Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited (202106192)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106192

Southway Housing Trust (Manchester) Limited

18 January 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The decant process due to bathroom works.
2. A Right to Buy (RTB) application.
3. Reports of pest infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident’s mother occupied a property (property A) on an assured tenancy with protected rights. In 2012 the resident’s mother passed away and the resident moved in to property A to look after her younger siblings, who were too young to succeed the tenancy. The landlord has said the resident should have been asked to sign a new tenancy agreement without protected rights. However, in error, she was treated as a successor to property A and was not asked to sign a new tenancy agreement. The landlord has said a statutory succession could not be granted as the resident had not lived in property A for the preceding 12 months. The landlord says the resident was granted a discretionary succession.
In 2015, the resident was asked to decant from property A for 6 weeks, in order for repairs to be carried out. The landlord does not hold a copy of the decant licence from that time. At the end of the 6 week period, the resident says she was told by the landlord she would be moved to the decant property (the property) permanently, and property A was rented to someone else. The resident signed a tenancy agreement for the property commencing December 2015, in January 2016, which stated it was an assured tenancy with protected rights.
On 28 August 2018 the resident received an email from the landlord which said, “People who were tenants at the time of stock transfer (Nov 2007) signed an agreement that meant that they retained rights that they had as Council tenants, which aren’t available to those who signed up after that date. As you inherited your Mother’s tenancy you inherited the same conditions which then transferred with you”.
The resident currently occupies the property, a 3 bedroom house, on an assured tenancy, and lives with her son.

