South Holland District Council (202104237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104237

South Holland District Council

15 March 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability and condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
The report will also address the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord.

Summary of events

The Ombudsman understands that the resident and her daughter had been living in private rented accommodation, and following an accident impacting the resident’s mobility, she sought a move to a more suitable property through the Council. The landlord’s records show that in July 2020 it contacted the resident’s representative (her daughter) to say that a two-bedroom bungalow with a wet room was going to be available soon.
On 9 August 2020 the resident’s representative asked the landlord to provide further details about this property, including photos and detailed measurements of each room, the doorway widths, and the kitchen layout. The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the representative the next day about the property and followed this up in an email to confirm that the property was fully wheelchair adapted, had ramped access, a wet room and doors that had been widened. It was of the view that the property was therefore suitable and it would be making her an offer of this property.
There followed further correspondence between the representative and the landlord about the property, and on 11 August 2020 the landlord confirmed that the property may need further minor adaptations in the future but these would cause minor disruption as all the major adaptations had already been done.
On 10 September 2020 the landlord carried out a void inspection, and the subsequent report listed all the works that were needed to be completed to the property to bring it up to the required standard for letting. At the time the landlord also confirmed that once the void works had been completed it will be able to provide more specific measurements and floor plans.
The landlord’s records show that on 18 September 2020 there were emails between the representative and the landlord which included further details of the property, the floor plans, dimensions, photos, and door widths.
During this correspondence, the representative raised the issue of the parking of the grassy area outside the property. The representative explained that due to the resident’s current physical restrictions, she would need to step-free access from the house to a taxi to attend her medical appointments, and it would help her if the taxi could use the grassy area to the drop off/pick up. The landlord explained that the tenancy agreement stated that vehicles should not be driven over the grassed areas or parked on the grass, so it could not give permission for this. It also confirmed that that there was a tarmac path leading from the property to the dropped kerb on the road.
It was also confirmed by the landlord that the back door had not been widened and the kitchen door could be widened but this would have to go through an Occupational Therapist assessment (‘OT’) to get this work done as it involved major works to remove the hot water tank in the airing cupboard and changing to a combi boiler.
The ongoing correspondence between the representative and the landlord shows that the landlord agreed to consider the parking issue further, and having done so, it again confirmed what was initially advised was that if it was a one-off occasion, such as moving in, and if it was vitally necessary to get near the property, a vehicle could be temporarily parked on the grassed area. However, this would be a one–off and no permission could be granted for such ongoing use. The landlord reiterated that there was a path straight down to the road and a dropped kerb at the end of the path suitable for wheelchair access.
On 20 September 2020 the representative emailed the landlord to confirm that the resident would accept the property. The landlord explained that pre-tenancy visits were not possible due to COVID restrictions, but once all the works were completed at the property, it would arrange to meet at the property to inspect it and sign the tenancy agreement.
There followed correspondence between the landlord and the representative about whether the tenancy paperwork could be sent and returned by post (rather than via an in-person meeting). The landlord reiterated that ‘it would be better to do the tenancy sign-up at the property in person. That way both you and your mum can have a look at the property to make sure you are both happy’.
On 23 September 2020 the representative emailed the landlord to say that, whilst the resident was happy and excited about the property, and that it ‘ticked so many boxes’ she was still very worried about the parking issue. She explained that she was requesting permission only for taxis to be able to park on the grassed area for dropping off/picking up only.
The landlord responded the next day and confirmed that it was not able to grant the permission the representative had asked for. It reiterated that the terms of the tenancy do not allow for vehicles to park on the grassed area, and this is what the resident will be signing up for if she accepts the tenancy. The landlord provided the representative with a copy of the tenancy conditions.
Over the next couple of weeks the representative emailed the landlord about her reservations in accepting this property, mainly due to the parking issue. The landlord confirmed that it presently had no other suitable properties available.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 October 2020 all the void works had been carried out. The representative was also provided with confirmation of this and was given photos of the property.
The landlord completed a Risk Assessment Form on 6 October 2020 in preparation for the tenancy sign-up, which confirmed that the resident had mobility issues and was presently awaiting an OT assessment. It noted that no immediate adaptations were needed, but this would be reviewed in future subject to the OT assessment.
The landlord met with the resident and the representative at their current home to complete the tenancy sign-up and the records show they moved into the property on 9 October 2020.
On 16 Oct 2020 the representative emailed the landlord acknowledging that she did not have permission to park on the grassed area, but she queried why her neighbours were parking their cars on the grassed area.
On 5 November 2020 the representative logged a formal complaint with the landlord. The keys issues were summarised as: she was unhappy with the condition of the property e.g. grout in bathroom was dirty, there were marks on the walls; the toilet was too high; grab rail needs repositioning; she was still waiting for an OT assessment; large tree in the garden needed reducing. The representative regretted having accepted the property.
The records show that the OT assessment was done on 12 November 2020 and the OT report was issued on 27 November 2020. The report made several recommendations about the refurbishment of the wet room including a new lower toilet and wash basin; more space in the hallway for wheelchair; widening of doorways and a ramp to the rear door.
The OT recommendations were accepted by the landlord on 9 December 2020 and its internal correspondence confirmed that the works could proceed.
On 10 Dec 2020 the landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response:
1. It explained that the delay with the OT assessment was due to the local authority, and the landlord was not responsible for carrying out the assessment. It said that the resident could complain to the local authority about this issue.
2. It confirmed that further responsive repairs had been booked in over the next few weeks, including the tree maintenance works.
The representative was unhappy with the complaint response and requested that the complaint be escalated on 29 December 2020. The landlord then issued its final Stage 2 complaint response on 4 February 2021.
1. It maintained that the property met the needs of the resident at the time of the offer. It accepted that further adaptations were now needed and it said these would be carried out in accordance with the OT recommendations as soon as it is practical to do so.
2. It confirmed that it had used its discretion and had agreed to carry out tree works as a gesture of goodwill.
3. With regards to the parking issue, it said that it could not grant permission for the resident to park on the grass area. It explained that this was also discussed at the tenancy sign-up. The landlord said it was satisfied that the property was accessible from the road by wheelchair. It also said that if the resident parked on the grass this would be a breach of the tenancy.
4. The landlord confirmed that it was satisfied that the works carried out during the void period met its voids standard and was in accordance with its policy.
5. With regards to the tenancy sign-up process, it explained that due to COVID 19 restrictions at the time, viewings were only permitted at the tenancy sign-up meeting. The resident was provided with photos and room measurements and was offered the option to view the property at the tenancy sign-up meeting but she declined and chose to complete the tenancy sign-up at her old property instead.
6. It is noted that the landlord’s Stage 2 complaint response referred the resident to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (‘LGSCO’) if she wished to pursue her complaint further.
The Ombudsman understands that the representative then took her complaint to the LGSCO and she received its response in May 2021. The LGSCO confirmed that it could not look into the complaint and said that the complaint ought to be referred to the Housing Ombudsman Service instead. The representative then referred the complaint to this Service on 21 May 2021.
On 9 June 2021 the representative asked that the OT assessment works be ‘paused’ whilst this Service considered the complaint first.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to the concerns about the property

