Southampton City Council (202215946)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215946

Southampton City 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. Response to the concern raised about the electrics at the property.
2. Handling of the decant process and transfer request following a fire at the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property was assigned to the resident on 17 February 2020 via mutual exchange. The property is a two-bedroom flat.
The resident lives at the property with her 3-year-old son. During the timeframe investigated the resident reported to the landlord that she developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
An Electrical Installation Condition Report / Periodic Inspection (EICR) was completed in August 2014 and a certificate was issued at that time.

Scope of investigation

In her formal complaint, the resident said the landlord’s negligent actions had led to the fire which caused her to develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between health conditions experienced by the resident and her family and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident and her household.

Landlord’s obligations and policies

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep installations for the supply of electricity in repair and proper working order. Under section 9A of the Act, landlords must ensure the property is fit for human habitation and free from electrical hazards when the tenancy is granted and throughout the tenant’s occupation.
The landlord’s responsibility for the repair and maintenance of installations for the supply of electricity is echoed in the Tenancy Handbook.
The landlord’s decant procedure for essential maintenance states a decant may arise in a number of circumstances including:
1. Planned major works meaning that the property is uninhabitable
2. In cases of emergency such as fire or flooding.
Its process states the Housing Management Officer (HMO) must establish if a tenant can stay with family or friends or if a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) is more suitable for shorter periods. If B&B is the best option, the HMO will need to check with the Homelessness Team who hold a list of approved B&B’s across the city.
Its procedure makes clear that decants for essential maintenance fall outside of the council’s main lettings policy and a suitable property is identified by the Allocations Team which means that the council selects a suitable property for the tenant and makes the offer to them. There are occasions when a temporary decant becomes a permanent one (i.e. where a tenant wishes to remain in the decant property). Any requests are given due consideration with the final decision resting with the District Housing Manager (DHM).
Its policy states the criteria for providing alternative property is that a tenant will be allocated a property with the same number of bedrooms as the property they already live in. Accommodation will generally be allocated according to the tenant’s needs and with regard to the council’s Allocation Policy 2019 which will be assessed by:
1. Family composition.
2. Location for specified reasons.
3. Tenants stated preference.
4. Any adaptations required due to disability.