Summary of events

On 30 March 2021, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident and said the landlord had been trying to obtain access to the property to carry out necessary repairs (replacing the bath and joists and providing new vinyl flooring) since 22 October 2020. It said the resident had failed to respond to correspondence. The landlord explained it wanted access from 6 April 2021 for 5 days, and it would house her in suitable temporary accommodation. It pointed out her obligation under section 3.20 of the tenancy agreement, to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs and said if she did not contact the landlord by 13 April 2021 to make arrangements, legal action may be taken.
The resident reported pests in the property on 21 April 2021. The landlord emailed pest control and it advised that it had issues with staff being off due to the pandemic, but hoped to carry out pest proofing in May 2021.
On the same day, 21 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with details of how she would be compensated for decanting for 4 nights from 1 June 2021, in to a caravan. It said the cost was £50 per night, so added up to £200, but it was “willing to provide for the amount you have asked, which is £300 and hope this will compensate for any inconvenience”.
An internal email dated 22 April 2021 confirmed a key safe lock would be fitted at the property on 28 May 2021, prior to repairs being carried out from 1 to 5 June 2021, and a 4 digit code was provided.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord confirmed the cost of staying at the caravan was £60 per night, not £50 per night.
The resident completed an application to purchase the property on 18 May 2021, under the RTB process. The landlord received the application on 10 June 2021 and acknowledged it on 9 July 2021, confirming that the resident had been admitted to the RTB scheme.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 3 June 2021 noted the work at the property had been completed, with the exception of fitting 2 tiles. The job record states the bath was removed and refixed in order for rotten joists to be renewed.
In an email exchange with the landlord on 11 June 2021, the resident, who was decanted from 1 to 4 June 2021, said she had been underpaid for being decanted and she had not received payment on time so she had had to fund the decant herself. In response, the landlord said a payment of £300 had been agreed, and that was what she had been paid. The resident also said the workmen had changed the key code, so she could only get in using her son’s key, and there was a smell of solvent in the property and missing tiles.
On 14 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that she did not want its decant officer to attend the property the following day. She said the work was unfinished, she was unable to access the property, and she was unhappy with having been offered £100 compensation.
The landlord chased pest control on 6 July 2021, and asked it to contact the resident. There is no evidence it did that, or that the landlord followed this up.
The landlord sent a Section 125 Notice to the resident on 24 August 2021 confirming her right to buy the property at a reduced price based on an 11 year discount. The resident then queried the number of years discount she had and an amended letter was sent stating she qualified for a 5 year discount.
The resident submitted an undated complaint about:
1. Being decanted from the property for repairs, and the landlord not covering the costs as agreed. She should have received £60 per night for 4 nights in the caravan, and £100 for distress and inconvenience, totalling £340, but she only received £300.
2. Being unable to access the key safe when she returned home.
3. The work in the property being unfinished – tiles were left off and the ceiling had not been taken down. The property was also not cleaned.
4. Being upset at the way she was being treated by the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 September 2021 having had the complaint referred to it by the Ombudsman on 30 June 2021:
1. Regarding the decant, it had spoken to the resident on 14 April 2021 and she agreed that she would go to her caravan while the work was ongoing. If she had not received the agreed £300 she should get in touch.
2. It apologised for her not having been told that the key safe code had been changed.
3. Regarding the repairs and redecorations, all work had been completed but, if there were outstanding issues, it could arrange an inspection.
4. In terms of compensation for the decant, it had agreed £300. If the resident wanted more, it would need to understand on what basis that was claimed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2021, saying the stage 1 response was insufficient.
The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 4 November 2021, to discuss her concerns. The resident says she was offered about £700 compensation by the landlord verbally, to resolve her complaint, which she did not accept. She said she also asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained she was only entitled to a Right to Acquire (RTA) rather than a RTB. This was because she had succeeded to the tenancy at property A by discretionary succession. Therefore, she did not have preserved rights of succession. It explained she was entitled to a £10,000 discount on the valuation price of the property, if she chose to buy it.
The landlord recorded a job for pest proofing the property on 23 November 2021. Its records say access was refused by the resident on 8 December 2021 and the job was then put on hold, although it is not clear why that was the case.
On 25 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that her complaint had not been dealt with at stage 2. This was acknowledged the same day, and she was advised it would be investigated at stage 2.
On 10 March 2022, a voicemail was left for the resident, advising that pest proofing would take place on 15 March 2022. The landlord’s records show that it was for scheduled for 21 March 2022 but, according to the resident, the work was actually completed on 4 April 2022. Then, on 20 April 2022, the resident was contacted about pest proofing again and she told the landlord the work had been completed (although this was not reflected in the landlord’s records).
On 5 May 2022, the landlord obtained legal advice on whether the resident had the RTB. The legal advice concluded the resident did not have the RTB because she was not a “qualifying successor”. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 May 2022 to explain the legal advice it had received. It apologised for the incorrect information provided in the past, confirmed she only had the RTA, and offered £750 compensation to recognise its error.
The resident asked the landlord for a copy of its decant licence on 12 May 2022, and chased for this on 19 May 2022. The landlord responded the same day, and said it had asked for a copy to be provided. It also noted she had raised another issue with mice. It had referred the matter to the pest control team on 17 May 2022 and advised it was due out that day to resolve the problem. It is not known if anyone attended.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 May 2022, to say that her application for a RTA had been cancelled as she had not responded to its correspondence.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2022. It apologised for the delay, explaining that the response had been drafted in May 2022 and it had thought it had been sent at the time. It said:
1. It had responded to the complaint about RTB on 6 May 2022.
2. If she had incurred additional costs due to being decanted, it would compensate her for this, with the appropriate evidence.
3. It apologised for the key safe number being changed, and it had put a process in place to prevent that from happening again.
4. It had discussed other issues with her. These included:
  1. A member of staff had used her incorrect name when liaising with her over pigeon excrement on her solar panels. It apologised for this.
  2. She had had issues with mice and it accepted it should have put the offer of compensation it made to her in writing following that visit and list the actions that would be taken.
  3. Its housing system had indicated she had a RTB but this was an error and it apologised for that.
  4. If tiles were poorly fitted in the bathroom, it would arrange for the work to be made good.
5. The resident had been offered £750 for failings identified previously, and she was offered an additional £750 for the error regarding RTB.
The landlord contacted the resident and explained that, due to her arrears, someone would be contacting her to arrange a payment plan. It also warned her against withholding rent as that may cause her further issues. In addition, it asked that she let it know if there were any outstanding repairs that were needed and offered to meet with her if preferred.
The resident asked the landlord on 19 August 2022, not to contact her as she was upset with its conduct and it had made her feel unwell. The landlord replied the same day, and said it was sorry she was unwell and it noted she remained dissatisfied with its service. However, it explained her arrears were at £3,185.40 and no payment had been received since January 2022, so action could be taken against her tenancy, which it wanted to avoid. It encouraged her to speak with the Income Team and it offered to allocate a named contact going forward.
The resident reported on 13 September 2022, that she thought mice were accessing the property through a hole in a pipe from her garden. The landlord’s records state the repair was carried out on 6 October 2022 and the resident has confirmed she has had no further issues with mice at the property.

