Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202005483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005483

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

21 January 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 reports:
1. that there were outstanding works that should have been completed during the void period prior to her moving in;
2. that the landlord’s staff did not handle her concerns appropriately;
3. that there was disrepair which may allow pests to enter her property.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became an assured shorthold tenant at the property of the landlord from 12 September 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a void management policy. The policy notes that while properties are void, it will carry out any necessary repairs to bring them to a lettable standard. It also notes that where practicable, it will undertake non-urgent repairs after an incoming tenant has moved in. The policy further notes that the property will be handed over clean, in a reasonable state of repair, and free of any infestation of pests. Additionally, any internal damaged walls should be made good. Regarding cleaning, the policy notes that all floors and surfaces should be dust free.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that a resident may report repairs by phone, email, post, or online. The policy also notes that repairs to entry doors and repairs regarding leaks are the responsibility of the landlord.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that where there has been a low impact on the resident, such as failing to meet service standards for responses, an offer of up to £50 is appropriate.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that the landlord will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and respond within 10 days of an acknowledgement. The policy also notes that a resident may request an escalation if the stage one response was factually incorrect, or it does not address their complaint fully, or if there was additional information available. A stage two response will also be acknowledged within five working days, with a response to follow within 20 days following the acknowledgement.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided this service with its repair logs for the property. The logs note that in November 2019, the landlord carried out works to repair a swollen entrance door at the property. In December 2019, the repair logs note the landlord attended the property to carry out damp works.
The resident made a complaint on 2 December 2019. She noted the following:
1. that she had only been supplied with a single key, when she had been promised two;
2. that the property had not been thoroughly cleaned;
3. that the front door was swollen and did not close correctly, leading the resident to have delayed her move to the property by four weeks due to her concern this was a fire risk. This had led her to incur costs staying elsewhere which she wished to be compensated for;
4. that the roof was leaking and causing damp in the property;
5. that the landlord’s staff had spoken to her poorly.
This service has not been provided with any correspondence from the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint, however, following her complaint, the landlord began an internal investigation into her concerns. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the complaint period.
On 23 January 2020, a staff member of the landlord who had been involved with the void process advised the following to the complaint investigator:
1. that a new key had been sent by recorded mail on 12 December 2019;
2. that there had been a chest of drawers which the resident had considered were not cleaner correctly. The landlord’s staff member had advised this would be the responsibility of the resident and that the rest of the property had been cleaned to the appropriate standard;
3. that the staff member’s understanding was that the resident had delayed her move to 3 October 2020 due to difficulty arranging a moving van, and that no concerns had been raised over a fire risk;
4. that there had been works to repair guttering during the voids period and that previously there had been issues with damp, but that there were no signs of a leak during the inspection. The landlord also had a photograph of the living room from this time which the staff member considered did not depict a leak;
5. that the landlord had attended on 12 December 2019 to carry out damp works and found the property to be in a habitable condition, although the staff member noted that the resident had refused access to the bedroom.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 4 July 2020. It apologised for the delay to its response and advised this had been due to an increased demand on its services. Regarding how its staff had spoken to the resident, the landlord noted she was unhappy with the interactions, but that she had also expressed her satisfaction that the works its staff had attended for had been carried out. It also noted the resident had been unhappy with the level of support she had received, to which it advised it would carry out an internal investigation and raise any further action required directly with its staff. Regarding her concerns about ongoing disrepair, the landlord advised that its repairs team had confirmed there were no outstanding repairs reported. It accepted that the resident had gone to some time and trouble to raise these concerns with the landlord, following which its responses had been delayed. As a result, it offered £60 compensation for her time and trouble, and £25 for its poor complaints handling.
On 6 July 2020, the resident advised she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered and requested her complaint be escalated. The landlord acknowledged this on 11 July 2020. On 13 July 2020, the resident elaborated that she also wanted the landlord to consider her concerns that the landlord retained a copy of the key to the property and had entered the basement of the property to carry out “illegal activities.” She also advised she had mental and physical health issues and as such was concerned with being asked to put all of her complaints in writing. She further reported that the damp smell in the property persisted.