Summary of events

On 28 March 2022, the landlord installed a new storage heater at the property.
On 1 April 2022, there was a fire in the meter box at the property which is located externally. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (The Fire Service) attended and put out the fire.
The landlord immediately offered the resident temporary accommodation in a Bed and Breakfast (B&B). The resident declined its offer opting to stay with her mum.
The landlord’s records dated 4 April 2022 referred to it having inspected the property with the utility company, finding that the fire had melted the meter cupboard, the supply cable to the property, the supply cable to the communal heating controller and a third unidentified cable. The notes state nothing could be done until such time the supply cables had been replaced by the energy company.
On 5 April 2022, the resident requested the EICRs for the property from the landlord.
The landlord’s note dated 6 April 2022 stated there was no damage to the property internally however the double glazed bedroom window needed replacing and the porch fascia needed repairing but was “structurally sound”.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord offered to temporarily decant the resident and her son into alternative accommodation at address a until works to the property were completed. The property had 2 bedrooms and was “dog suitable”. The resident’s rehousing application went live on 12 April 2022 allowing her also to bid for properties via the landlord’s choice-based letting scheme.
On 14 April 2022, the resident declined its offer of alternative accommodation at address a.
On 21 April 2022, the resident emailed the HMO explaining that she declined the alternative property offered because it had storage heaters and was not suitable. She said whilst the landlord’s policy may be for it to look for a like for like property, it had not taken into account her mental health. She explained that she was suffering from PTSD due to the fire incident. The resident also stated that she declined the B&B because it was in the wrong part of the city, away from her family and son’s preschool.
The landlord replied explaining that the decant procedure only allowed for ‘like for like’ properties, meaning a 2-bedroom flat or maisonette and that the property offered had been the only available suitable property. It noted that the resident had asked to keep her garden and stay on the east side of the city due to her son’s schooling.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord received a letter from the resident’s GP stating that the resident was expressing symptoms of PTSD and anxiety following recent events. The GP stated that the symptoms would be exacerbated if the resident were to return to the property. The HMO immediately updated the decant report to include the medical evidence and raised the request for a permanent decant with the DHM.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord confirmed that it was waiting for the utility company, to undertake the work to restore the electricity supply to the property. It had applied for new meters and meter tails (cables that carry the supply from the grid to the meter board) but these issues were now holding up progress.
On 28 April 2022, the DHM agreed to the request for the decant to be a permanent move for the resident.
The landlord’s internal note dated 29 April 2022 referred to speaking to the utility company who said they were unable to reconnect the existing cable but would need to install a new cable to the property.
On 4 May 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf reiterating that the resident had suffered PTSD since the fire, it had offered B&B accommodation on the wrong side of the city, and that the resident had been unhappy with the offer at address a due to it having storage heaters. They stated she also needed a garden and two fire exits in case there was another fire.
The landlord replied to the MP on 6 May 2022 explaining the resident’s request to move into alternative accommodation had been approved, that this was on a like for like basis, meaning that she was eligible for a 2 bedroom flat or maisonette and that it had already offered her a suitable property in Staplehurst Close. It explained that most of its housing stock had the same heating system as the property and whilst a house was more likely to have an alternative heating method, the resident’s situation did not warrant her being positioned over those who, according to policy, were eligible / required a house. It said however its staff were monitoring empty properties that became available but it could not predict if any of these would have a garden and said that most flats did not.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident the EICR for the property (dated August 2014).
On 18 May 2022, the landlord offered the resident a ground floor flat at address b. The property had 2 bedrooms and gas central heating. The resident declined the property because it had no garden, and it was not near to her son’s school placement.
On 20 May 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She stated:
1. On 1 April 2022, she smelt smoke and saw flames outside her son’s bedroom window caused by a fire from the electrical meter.
2. The landlord’s apprentice had installed a storage heater at the property on 28 March 2022 and she believed this work carried out led to the fire.
3. The landlord had offered her a B&B which her solicitor told her should not have been offered to her as she had a 3-year-old child. She said she had been sleeping on the sofa with her son at her mum’s house since the fire and that the landlord was responsible for making her homeless.
4. She was offered a temporary transfer to a property with storage heaters in address a but she did not want a property with storage heaters. She reiterated that her mental health had not been taken into account by the landlord when it offered her this property.
5. She asked to be transferred to a house but had been told she was only eligible for a “like for like” property, however, she said as the property had a garden and 2 exits, she believed a house constituted like for like.
6. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the situation and she had not received any apology.
7. She had asked for the most recent EICR and only received this after 4 weeks. She said the last one was carried out in 2014 and she believed landlords were required to complete them every 5 years in order to prevent incidents like the fire.
8. She received the fire report from the Fire Service that morning which stated the cause of the fire was faulty electrics.
The landlord’s records show it discussed the complaint with the resident during a call with the resident on 27 May 2020 and that on the same date its HMO emailed the relevant internal teams highlighting the resident’s preference for a garden, 2 exits and no storage heaters.
On 20 June 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. Within its response it acknowledged whilst there was no internal damage caused to the property by the fire, it had resulted in it being without electricity supply and because immediate reconnection was not possible, it was necessary to decant (move) her.
It stated regarding her complaint about her temporary housing transfer, she was immediately offered temporary accommodation following the fire on 1 April 2022. The landlord explained its offer of B&B as emergency accommodation was standard procedure, irrelevant of whether there were children in the household. It stated that she declined its offer, instead opting to stay with her mother.
The landlord said it advised her that a long-term solution was for it to move her into alternative accommodation and as per its process, this was approved on a ‘like for like’ basis, which in her case was another 2-bedroom flat/maisonette.
It said a report seeking to formally approve her move was approved on 8 April 2022 and her rehousing application went ‘live’ on 12 April 2022. It stated that a property in address a had already been identified, this was the same size, in a preferred location and also “dog suitable” with a garden. The landlord referred to her declining this property as it had the same heating system as the property. It said that she also declined the second property it had offered which it said was a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with a Housing Association, within her preferred area and had central heating but no garden.
Within its response, the landlord told the resident that its housing stock invariably had the same heating system as the property. It explained that whilst a house was more likely to have an alternative heating system, this was outside of its decant process which looked to move residents on a ‘like for like’ basis. It said whilst it understood she had been through a very difficult experience, they do not warrant her being positioned over those who, according to its policy, were eligible for a house and in many instances had been waiting for 5 to 10 years very often with their own set of challenging circumstances.
The landlord said its HO had been in regular contact with her working hard to identify alternative accommodation. It said they would continue to monitor empty properties that become available however it could only operate with the stock it had and most flats did not have gardens.
Regarding her complaint about the electrical work carried out and use of an apprentice, it could confirm that an apprentice in year 4 being left for periods of time to carry out the task of replacing a storage heater was acceptable, standard practice and within their skill set. The landlord said they were under the supervision of a qualified electrician who inspected the work upon completion. It said there was no evidence to suggest that these works were in any way connected to the fire, the fire report identified that the source of the fire was the external supply and metering arrangements (owned by the utility company) and not its internal installation.