The tenancy agreement and landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

A tenancy agreement for the property, signed in January 2016, said it was an assured weekly tenancy with protected rights.
Shelter UK website explains where a secure tenancy began “before 1 April 2012 and the tenant dies, where there is no spouse or civil partner, a member of the tenant’s family succeeds if they occupied the property as their only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death and resided with the tenant for the 12 months before the tenant’s death”.
The landlord’s Alternative Temporary Accommodation (Decants) Policy says, a tenant would be expected to sign a ‘decant licence’ when they agree to temporarily move from their original home to another (decant) property, that the landlord provides. Once a property has been agreed upon, the parties will agree and sign terms and conditions of the decant licence.
The landlord’s RTB policy says a tenant must be using the property as their only or principal home and have spent the qualifying period in qualifying accommodation. It says, “Where a tenant has obtained their tenancy by way of statutory succession, they are permitted by legislation to count all years spent in the property continuously since the age of 16 towards their discount.”
Section 13.5 of the landlord’s Allocations Policy says upon the death of a tenant, the following persons have a right to succeed to this tenancy: “c) If the tenant has no surviving spouse or joint tenants, a member of their family (as defined in Section 113 Housing Act 1985) …may succeed as long as they occupied the premises as their only or principal home and lived with the tenant throughout the period of six months ending with the tenant’s death”.
The landlord’s guide to how it deals with complaints says a stage 1 response will be sent within 10 working days. A complaint can be escalated to stage 2 and a response will be sent within 20 working days. If a response is going to take longer, it will notify the complainant of when a response will be received.
Its Responsive Repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations. It says “customers must allow access for workers sent by the Trust to inspect and carry out repairs, servicing and improvements.”

Assessment and findings

Decant process due to bathroom works

The resident has explained she had reservations about decanting from the property in 2021, after decanting from property A in 2015, and not returning. While that is noted, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property in repair. The resident is unhappy the landlord sent a solicitor’s letter regarding access to the property and arranging a decant, but it does seem that previous attempts to contact her had been unsuccessful. Therefore, as it needed to carry out repairs, it was reasonable for it to warn that it may need to take legal steps if required. It is also important to note that the landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy makes it clear that the resident was obliged to allow access for workers “to inspect and carry out repairs, servicing and improvements”.
The bath at the property needed removing and work done on joists, so it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident be decanted for the works to be done. The resident has said the landlord agreed to pay the cost of her moving to a caravan (£240) plus an additional sum (£100), and not the £300 it has paid.
The evidence shows an agreement was made for the resident to move out of the property for 4 nights/5 days in to a caravan. The landlord was asked for a copy of the decant form/agreement, but sent only a blank template indicating one was not completed at the time. However, the evidence shows the landlord agreed to pay the resident £300 and, although it initially noted the cost of the caravan as being £50 per night, it then acknowledged the cost was £60 per night. However, there is no evidence of the landlord then agreeing to pay more than the £300 initially agreed, without evidence of the resident having been out of pocket more than that.
The landlord’s Decants policy says it will cover certain costs of the resident moving in an out of accommodation as a result of a decant, such as moving items or disconnecting services but it is silent on a case like this. However, its Customer Compensation Policy and Claims Procedure says “tenants who are forced to move on a temporary basis will be offered appropriate compensation relating to expense or inconvenience incurred as part of their move”. In this case, the landlord covered the resident’s caravan costs, and no evidence has been provided to indicate the resident incurred costs in excess of the £300 the landlord paid. Therefore, it complied with its obligations, and its actions were reasonable here.
There were issues following the decant process. The landlord fitted a key safe lock at the property and, although the resident was sent the code, this was evidently changed and she was not made aware of it. The resident was able to access the property using a key, but had to go to the trouble of following this up with the landlord, to get it resolved. The landlord did apologise for any inconvenience suffered, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
When the resident moved back in to the property, she contacted the landlord to report unfinished work, as tiles were left off and the ceiling had not been taken down. The notice of works made no mention of work needing to be done on the ceiling. However, the landlord did take reasonable steps to rectify any issues as it arranged for an inspection of the property on 4 November 2021.
Unfortunately, the landlord’s records do not show when the remedial work was carried out, and this raises an issue with its record keeping. It is also of note that the resident asked the landlord for a copy of the decant licence/form from 2015 but was told in June 2022 that it no longer held a copy. Due to the time that had passed, it is unsurprising a copy was not available, but the landlord has also been unable to provide a completed decant form from when the resident moved out in 2021. Therefore, it raises a question about its general record keeping, which is considered further below.
Overall, there was a shortfall in the landlord’s service in terms of the keycode being changed without the resident being made aware but this resulted only in very minor and brief inconvenience as it did not prevent her from accessing the property. Therefore, the apology given by the landlord sufficiently remedied this. Beyond that, the landlord’s handling of the decant and the associated financial redress was reasonable and no further action is required in that regard.

