South Derbyshire District Council (202226705)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226705

South Derbyshire District Council

29 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was first let.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the tenancy commenced on 10 October 2022. The landlord was aware that the resident had autism spectrum disorder and that 2 of the children in the household have vulnerabilities.
On 23 November 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He considered that the property had not met the lettable standard due to the number of issues he had had to deal with himself and/or raise since moving in. He also felt that the landlord had harassed him by the number of times it wanted to visit the resident’s property with little notice before it attended. He was also unhappy with a particular member of staff who wanted to visit him at home following his complaint which he did not consider was necessary.
The landlord acknowledged that the items left in the loft were its responsibility and should have been removed. It did not acknowledge any further failings within its stage 1 response but had arranged to visit the resident to complete a full inspection so that it could assess all the issues and then consider whether compensation was appropriate.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint as he felt that the landlord had not addressed all the issues and had not investigated his concerns properly. The landlord responded and acknowledged that some elements of the property had not met the lettable standard. It offered the resident £1252.93 compensation.
The resident contacted our service in March 2023 as he considered that the compensation offered did not reflect the costs that he had incurred, in respect of the fence, the reduction in rent and the stress and inconvenience caused because of all the issues. He also wanted an apology in respect of the asbestos and the insistence on the landlord visiting him with little notice.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was first let.

The property originally became void in March 2022. An instruction sheet for works was completed on 8 March 2022. An interim inspection sheet was completed in July 2022, but it contained very little information. A post inspection was completed on 11 August 2022 which stated that works still required were new flooring in the toilet and a new lock required for the back door. The resident completed a viewing of the property in August 2022, but the property was sent back as void as further sockets were required for the resident’s household, there was an issue with the electrics, and it was determined that a re-wire would be appropriate. A further post inspection form was completed again on 3 October 2022 which stated no additional work was required.
The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response that there had been delays in letting the property. It further acknowledged that it had not met its lettable standard in respect of the flooring, the leaks, the doors, the loft, and the fencing. The landlord did not consider however that it had failed in respect of its response to the resident’s report of asbestos shortly after he moved in.
The landlord offered compensation. The total amount offered was £1252.93. This amount included some of what the resident had requested for his out-of-pocket expenses. In addition to this the landlord offered £100 decorating voucher due to the inconvenience of the leak. The amount did not however cover the resident’s request for the full cost of the replacement fence, 4 weeks full rent reduction and the resident’s request for compensation for stress and inconvenience.

The asbestos.

It is acknowledged that the resident states that he reported the asbestos a week earlier but had not received a response. The landlord states that it first received a report of the suspected asbestos on 4 November 2022. It is further noted that the resident maintains that the asbestos was within the boundary of his property. The landlord states it was not. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident or the landlord’s position but there is no evidence to support either version of events. The Ombudsman cannot therefore reasonably establish whether a report had been made a week earlier or whether the asbestos was within the boundary of the property.
The landlord’s asbestos contractor attended on 4 November and the evidence shows that the contractor removed the large items on that day and then returned on Monday 7 November to complete removal of bricks and rubble. It shows it attended again the following day. The reports show that it had risk assessed the area. It had also provided photographs taken before and after. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged It would be reasonable for a landlord to rely on the advice and reports provided by its specialist contactor in these circumstances. There is no evidence to show that the landlord was aware of these items prior to the property being let. From the evidence available this Service concludes that the explanation within the landlord’s complaint responses were reasonable in the circumstance. This Service has therefore not found any failing in the landlord’s handling of the report of asbestos.

The compensation for the fencing.

The resident’s claim for £2350 for the full cost of the replacement fence is acknowledged. The evidence does not show which particular fence or boundary this cost relates to. The landlord’s repair policy states that the resident is responsible for the rear boundary fences and fences between gardens. It states the landlord is responsible where the boundary adjoins open land. Its policy also states that when a property is relet the fences forming the boundary should be intact and in good condition. It goes on to state that if fencing had to be removed due to poor condition, then post/wire fencing would be installed.
The landlord advised this Service that the fence to the left was in poor condition, but it had agreed that this fence was the responsibility of the resident. This is not in accordance with the landlord’s policy which states where a property is relet the boundary fences should be intact and in good condition. If the fence was in poor condition at the point the complaint was being investigated, then it was likely that this poor condition was evident when the property was relet. Furthermore, the resident stated that he first raised the poor condition of the fence when he viewed the property. The landlord should have therefore ensured that the fence was in good condition or replaced it in accordance with its policy at this point. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord advised this Service that the rear fence was also in poor condition and as it adjoined open land it was responsible. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it should have either fully repaired or replaced the rear fence with post and rails. It calculated the compensation amount for the fence based on its assessment of the photos provided and what works it considered would have been required to bring the fence up to standard. The amount it offered was £500.
This Service is not able to assess the actual costs for remedying the issues with the rear fence or whether the full cost claimed by the resident for replacing the fence should be reimbursed. We do not make orders of compensation in the way that a court may order a payment of damages.
However, this Service can consider whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances and whether it had acted in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures. The landlord has not adhered to its policy in this case. It failed to ensure that the fences forming the boundary were in good condition. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord that he was particularly concerned as his son had severe autism and was at risk of wondering. This is why the resident went on to complete the works himself shortly after the landlord had refused. In addition to the redress the landlord had already offered towards the cost of the fence this Service has considered redress for the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort caused to the resident having to arrange the fence works himself and pursue his complaint further.