The landlord stated an electrical inspection was carried out in August 2014 and at that time a 10-year electrical periodic inspection regime was in place therefore this was valid until 2024.
On 22 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding a property she had seen at address c that she said was vacant and asked to be considered for this property. The landlord replied on 23 June 2022 stating that unfortunately it could not consider the resident for a 2-bedroom house as advised in its stage 1 response. The resident contacted the landlord again about this property on 24 June 2022 and she also told the landlord she had placed a bid for a 2- bedroom property at address d.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord updated the resident regarding the works to the property explaining it was still waiting for the utility company to reinstate the supply. It also explained she could continue to bid on 2 bedroom properties but any residents with higher points that had also placed bids would likely win the property.
On 18 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her email the resident explained that whilst the property was a large 2 bedroom ground floor with a garden and own entrance, she was “petrified” to return to live there due to the fire. The resident said she was unhappy about being asked to give up her garden for a flat and she explained she had a dog and son who had outside toys and she reiterated her preference for a house with a garden and no storage heaters. She said that a 2 bedroom was a 2 bedroom regardless if it was a house or not. She identified a 2 bedroom house at address c that was smaller than her property yet she was told she was not eligible and up against others on the housing list.
The resident said she had been diagnosed with PTSD following the fire and her doctor also wrote to the landlord stating this and she was still ignored. She said the landlord had not taken into account her mental health. Her son started school in September and this whole ordeal had been detrimental to his development and this had also been over looked. She said the landlord had ignored her request for an explanation as to why electrical inspections had not been carried out every 5 years and when she had moved in. The resident said this was recommended in the 2014 EICR. The resident said the lack of housing for 15 weeks had “taken its toll” on her.
On 12 August 2022 the landlord provided a stage 2 final complaint response in which it did not uphold her complaint. Within its response the landlord listed events since the fire incident on 1 April 2022.
It stated in regard to her complaint that it has not appropriately prioritised her need to move, the landlord explained its decant process provided guidance for when residents were unable to stay in their property due to emergency situations like a fire or a flood or where essential maintenance work is required. It said that this document stated the HMO must establish if the tenant needed to be provided with emergency B&B accommodation or whether they have friends and family they can stay with. It said in the resident’s case she was offered B&B accommodation but had declined this option preferring to stay with her family. It acknowledged that the resident later advised that the B&B offered was in the wrong area and she wanted to stay near to her home as this was where her connections were. However, it said its HMO worked with the Homelessness Team to identify a suitable temporary accommodation but unfortunately, found that B&Bs tended to be located near to the city centre and that it had no control over this.
It explained that under its decant process it will consider if the decant should be permanent or temporary and as there was no internal fire damage, the decant was originally supposed to be temporary. It said however it then offered her a permanent decant following receipt of medical evidence from the resident’s GP on 25 April 2022 advising that due to trauma suffered following the fire, she felt she could not return to the property. It said its HMO quickly identified 52 Staplehurst Close which was deemed suitable as a ‘like for like’ property however on 14 April 2022, she turned down its offer stating that the lay out meant that her son’s bedroom was on the same side as in the property, and the fire had started outside.
The landlord explained that subsequently on 18 May 2022, it identified a two bedroom ground floor flat at 1 Roman Court which was deemed suitable. It said this had gas central heating as opposed to the storage heaters that the resident objected to. The resident declined this also as it was not near her son’s school placement and there was no garden. The HMO advised it offered properties based on bedrooms and not amenities.
It said its HMO continued to search for suitable properties that could accommodate the resident’s like for like need, but was not successful. It referred again to the property the resident had identified in address c and the reason why it could not offer her this property.
The landlord said it disagreed with the resident’s comment that it had made her homeless through neglect that caused the fire. It said the fire report stated that the fire began in the meter cupboard outside the property and that this cupboard housed the electricity meter which was owned and maintained by the utility company. It stated that for safety reasons only the utility company’s trained operatives were allowed to work on the electricity meter.
The landlord stated that the fire report written by the Fire Service stated the cause of the fire was “accidental”, the source of ignition was “Electricity supply – Wiring, cabling, plugs” and that this occurred external to the property. It said that the report did not attribute blame to either itself of the utility company. The landlord stated it did not cause the fire and has responded only as the landlord to ensure that the resident was adequately housed while the repairs to the supply are carried out.
Regarding her comment that it had not sufficiently considered the effect of the situation on her mental health, it reiterated that it could not agree the cause of the fire could be attributed to it and it had responded appropriately as the resident’s landlord by following its decant procedure. It referenced its agreement to offer her a permanent decant after receiving a letter from her GP. It said it immediately began searching for suitable like for like properties, but as established none had met all of the resident’s stipulations. The landlord stated that it done all it could to find a suitable property but this had been hampered by the lack of available housing stock. It had the utmost sympathy for the resident and her son and what they have been through, but this did not change the housing stock it had to work with.
It reiterated that the work carried out to install the storage heater three days before the fire broke out was checked and signed off by the apprentice’s colleague, who was fully qualified. The landlord again said that the electrical safety certificate was up to date according to the legislation it was issued under and that there was no requirement for it to apply the new rules retrospectively.
The landlord however said it did expect that an electrical inspection take place when a new tenancy commences and it stated that one was booked for 19 February 2020, which was a few days after the resident moved into the property. Its records show that the tradesperson was refused access to the property and could not complete the inspection. It said even if the property had been inspected when the resident moved in, the inspection would have only included limited checks to external apparatus such as the meter because it was not owned by the landlord and was the responsibility of the Distribution Network Operator (DNO). It was aware that meter alterations had previously taken place through an utility company, which is also not its responsibility.
Regarding the effect of events on her son over the past 15 weeks, the landlord said its staff were sympathetic to both the resident and her son’s situation. However, it did not cause the fire and had reacted by doing as much as it could to rehouse her and her son. The landlord explained it allocated homes due to evidenced needs it had made two acceptable property offers, but these did not meet with her stipulations. It said it had continued to search however without success.
It noted from earlier correspondence that the resident was looking to be compensated following the fire and it could see she had been advised how to make a claim against its insurers. The landlord said it had checked with the insurance team on 3 August 2022 and at that point they had not received the claim form that was sent to the resident on 26 April 2022. It stated that if she wished to pursue this claim, she should return the form and it provided the email address for her to send it to.
The landlord said the work at the property was close to completion, and it was awaiting contact from the resident in order to arrange the final electrical testing and to fit the smoke alarms. It stated it would again offer the property at 38 Staplehurst Close as this was a like for like property in one of the areas that the resident stated she preferred. If she declined this offer, then it would deem that all options had been exhausted and it would expect the resident to return to live at the original property.