RTB application

It is important to explain at the outset that the Ombudsman is not in a position to determine legally, the type of tenancy the resident had in 2012 when she moved in to property A, or whether she now has a RTB. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice in that regard to consider her options in the circumstances. Instead, the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s more recent correspondence regarding a RTB application and whether its service was reasonable overall.
When the resident’s mother passed away in 2012, there was no one to succeed the tenancy. As the resident had not lived at property A in the 6 months prior to her mother’s death, according to section 5.5.1(b) of her late mother’s tenancy agreement, she had no statutory right of succession. This is also confirmed by the landlord’s Allocation policy from that time. It was clearly agreed though, that the resident could move in to property A to look after her siblings. Therefore, the landlord should have ensured a new tenancy with clear terms was put in place, but it failed to do so. As a result, this has contributed to there being significant confusion over the resident’s tenancy rights, which has clearly caused the resident a lot of upset and could have been avoided.
The resident says she was told by the landlord that the tenancy had been transferred to her, from her late mother, and that she had the same protected rights. This is supported by the email she received in 2018 from the landlord, which confirmed she inherited her mother’s tenancy conditions when she moved in to property A. Therefore, it was reasonable for the resident to assume this included the RTB. Even when the resident received a new tenancy to sign in January 2016, following a decant to the property, this also referred to her having an assured tenancy with protected rights.
It is not in dispute that the landlord initially offered the resident the RTB but, after the resident queried the terms of the offer, the landlord retracted the offer and took legal advice. As explained above, the Ombudsman cannot determine the resident’s legal position in relation to her RTB. However, it is clear that the landlord’s confusing and inaccurate communication resulted in the resident’s expectations being mismanaged for a number of years, which in unacceptable.
The landlord did apologise for having provided the resident with incorrect information, and initially offered her £750 compensation. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, but it is referred to in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This was then increased by a further £750, but the resident did not accept that. Instead, she would like a full refund of the rent paid to the landlord while living in property A.
The Ombudsman recognises the strength of feeling the resident has over what has happened, and that the landlord has made attempts to put matters right by apologising, explaining what happened and offering compensation. Whether there was a formal tenancy in place from 2012 or not, the resident had the benefit of living in property A prior to being decanted, so it would not be fair to direct the landlord to refund any rent paid in that regard. It is clear though, that as a result of the landlord not managing the situation over succession well, and ensuring the resident had the correct rights, its poor communication has caused extensive upset and inconvenience to the resident. This is best recognised by the landlord paying the resident compensation.
The resident spent several years believing she had inherited her mother’s tenancy rights and would therefore have the opportunity to purchase the property under the RTB scheme. She was provided with details of how much she could purchase the property for, and has spent extensive time liaising with the landlord over the RTB application and trying to resolve the issue.
The landlord has offered to pay the resident £1,500 compensation. Its Customer Compensation Policy and Claims procedure does not provide any specific guidance on awards of compensation in circumstances like this. However, the Ombudsman has remedies guidance, and where a failure has had a significant impact and failures have accumulated over a significant period of time, compensation of over £1,000 would be reasonable.
The landlord has confirmed the resident has a RTA. However, it mismanaged the resident’s expectations for a number of years. To recognise that, and the time and trouble the resident has gone to in order to try and address the issue, compensation of £1,500, the amount already offered, is appropriate.