On the same date, the landlord noted its repair records indicated the resident’s reported concerns had previously been delt with, but that it would raise a repair order for a further inspection. The resident requested a different operative attend from the previous inspection, to which the landlord confirmed it would arrange for this. The resident clarified her concerns were that the property had not been adequately cleaned during the voids period, there was persistent damp, the entrance door was still sticking and was not a fire door, that the windows were not secure, and that there was no plug in the sink.
The landlord requested for a suitable time to call to discuss the issues raised by the resident and noted some had not previously been raised. The resident requested that the landlord go straight to a stage two response. On 14 July 2020, having been unsuccessful at speaking with the resident on the telephone, the landlord advised that it had attended the property on 18 December 2019 to carry out works regarding mould, and no further works had been identified. It also queried if the resident had reported any further concerns to its repairs team following this. Regarding her concerns about the landlord carrying out “illegal activities,” the landlord requested she provide further information on this concern.
The resident advised that she considered the landlord using its own key to be trespassing and reiterated her concerns that the other issues she had reported were not dealt with prior to moving in. She also noted she wanted all communication to be in writing so there was evidence of what was said. The landlord again requested they discuss the issue further and provide specific examples of how its staff had acted illegally or failed to support her, however, the resident advised it should have all it needed to demonstrate that the landlord had been “incompetent.”
The landlord provided its stage two response on 3 September 2020, in which it advised the following:
1. regarding her concerns about the entrance door not being a fire door, it advised that this door met all the necessary safety regulations. It also noted her concerns that the door was still sticking and provided a repair reference number for it to attend to this;
2. regarding her concerns about the ongoing damp smell, the landlord reiterated it had attended in December 2019 to treat this, but also provided a repair reference number for it to reassess the downpipe to determine if it was still leaking;
3. regarding the locks on her windows, the landlord advised it considered these to be fit for purpose and that should she remain concerned, she could request her local police station carry out an assessment, following which they could make a referral for any improvements;
4. regarding the cleanliness of the property when the resident moved in, the landlord advised it considered the property to have been in a clean condition, and it further advised that cleaning the chest of drawers was not a part of its void cleaning service;
5. regarding the resident’s concerns about the landlord having a set of keys and carrying out “illegal activities,” it advised that without further details it could not comment on this, but that it would always request permission for access;
6. the landlord also noted the resident’s concern that she had not received adequate support from the landlord but advised that it had been unable to identify any service failure regarding the support offered. It further noted the resident’s concern that she had been requested to provide details of her complaint in writing and confirmed this could also be done via the telephone.
The landlord concluded by reiterating its offer of compensation. It also noted the resident may have been unclear of the requirement to report any repair concerns to its repairs team, and so clarified that this was necessary and provided information on how to do this.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident escalated her complaint to this service. As part of the discussions between the parties, the resident raised concerns that there were issues with pests at her property. This service subsequently requested the landlord provide a formal complaint response in relation to these concerns.
On 3 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged this further complaint. It noted that the resident’s concerns remained about the condition of the property when let, but it clarified it would not reconsider this as part of its new response. It also noted it had not prior reports of pests at the property and queried how long the issues had been going on. On 4 March 2021, the resident confirmed that there were no rodent droppings to indicate a current infestation, but that there were holes in her walls which could allow them to enter in the future.
The landlord advised that it would arrange for a repair order to cover the holes. The resident advised she considered the holes to be related to damp and queried if the landlord would also carry out further damp works. The landlord replied that this order would be just to fill the holes and that it had no outstanding works regarding damp. It advised the resident to report any further repairs required to its repairs team. On the same date, the landlord’s repairs team sought to arrange a time for the inspection, however, the resident replied that she would not be at the property for the next six weeks.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord provided its further stage one response. It confirmed it was able to carry out works to address the holes but noted the resident had advised she was not at the property to grant access. It requested she confirm when access would be available following her return to the property, at which point it could carry out an inspection and any required works.
On 11 March 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated. The landlord replied that an escalation could be requested in certain circumstances and explained the requirements as per its complaints policy, as noted above. The resident confirmed she wanted a request as she did not believe the complaint was investigated properly.
The landlord provided a response on 19 March 2021 and advised that it would not provide a full stage two response as it had not received any evidence its complaint was not thorough. It reiterated it could carry out an inspection following the resident’s advice she had returned to the property.
Following the period of the complaint, the landlord has provided further correspondence between the parties which note that it attempted to arrange an inspection of the property on 15 November 2021, but that the resident had refused access as she considered its attempts to do so were merely to demonstrate to this service that it was being proactive.