Events post the landlord’s final response

On 24 August 2022, a new Electrical Installation Condition Report / Periodic Inspection (EICR) was completed and a certificate was issued.
On 7 September 2022, the landlord told the resident that unfortunately it still did not have a property ready date but its DM had chased this again that day. It said the property at address a was still available however it explained it could not hold this property any longer and asked the resident to confirm if she wanted to accept this alternative property or wait for the property to become ready.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord met with the resident at the property and the parties agreed a list of outstanding repairs that the landlord would complete on a “repair promised”. These included bricking up the old meter box to be bricked up or the door replaced and painted and rubble removed.
On 10 October 2022, the resident moved back into the original property.
On 3 November 2022, the resident contacted this service as she was unhappy with the service provide by the landlord in respect of the condition of the electrics at the property, its failure to rehouse her in a suitable property and the lack of compensation offered.
The parties both supplied this service with the fire report issued by the Fire Service that attended and put out the fire on 1 April 2022. This report states the fire stated in: “external fittings”, that the main cause of the fire was: “’faulty fuel supply-electricity’, that the source of ignition: “Electricity supply – Wiring, cabling, plugs” and in the summary: “faulty mains electrical fuse box and meter…”.
In her communication to the Ombudsman dated 19 February 2024, the resident said no appointment was made by the landlord to carry out an electrical check when she moved into the property in 2020, nor did she refuse access to any contractor. The resident said the porch that sustained damage by the fire had not been replaced. She said whilst an operative came out to look at it, no further action was taken.