The reduction of rent for 4 weeks.

The resident considers that given all the issues with the property that he should not be charged for the first 4 weeks rent. The landlord acknowledged it had failed in meeting its lettable standard and offered a 50% reduction in the rent for the first 4 weeks. The issues that the resident raised would have certainly impacted the resident’s full enjoyment of the property, but this Service considers that the issues raised did not mean that the property was completely uninhabitable and the rent not chargeable. Given the number of issues the resident had to raise or repair himself this Service considers that the offer of 50% rent reduction was appropriate in these circumstances.
In summary this service considers the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to meet its lettable standard and it appropriately considered compensation. It reimbursed most of the cost that the resident had said he had incurred because of the landlord’s failings. The breakdown of the compensation however failed to include the stress, time and inconvenience caused to the resident in respect of all of the issues the resident had to raise. The resident had to organise skips to clear the loft. He had to arrange for his own contractors to attend to the fence. He had to order and arrange fitting of replacement flooring. He also arranged for pipes to be filled where he considered the leaks were coming from. He replaced taps that were leaking. In addition to this the resident was having to facilitate access to ensure works were being done. He also had to continue to report issues to his landlord and pursue his complaint. The impact of this has been considered in the compensation and a series of orders below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.

The tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow access to the property if the landlord needs to complete repairs and inspect. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement states that the resident must obtain permission in writing if he wanted to make any alterations within the property.
The landlord visited the resident to complete a new tenancy visit on 9 November 2022. It explained in its complaint response that as part of the visit it would take note of the condition of the property which was when it was noted that the resident had made several alterations without obtaining permission. It then explained that the decision to retrospectively approve the alteration would need to be made by its property inspector which it had also explained during its visit. This explanation and the need for further inspection was in accordance with its tenancy agreement and reasonable given the nature of the alterations that were listed.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord wishing to attend to complete an inspection following his complaint. Again, given the nature of the complaint and the issues raised about the condition of the property it was not unreasonable that the landlord wished to come out and inspect to enable it to fully investigate the issues raised. It is acknowledged that the resident was no doubt feeling frustrated with the number of issues that he had had to raise about the condition of the property since he had moved in which would have meant he would have had to facilitate access on numerous occasions. The landlord acknowledged this within its complaint response. It also apologised that its need to inspect the property after letting seemed inconsistent with the approach it had taken to prepare the property for reletting.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s request to be given 2 weeks’ notice where possible and adhered to that which was appropriate. The resident also requested that a member of staff did not contact him which the landlord adhered to.
It is acknowledged that the resident was feeling very frustrated with the landlord however this Service considers the landlord’s response to his concerns about the conduct of its staff was proportionate and in accordance with its duties under the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. The resident raised his request to escalate the complaint to a stage 2 on 6 December 2022. The landlord provided its response 25 days later on 16 January 2023 which was not in accordance with its own timescales set out in its policy and was a failing.
The landlord failed to fully investigate matters within its stage 1 response. This was evidenced in its stage 2 response where its findings differed considerably, and it acknowledged that it had failed to comply with its fit to let standard. The landlord appropriately considered resolution on that basis and offered compensation in its final response which was appropriate.
However, while the landlord agreed that it had not met its lettable standard it failed to consider and explain what had gone wrong within its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord also failed to consider any learning outcomes within its response to offer some reassurance that its service would improve and that these failings would not happen again.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property when it was first let.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £2002.93 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £1252.93 already offered in its complaint response if it has not done so already.
  2. £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property when it was let.
  3. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Review its void procedure to ensure:
  1. Void inspection reports provide a record of the condition of the property in conjunction with photographs of the property including the exterior garden and boundary fences.
  2. Post inspections provide a clear check against the landlord’s lettable standard.