Assessment and findings

Void repairs

The landlord’s void policy notes that while a property is void, the landlord will carry out any necessary repairs and will clean the property prior to any hand over. This service has not been provided with any sort of void works record, however, as noted above the landlord has provided its repairs logs for the property. The repair logs note that minor repairs were carried out during the void period, which are marked as completed.
Following the resident moving into the property, the repair logs also indicate the landlord’s repairs team visited the property in November 2019 to carry out repair works to the front door, which it noted had been sticking. These works are noted to be completed. Additionally, the repair logs also indicate that treatment for damp and mould was carried out in December 2019, again, these works are noted as completed.
In her complaint dated 2 December 2019, the resident complained about the state of the property when she moved in, and that she was dissatisfied with the cleaning of the property, that the door was swollen leading her to safety concerns about the property, and that there was a leak which was causing damp.
As part of its stage one investigation, the landlord’s staff member who had been involved with the move noted that they disagreed that the resident had left the property due to her concerns about the front door, and that she had not moved to the property at the start date due to difficulties arranging a moving van. This issue is not referred to in the landlord’s formal responses, and the resident also did not pursue this concern again. In any event, this service has not been provided with evidence that the resident made the landlord aware at the time she left the property that she had done so due to feeling unsafe. In the absence of such notice, it would have been reasonable for the landlord not to have provided a position on the issue at the time. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect the landlord to have given an outcome to its investigation in its stage one response, however, as this element of the complaint was not pursued by the resident, this does not reach the level of service failure in the circumstances.
Regarding the door itself, the landlord’s repair logs note that it carried out repair works to the door in November 2019. There are no further requests noted for repairs regarding the door prior to the resident’s complaint. It was not clear from the resident’s complaint as to whether she considered there to have been an ongoing issue with the door, or whether she was only seeking compensation for the previous issue. While it would be preferable for such a repair to be identified during a void inspection, it is not known what caused the swelling of the doors, and whether this occurred following the beginning of the tenancy. Additionally, the landlord’s voids policy notes that some minor repairs may be required after moving in, and so it was appropriate the landlord attended to this issue in November 2019.
Following the resident’s request her complaint be escalated, the landlord noted her ongoing concerns about the door and raised a repair order. This is reflected in the landlord’s repair log, however, it is also noted that the repair did not occur due to issues with access. While it would be helpful for the landlord to have sought to rearrange the inspection, the landlord did attempt to discuss her concerns as part of its stage two investigation and has reiterated on a number of occasions that the resident should raise any ongoing concerns with its repair team, which is reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, it was also appropriate that the landlord clarified that the doors met safety standards, which was reasonable to address the resident’s concerns.
As part of its stage one investigation, the landlord’s member of staff also referred to having cleaned the property during the voids period, except for the interior of a chest of drawers, which would not be carried out in its void cleaning procedure. The resident, in her complaint, did not specify why she considered the cleaning to have been dissatisfactory. In its stage one response, while the landlord advised the resident to report any outstanding concerns to its repairs team, it did not directly address the issue of cleaning.
Following the resident’s escalation of the complaint, the landlord did address this issue in its stage two response. It gave the landlord’s position that the level of cleanliness of the property when the resident moved in had met its standards, and that the drawers were not included in its cleaning service. The landlord’s voids policy notes that all surfaces and floors will be cleaned. While it may be desirable for it to deep clean the units in a property, the Ombudsman does not consider this necessary for a property to be habitable, and as this level of cleaning was not included in the landlord’s policy, it was therefore reasonable for it not to have deep cleaned the drawers.
It would have been helpful had the landlord sought more information about the cleanliness concerns from the resident, but as discussed further below, as part of the stage two investigation, the resident declined to speak with the landlord on the telephone about her complaint and advised the landlord that it had all the information it required. The landlord’s response that it considered the property to have been cleaned correctly was therefore reasonable in the absence of any contrary evidence. The Ombudsman notes that had the landlord’s investigation and response at stage one was lacking and had it not made further attempts to investigate at stage two, a finding of service failure would have been made.
Based on the landlord’s repair logs, the landlord attended the property in December 2019 to carry out mould treatment. It is not evident whether these works had been raised following the resident’s complaint on 2 December 2019, or whether they were pre-existing following a report from the resident. The landlord would also have had the opportunity to identify any further works required during its visit, however, the repair logs do not indicate any follow up works were necessary.
The resident’s complaint noted there was damp in the property and that she considered there to have been a leak. It is not evident whether her report was of an ongoing leak, or a leak when she moved into the property. As part of the landlord’s investigation, it identified that there had been works carried out, and that there had been no further reports of any issues. While it would have been helpful had it actively sought a response from the resident as to whether there was ongoing issue, given that it had carried out works since the complaint, it was reasonable for it to advise this in its stage one response and advise it had received no further reports.
It was also appropriate that following the resident’s escalation of her complaint, it arranged further works to inspect the downpipe at the property, which based on the landlord’s repair logs, were successfully completed in July 2020. As noted above, the landlord sought to discuss the resident’s concerns throughout its stage two investigation, and based on the resident’s responses, its stage two response that it continued to have received no further reports was also reasonable. It was also reasonable for it to have reminded her that it was necessary to report any concerns to her repair team.
In summary, while the landlord could have taken a more proactive approach and raised additional inspections on behalf of the resident, it was reasonable for it to have considered the concerns related to when the resident initially moved in and for it to have referred to the works it had already carried out. It was also appropriate that it raised additional works and reminded the resident to raise any further concerns herself.