The resident’s representative has raised three related concerns about the property, which can be summarised as follows: the inability to view the property before signing the tenancy; the condition of the property when she moved in, and the parking issue.
With regards to the first issue of the lack of a viewing, the representative has said that she is unsure why a viewing was not allowed to take place. She says that she was given no options before signing the tenancy, and as such, she could not make a proper decision on the property and she feels the landlord has misled her and she had to ultimately sign for the tenancy blind.
Looking at the facts of the case, and the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was acting in accordance with its processes at that time to restrict property viewings due to the COVID restrictions. It is accepted that taking on a tenancy without a full inspection of the property is not ideal. However, the evidence in this case shows that the landlord explained to the representative on many occasions why a pre-tenancy inspection was not possible. It also explained that a full inspection of the property could be done at the tenancy sign-up meeting.
The correspondence between the parties shows that the landlord urged the representative to view the property in person at the tenancy sign-up meeting to make sure that the property was right for them. However, whilst the representative declined to do so, and she may well have her reasons for declining to view the property in person, the fact remains that the landlord did not act inappropriately or unreasonably in this instance.
Furthermore, the landlord also provided the representative with sufficient information about the property, including photos of the rooms, the dimensions and details requested by the representative, in order to enable the representative to be able to make an informed decision. Again, whilst this may not have been an ideal situation, given the COVID restrictions, the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its process in place at that time.
It is also noted within the correspondence that the representative confirmed that the information provided by the landlord about the property was sufficient to enable her to make a decision.
With regards to the representative’s concerns about the condition of the property, she has said that as said that additional alterations were needed e.g. a lower toilet and the property was not in a good condition. Looking at the available evidence, there is nothing to suggest that the property was unsuitable for a wheelchair user. The landlord’s internal records show that the property was previously occupied by a wheelchair user and was therefore considered suitable for the resident, and that further adaptations may be needed subject to an OT assessment.
At the time of offering the property and the resident accepting it, the landlord was not made aware that the height of the toilet was an issue. As explained above, the property had already had major adaptations done so as to be suitable for a wheelchair user, including access ramps, widening of some of the doors, and also a wet room with grab rails. Based upon the information available at that time, there was nothing to suggest that the property was not suitable for the resident.
Also, there is no evidence that the issue regarding the height of the toilet was brought to the landlord’s attention as a repair request. The first mention of the toilet height was in the formal complaint, and this issue was addressed in the OT assessment a few weeks later. The landlord responded appropriately by explaining that any such changes made to the property due to disability are done so following OT recommendations.
Continuing with the concerns about the property condition, the representative has said that the landlord misled them about the condition of the property and that it was ‘ready to go’ and that only minimal works may be needed, when in reality it still needed major works and adaptations.
The landlord has provided its ‘Housing Repairs and Fitness for Habitation Policy’ which sets out its ‘minimum lettings standard’ and its process for ensuring that a property is brought up to the required standard to be re-let. This includes carrying out works to ensure that, for example, the property is safe and secure, all services work, and it has a functioning bathroom.
Looking at the available evidence, it is noted that the landlord advised the representative from the outset that significant adaptations had already been made to the property to make it suitable for a wheelchair user, and this was acknowledged by the representative. The landlord acted appropriately by making it clear that there may well still be further alterations needed but that this would be based upon the OT assessment and recommendations, which was a reasonable response to the concerns raised.
The landlord has also provided its void inspection reports, photos and works invoice which all demonstrate that the property had been appropriately inspected and that voids works were carried out, and the property was then signed off as having met the lettings standard. It is acknowledged that the landlord did carry out some ad-hoc responsive repairs after the resident had moved in, but this does not mean that the property was not suitable for letting.
