing of the disputed disturbance payment. But as things stood the complaint remained open for a significant period thereafter, with the landlord reiterating its offer and the resident disputing it until the landlord finally closed the complaint in July 2020. That was an unnecessarily drawn out process for both parties, but not one that in the Ombudsman’s view detrimentally impacted the resident. During this period the evidence shows that during this period the resident continued to raise additional issues and to have them considered by the landlord.
The second complaint via the resident’s Councillor in October 2020 was promptly responded to by the landlord and in this and its follow up response in November 2020 – through the surveyor’s inspection – it comprehensively addressed both the matters already covered in and alongside its formal complaint response, but also new matters that had not been previously formally raised by the resident. That was an entirely appropriate and fair response from the landlord following its closure of the resident’s complaint but in light of her ongoing concerns.
Finally, the Ombudsman appreciates why the resident might want a full audit of the landlord’s actions in her case going back some years, as having to move properties twice in three years has been understandably stressful and frustrating for her and her family. She has described how each individual aspect of her experience has contributed to her and her family’s considerable disappointment and distress over time.
While the Ombudsman has sympathy with the position in which the resident finds herself, with respect to the aspects of the complaint under consideration the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s actions have largely been focused on mitigating for the resident and her family the stressful situation in which they found themselves.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint of disrepair at Property A is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of disrepair at Property B and C.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was evidence of service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s claims for disturbance and home loss payments.
In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the resident’s housing application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about building work and planning permission is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The resident’s complaint of disrepair with respect to Property A does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
With respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to Properties B and C the Ombudsman finds the landlord responded in accordance with its repairing obligations and that its responses were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord processed the resident’s claims for disturbance and home loss payments for Properties A and B in accordance with its decant policy and without undue delay. With respect to the disputed disturbance claim for Property C the landlord failed to advise the resident of her right to appeal, thereby failing to appropriately assure her that its decision had been independently reviewed.
The resident’s complaint about her housing transfer does not come within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. It is the LGSCO that can potentially consider the resident’s complaint about the process by which she was offered Property C and the handling of her subsequent application to transfer from Property C.
The resident’s complaint about nearby building work, if it concerns properties owned by a social landlord, would potentially be for the LGSCO, not the Ombudsman, to consider. With regard to planning permission for a neighbouring property, any complaint of a potential breach of planning permission would not be for the Ombudsman to consider, but the local authority to investigate if appropriate and to seek a determination through the courts if necessary.
Although the landlord provided its initial complaint response outside its prescribed timescales and was slow to close the complaint, this was of no real detriment to the resident as she remained able to raise additional concerns, which she did and had these additionally considered by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident and offer to consider from her an appeal against its disturbance payment offer for Property C. It should explain the process and timescales for this and the information she will need to provide. It should then consider the appeal and notify the resident of the outcome within the requisite timescales.
2. Make the resident a payment of £200 compensation for its failure to advise the resident of her right to request an appeal of its disturbance payment decision for Property C.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. In order to better manage residents’ expectations, review the information it provides to residents of the basis of its calculation of disturbance payments, particularly in relation to why it might only offer a % of or contribution to the price of an item.