Landlord’s staff

In her initial complaint, the resident advised that she considered the landlord’s staff to have spoken with her poorly. As part of its stage one response, the landlord noted the resident’s dissatisfaction with the tone its staff had used during a visit to her property, but that she had eventually been satisfied with the work carried out. It is evident the resident expressed concern at the level of support offered by the landlord’s staff, to which it advised it would carry out an internal investigation and take any necessary action.
The Ombudsman expects all members of a landlord’s staff to treat a resident with respect. When receiving reports of inappropriate conduct, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to make further enquiries regarding specific incidents as part of a reasonable investigation. It is not evident that prior to its stage one response, the landlord made such enquiries. Additionally, while it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised it would carry out a further investigation and take any further action required, it did not provide the resident with a timeframe for when this would occur or advise whether she would be updated with the outcome.
Following the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated, she added to the complaint that she was concerned that the landlord retained a key, and that it had carried out “illegal activities” in the basement. As part of its stage two investigation, the landlord appropriately sought to discuss these concerns further with the resident. Following the resident’s request not to have any conversation on the phone, the landlord sought further information by email, and also advised specific examples would be required. It sought this further information several times, however, on each occasion, the resident advised that she considered the landlord had all the information it needed. It would appear from context that the “illegal activities” referred to by the resident were that she considered the landlord to have entered the basement without permission, however, she did not provide any specific dates or further information regarding this concern.
In its stage two response, the landlord advised it was unable to comment on the resident’s concerns as she had not provided any specific examples. It was appropriate, however, that it advised it could return to the concern should she do so.
On the issue of the landlord retaining a key, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is reasonable for a landlord to retain a key for circumstances where emergency access is required. It was also appropriate that it clarified it would not enter the resident’s property without first seeking permission.
In summary, the landlord’s initial failure to seek examples of the resident’s concern’s about its staff’s behaviour or lack of support would have led to a finding of service failure had it not later made multiple attempts to get the resident to provide specific examples as part of its stage two investigation. Given that no specific examples were given, its finding that it could not provide any comments on this issue was reasonable.