With regards to the representative’s concerns about the parking issue, she has requested that the landlord provide its consent for taxis to wait on the grass area outside the property. The representative has said that the main reason for accepting this property was because she thought she would be able to have vehicle access across the grass area, and that if this had been declined from the start, she would not have accepted this property.
Looking at the facts and the available evidence, it is noted that the tenancy agreement states that vehicles can only be parked on hardstanding areas (drives) and not on the grass area. It also states that tenants and their visitors must not drive across a kerb or a grassed area to access the property.
The landlord responded appropriately to the representative’s concerns by consistently explaining at various points before the tenancy was accepted that it was not possible to give permission to drive over the grass area and that permission would only be given for the day of moving to assist with removals. The landlord has explained that the reason for this was because access is over a raised kerb, there is fencing/bollards installed on the grassed area, and there are mains services located under the grassed area and the services have not been laid for car traffic and this would damage them. The kerb would also need to be lowered and this would require prior permission from the local authority.
The representative has also raised the point that her neighbours have been driving over the grass area and using it for parking their vehicles. That may well be the case, but the Ombudsman can only look at the resident’s complaint and address how the landlord responded to the complaint. Overall, whilst the representative’s disappointment with the landlord’s decision is noted, there is nothing to suggest that the decision was incorrect or unreasonable and the landlord has acted in accordance with the terms of the tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Whilst the landlord’s handling of the substantive complaint issues were appropriate and reasonable, there were shortcomings in its handling of the associated complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it handles complaints and the timeframes for its responses. It is required to issue a Stage 1 response within 15 working days, and a final Stage 2 response within 20 working days.
In this case, the complaint was logged on 5 November 2020 and the Stage 1 response was issued on 10 December 2020, which was outside of the policy timeframe. Similarly, the complaint was escalated on 29 December 2020, and the Stage 2 response was not issued until 4 February 2021, again slightly exceeding the timeframe set out in the complaints policy. These delays would constitute a minor service failure.
Whilst the minor delays are noted, the more concerning aspect of the landlord’s complaint handling in this case is in regard to the incorrect information given in its Stage 2 complaint response. This letter incorrectly signposts the resident to the Local Government Ombudsman, rather than the Housing Ombudsman. Given that the complaint related landlord activities mainly to do with the void works and tenancy issues (parking), the resident should have been given details of the Housing Ombudsman to pursue her complaint.
As a consequence of being given the incorrect information, the resident went to the LGSCO with her complaint and she was then redirected to this Service as the complaint issues did not fall within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction. This resulted in unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the resident, and unnecessarily prolonged the potential resolution to the complaint.
Looking at the overall handling of the complaint itself and taking into account the failures noted above, the Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation of £150 would be warranted in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the suitability and condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord duly acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the property and it has demonstrated that it responded appropriately to these issues and it acted in a reasonable manner and in line with its policies and procedures. Looking at the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall handling of this matter was appropriate.
With regards to the complaint handling, the landlord failed to act appropriately and in line with its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord delayed in issuing its responses, and it gave incorrect referral information to the resident which resulted in unnecessarily prolonging matters and causing additional inconvenience to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified with its handling of the complaint.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

If not done so recently, the landlord to review its complaint-handling and ensure that tenants are given the correct referral rights to the correct Ombudsman scheme, so as to avoid similar failures as noted in this case.
If not already done so, please provide the resident with a timescale of when outstanding necessary works as recommended in the OT assessment can be completed, providing a clear breakdown of the remaining works/adaptions to be carried out.
Reconsider your position with regards to using the grass area for occasional pick up/drop offs for medical visits and inform the resident of your decision.