Pest infestation

The resident reported rodents in the property and said they were coming in from a hole under the kitchen sink which had not been filled when the kitchen had been refitted. Having first reported this in April 2021, the landlord promptly referred the matter to a pest control company, which was the appropriate step to take and it was advised that although there was a shortage of staff, pest proofing was planned for May 2021.
The resident had to chase the landlord in July 2021, and while it seems it followed up with the pest control company, there is no evidence of any action being taken until February 2022, when attempts were made to contact the resident. The landlord’s records show that it was not until 4 April 2022 that someone attended the property to address the issue.
While it seems the pest control company had resource issues initially, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the situation was monitored until the matter was resolved. In this case, it took the resident to chase the landlord in July 2021 before it followed things up. Having being put on notice that 3 months had passed and no action had been taken, this should have prompted the landlord to ensure it actively managed the job after that. There is no indication it did that, as 7 months then passed before anything more was done and in the meantime the resident was left not knowing what was happening.
There was a further report in September 2022, of a mouse accessing the property via a hole near an outside pipe, but an appointment was arranged and attended promptly, some 23 working days later. The resident has confirmed that she has had no further issues with mice.
Overall, there was a significant delay in pest control attending the property, and a lack of proactivity from the landlord, in terms of monitoring the job and ensuring the work was carried out in a reasonable period of time. This amounts to maladministration. The resident had some inconvenience as a result of chasing the landlord so this and the delay is best recognised by the payment of £250 compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident’s complaint is undated and, although it is not clear if it was sent directly to the landlord, the Ombudsman did submit it to the landlord on 30 June 2021. It then took the landlord 12 weeks to issue a stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2021. This was in contravention of both the landlord’s complaints guide and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The stage 1 response acknowledged an oversight with the key lock box code, but failed to consider offering the resident compensation to recognise the delay in its complaint handling.
The resident told the landlord that its stage 1 response was insufficient on 27 October 2021 but it then failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2. It was left for the resident to chase a response on 25 February 2022, resulting in a 4 month delay in dealing with the complaint, which is unacceptable.
Having acknowledged the escalation of the complaint on 25 February 2022, it then took a further 92 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response on 4 July 2022. Although the delay was acknowledged, and the landlord issued an apology, it failed in its obligations to the resident to reply within 20 working days and this shows it had not learnt from the delay at stage 1.
Between stages 1 and 2, the landlord had responded to the resident’s concern over the RTB and seems to have also met with her and made an offer of £750 compensation to remedy matters. In its stage 2 response, it offered an additional £750 compensation for the error it made with the RTB but again, did not review its own complaint handling or make an offer of compensation to recognise the delay or the impact on the resident.
Although the landlord has apologised for delays in responding to complaints, the evidence does not support it having learned from its mistakes. It continued to not comply with its obligations and failed on each occasion to consider the cumulative effect its failures were having on the resident. At every stage when dealing with a complaint, the landlord significantly delayed in providing a response. It then failed to consider a reasonable level of compensation to recognise the overall impact its poor service had had, over many months. It should therefore pay the resident compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, of £500.

Record keeping

The landlord has provided repair logs and communication spreadsheets to show jobs reported and carried out. However, while the spreadsheets provide details of the job reported, there is often no reference to the correlating repair. For example, the ‘pest proofing’ jobs completed on 4 and 6 April 2022 simply contain details of the report made (“Customer believes mice ingressing through hole in by pipe”) but no details of the works completed in response.
Further, the remedial work needed after the resident returned to the property following the decant, such as fixing tiles, is not recorded anywhere on the repair log. The absence of this information is indicative of poor record keeping and the landlord should take more care to maintain a clear audit trail in relation to jobs raised. This is important to not only effectively manage its own repairs service, but also to provide accurate information to both the resident and this Service, where necessary, in response to a formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has already highlighted how the landlord has failed to monitor open repairs, until such time that all work is completed. This, along with the poor record keeping in relation to repairs, means the resident was not kept as up to date as she should have been. The landlord should therefore ensure it keeps proper records, and ensures someone actively manages jobs, to ensure all repairs were carried out within a reasonable time, and that the resident is liaised with. It should also review and conduct staff training on the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The decant process due to bathroom works.
2. A RTB application.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a pest infestation.
2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Record keeping.

Reasons

The resident was not advised when the key code was changed following the decant process, but she was able to access the property using a key so the landlord’s apology was reasonable. All other aspects of the decant process were handled appropriately.
The landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectations for an extensive period of time over her RTB. However, it apologised for that and made a reasonable offer of compensation by way of remedy.
There was a significant delay in dealing with the report of a pest infestation and a lack of communication with the resident.
Complaints were not dealt with in a timely way, and despite apologies being made, and compensation offered, the landlord did not improve the way it dealt with complaints or reports of repairs.
Repair logs contained very little information in relation to completion of jobs which means it is not known what repairs were carried out.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £2,250 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its mishandling of the RTB process (if it has not done so already).
  2. £250 for the delay dealing with the pest infestation.
  3. £500 for the delay and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling.
1. Carry out a review of its record keeping and put a procedure in place to ensure, all future jobs are logged, updated and monitored, and the outcomes are fully recorded.
2. Conduct staff training on the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.