Assessment and findings

Response to the concern raised about electrics at the property.

The service recognises that the fire in the external meter/fuse box that occurred at the property on 1 April 2022 was extremely distressing for the resident and her son. The landlord had attended 3 days prior to the fire breaking out to install new storage heaters in the property. Given the fire incident happened only days later, it is understandable why the resident believes the two events are connected. However, this investigation found no clear evidence to establish that the works carried out by the landlord on 28 March 2022 led to or caused the subsequent fire. Although the fire report issued by the Fire Service says the source of ignition was “wiring, cabling, plugs”, it confirms that the source of the fire was in the external fuse/meter box and states the cause to be “faulty electricity supply”.
In its complaint responses the landlord strongly disputes that the work carried out on 28 March 2022 to install heaters was connected to the incident as it says this work was carried out internally and was checked and signed off by a fully qualified electrician. The landlord pointed out that the fire occurred in the external meter cupboard that housed the meter, which it said belonged to the utility company. This service accepts that some equipment in the location where the fire started including the electricity meter, is owned by the utility company, although the landlord would be responsible for other equipment in this location such as the incoming cable. However, the fire report does not suggest the cause of the fire related to the heater install and it is unclear from the information in the report if the fire was as a result of any fault by landlord or because of faulty equipment owned by the utility company. As such, there is a lack of evidence to establish that the 2 events were connected or that the fire occurred due to any failing by the landlord.
Following the fire on 9 May 2022, the landlord provided the resident with the electrical certification, as per her request. This shows that the previous electrical safety inspection for the property was carried out on 15 August 2014. In her complaint the resident said the landlord was required to carry out electrical safety checks at 5 year intervals as opposed to 10 years.
Whilst the landlord must carry out electrical checks at regular intervals, the landlord was not under any legal obligation to provide electrical safety checks at 5-year intervals. However, this service is mindful that on the certification itself, there is a recommendation for the next check to be within 5 years or when the tenancy changes. It is clear that no electrical safety check was completed at the property at the time it was assigned to the resident via mutual exchange in 2020. Although a landlord is not under any legal duty to complete an electrical safety check at this time, this service considers that it is good practice to do so. In its final response the landlord told the resident that the electrical safety certificate was up to date according to the legislation it was issued under however it acknowledged there was an expectation for it to carry out an electrical safety inspection where there had been a tenancy change.
In its final complaint response the landlord says electrical safety inspection was booked for 19 February 2020 but they could not get access, however the resident has told this service that she has no recollection of any appointment made or of her denying access as claimed. The landlord has not provided any supporting evidence to demonstrate an electrical safety inspection was booked with the resident at the property at this time.
Whilst a further electrical check after 5 years or when the resident moved into the property may not have prevented the fire, on balance, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have followed the recommendation in the EICR for the same and for it to adhere to its policy to complete an electrical check at the time the resident moved into the property. Therefore, in the circumstances its failure to take these steps constitute a failing in the service provided.
The resident requested compensation from the landlord as she believed its actions were negligent and the landlord told her she could make a claim with its insurance team and provided her with details about how to make a claim. In instances where residents allege negligence, it is usual for landlords to refer residents to its insurance or legal teams to make an insurance liability claim. Therefore, it acted reasonably when responding to this request. Nonetheless, given the failings identified in this report, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have offered redress during the complaints process which put right these failings. However, the landlord did not acknowledge any failings or offer any compensation for the stress, inconvenience time and trouble caused. In the circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation on this basis. This amount falls within the range recommended in our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where a failing adversely affects the resident.
The resident has also told this service that the landlord has not replaced the porch fascia which sustained fire damage. In its internal notes, the landlord had identified the porch fascia needed replacing therefore it is reasonable to include an order below for the landlord to contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the porch with a view to replacing the fascia if not already done so.

Handling the decant process and transfer request following a fire at the property.