Pests

Following the resident’s correspondence with this service in which she raised concerns about pests, the landlord appropriately raised a new complaint in relation to this concern.
Having acknowledged the complaint, the resident took appropriate steps to investigate the complaint, including querying if the resident was actively experiencing pests at her property and whether she had previously reported this. Having established there was no active infestation, but that the resident’s concerns related to holes in her walls, the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for an inspection for these to be filled.
The resident did raise concern that the holes were related to damp at the property, and queried whether this would also be addressed, to which the landlord confirmed its repair job raised would just be to fill the holes. As noted above, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have raised a further works order in relation to the damp concerns on the resident’s behalf, however, its advice for her to do so was reasonable, especially given that it had previously advised her how to do so in its earlier stage two response.
It is evident that the landlord attempted to arrange for an initial inspection of the property to determine what works were required, but that the resident advised this would not be possible for the next six weeks due to her being away from the property.
The landlord’s stage one response correctly outlined the complaint and the action it had taken. It noted that the resident was presently unavailable for an inspection, but appropriately reiterated this could be arranged upon her return to the property. It also appropriately reiterated this offer in its further formal response.
In conclusion, the landlord’s offer to carry out further works, and advice that the resident report any other issues to its repairs team, was a reasonable response in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a response within 10 days of the acknowledgement. This service has not been provided with copies of correspondence in which the landlord acknowledged her initial complaint dated 2 December 2019, however, it is evident that the landlord commenced an investigation into the complaint shortly after. This investigation extended far beyond the timeframe in which its policy notes it would have provided a response, and it is not evident that the landlord advised the resident at any time that its complaint response would be delayed.
Its stage one response came on 4 July 2020, a full seven months after the initial complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for this delay and explained this had been due to a backlog of complaints the team had had to deal with. It also offered compensation for its poor complaints handling and communication, and for the time and trouble the resident had had to go to in chasing up her complaint being £85 in total. Had it been more evident that there were outstanding works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amount would have been insufficient to reflect the impact of the delay on the resident. As noted above however, it remained unclear whether the resident’s concerns related to repairs issues at the time she had moved into the property and given that she had not raised any further repair works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amount represented reasonable redress for the impact the delay had on the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy also notes that it will provide a stage two response within 20 days following an escalation. The resident requested an escalation on 6 July 2020, following which, the landlord kept in continued communication with her. It explained that in order to provide its response, it would need to fully investigate the complaints, including discussing them with the resident, which it attempted to do on multiple occasions. While its stage two response was not given until 3 September 2020, its explanation of the need to investigate the matter fully and continued contact was sufficient to justify this delay.
Following the additional complaint raised about the pests, both the landlord’s further stage one response, and its correspondence relating to its decision regarding a stage two response, were all sent within a reasonable timeframe.
During the parties’ correspondence regarding the pests complaint, the resident made it clear she continued to be concerned about the condition of the property when she initially moved in. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord not to reconsider complaints that have been through its internal complaints procedure, especially where there has been no further evidence presented. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have advised that it would not be reconsidering this element of the complaint, which it reiterated in its stage one response.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will consider a complaint at stage two where it has either failed to address the complaint fully, or if there was additional information available. The Ombudsman’s approach to a conditional stage two response is that the landlord should not unreasonably refuse to provide a stage two response. In the circumstances, the landlord concluded that it would not provide a full stage two response as it considered it had carried out a thorough investigation at stage one, and that it had not received any further evidence. Given that the complaint related only to the existence of holes in the resident’s walls and the landlord had outlined the steps it had taken, and the further action it could take, the Ombudsman agrees that this response was reasonable, and it was also reasonable not to have offered a full stage two response. It was also appropriate that the landlord reiterated that it would carry out the inspection upon the resident’s return.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
1. outstanding works that should have been completed during the void period prior to her moving in;
2. its staff’s handling of her concerns;
3. disrepair which may allow pests to enter her property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Void repairs

While the landlord missed the opportunity to seek further information regarding the resident’s concerns about the door as part of its stage one investigation, its investigation at stage two was reasonable and so this did not constitute service failure.
Additionally, while the landlord could have provided additional assistance to the resident by raising repair works on her behalf at stage one, it appropriately did so following her escalation request and also reminded her to raise any concerns with its repair team throughout the complaint period.

Landlord’s staff

While the landlord’s investigation at stage one missed the opportunity to request specific examples of incidents which had caused the resident concern, as part of it stage two investigation, the landlord made multiple requests for this information. Its conclusion that it was unable to find examples of having not supported the resident and that it could not comment on her concerns about behaviour were therefore reasonable.

Pests

The landlord appropriately advised that it had not received previous reports of issues with pests and made enquiries as to whether this was an ongoing issue. Having been informed the issue related to concerns about holes in the walls, the landlord appropriately raised a works order, and reiterated its offer to carry out the works in both its stage one response and further response following the resident’s advice she was away from the property.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s initial stage one response was unreasonably delayed, and it failed to communicate this delay to the resident. It appropriately apologised for this delay and provided an explanation in its stage one response, and also offered compensation of £85, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
While its stage two response was also delayed, it had kept in continued communication with the resident throughout this period, during which it made multiple attempts to carry out further investigations into the complaints. This delay was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. reiterate its offer of compensation as per its stage one response, should this have not already been accepted by the resident;
2. enquire as to any outstanding repair concerns of the resident and book in any repair inspections on her behalf if required.