As the fire caused damage to the mains electricity supply into the property, the landlord deemed the property uninhabitable and the resident and her son were required to transfer to alternative temporary accommodation. Again, this service recognises the significant inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of a situation she was put in through no fault of her own. Nonetheless, the landlord’s decision to decant her whilst the landlord undertook works to the property, was appropriate given the lack of any power at the property.
It is noted that ultimately the resident opted to return to the property once electricity had been restored and the window had been replaced. However, it is clear from the landlord’s records and communications with the resident during the weeks after the fire, that it followed its decant policy when handling the resident’s housing transfer including her request for a permanent decant.
Initially the landlord offered the resident emergency B&B accommodation. This is in accordance with its decant procedure which requires it to identify whether emergency B&B accommodation or staying with friends or family is more suitable in the circumstances. The resident opted to stay at her mums telling the landlord that the B&B was too far from the area she lived in where her family and child’s preschool placement was. It is acknowledged the resident and her son were sleeping on the sofa at her mum’s house which is far from ideal but because the B&B was in the wrong area, she did not accept the offer which is understandable. However the landlord explained it had checked but there were no B&Bs in her area as they were near the city centre which is supported by the evidence. As this service recognises the options for emergency accommodation were limited, despite the location of the B&B, its offer shows the landlord took sufficient steps in the circumstances to attempt to provide emergency accommodation.
The landlord offered the first property to the resident within a week of the fire. As this had 2 bedrooms, this met the requirement in its decant procedure to offer a property with the same number of bedrooms. It is acknowledged that the resident declined this property because it had storage heaters and she said that because of the effect of the fire on her mental health, she felt unable to reside anywhere with the same heaters as those in her property. She provided medical evidence from her GP which confirmed the resident was suffering from PTSD as a result of the fire and recommended that landlord permanently re-house her and her son.
The landlord immediately added the medical evidence to the decant report and raised her request with the DHM demonstrating it dealt with her request for a permanent decant in accordance with its procedure. Her request was approved 3 days later on 28 April 2022, and it subsequently offered her a second alternative property at 1 Roman Court on 18 May 2022 which had gas central heating as per her preference. The resident declined the property because it had no garden and was not sufficiently near her son’s school placement.
In her communications with the landlord, the resident explained that her request for the new property to have a garden with 2 exits constituted like for like because the property had these features as such her requests were reasonable.
Bearing in mind the landlord has limited available housing stock, it could not reasonably be expected to offer a property which met all the resident’s preferences. In its responses the landlord explained the main criteria for like for like was the number of bedrooms and not amenities such as a garden. It said its housing stock was limited and it could not offer a house as per her request as these were generally bigger so not “like for like” and explained her circumstances did not warrant her being positioned over families who, according to policy, were eligible / required a house. As the second alternative property offered was a 2 bedroom property on the East side of the city, this was in line with its decant procedure as it matched the size property required and took into account preferred location.
This service recognises the fire event as well as the need to decant had a detrimental impact on the resident and her son and caused significant distress and inconvenience. However, the landlord has demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to re-house her whilst works were undertaken at the property. Further, by approving the request for a permanent transfer, this shows the landlord took into account the resident’s health condition and vulnerability. Whilst it did not agree with her that a house was like for like, the tone of its communication with the resident did not appear heavy-handed and overall the evidence indicates that it was empathetic to her situation.
In summary, the landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation in accordance with its decant procedure, agreeing to her request to be permanently decanted. Whilst the resident ultimately decided (following the landlord’s final complaint response) to return to the property once the works to restore the mains electricity and replace the window was completed, overall the landlord has demonstrated that it acted appropriately in its handling of the decant process and transfer request.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the concern raised about the electrics.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling the decant process and transfer request following a fire at the property.

Reasons

There is insufficient evidence to establish any link between work carried out by the landlord in the property a few days before and the fire in the external meter cupboard at the property. However, as the landlord did not follow the recommendation in the 2014 certificate for the next EICR to be within 5 years or when the tenancy changed which is good practice, it did not act reasonably.
The landlord offered emergency B&B accommodation following the fire and agreed to the resident’s request for a permanent decant on receipt of medical evidence. Whilst the 2 alternative properties may not have met all of her preferences, they did meet the main requirements as per its policy.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 in compensation for the stress, inconvenience time and trouble caused in respect of failings in its response to the concern she raised about the electrics.
3. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the porch with a view to replacing the fascia if not already done so.
4. Provide to this service evidence of compliance with the above orders.