Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202116245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116245

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

18 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The condition of the property the resident mutually exchanged into.
2. The landlord’s handling of remedial repairs.
3. The landlord’s handling of decanting the resident’s family during works.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident moved into the property by way of mutual exchange on 12 April 2021.The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette.
The resident lives with his wife and 4 children, whom ranged in age from 1 to 14 years old at the time of events. One of the children suffers from severe allergies, including to dust mites.

Summary of events

On 21 April 2021, the resident reported issues to the landlord with the door frames in the property and the banister on the stairs being loose.
On 19 May 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord by email. He stated that he had previously made a complaint using the landlord’s online complaints form. He described the property as “seriously neglected”, “in a very bad condition” and unsafe. He listed numerous repair issues, including the doorframes and banister, mould in the bathroom, a missing fire door to the kitchen, damaged wall plaster and electrical sockets coming away from the wall.
The resident said he had reported these issues multiple times and the landlord had sent 2 contractors out to inspect, who had advised the property was in dangerous disrepair and the resident’s family should be decanted to alternative accommodation. He requested that the landlord decant his family until the property could be made safe.
On 20 May 2021, the resident’s legal advisors wrote to the landlord. They repeated the list of repair issues, also listing concerns that flooring was not level or secure, and provided accompanying photographs. They advised the landlord that one of the resident’s children suffered severe allergies and that “their health has been negatively affected by the state of the property”. They requested that the landlord send a surveyor to inspect the property and decant the resident’s family if necessary.
On 21 May 2021, the resident’s GP wrote a letter confirming that one of his children was known to have a “significant sensation to dust mites” and had been seen in the allergy clinic for this. The GP noted a worsening of their symptoms since moving into the property, and asked the landlord to take this into account when arranging future works to reduce the impact on them.
On 4 June 2021, the landlord inspected the property. Its inspection report, produced on 7 June 2021, listed numerous repairs required to address the issues with the property. It noted that the various plaster repairs required had only become visible after the resident had stripped wallpaper, and so would not have been apparent prior to him moving in.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. The resident had entered into a mutual exchange, where the property is ‘taken as seen’.
2. It had completed an inspection of the property which identified areas requiring remedial repairs.
3. Works had been agreed to commence on 24 June 2021 with the majority completed within 2 to 3 days.
4. It would be able to complete the repairs with the resident’s family living in the property and could arrange to work in only one room at a time with doors to be sealed and floor coverings laid to prevent dust travelling around the property.
On 27 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord requesting to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. He expressed dissatisfaction that repairs to the property had still not begun and he felt the landlord had left his family living in unsafe conditions. He claimed that the landlord had not followed its own procedure and carried out a check of the property as part of the mutual exchange process and had delayed unreasonably in carrying out the repairs. He asked for the landlord to resolve his complaint by acknowledging its failures, issuing an apology and carrying out the repairs as soon as possible.
On 6 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He said that repair works had been due to begin on 3 August 2021 and he had taken leave from his work to allow the landlord’s contractor access, however these had still not begun. The works later commenced on 9 August 2021.
On 11 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord expressing concerns about the duration of the works, the current condition of the property and whether it was suitable for his family to remain there. On 13 August 2021, the landlord decanted the family to a nearby hotel.
On 3 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. He informed it that his child had visited the property to collect some belongings the previous day and had experienced an allergic reaction. He attributed this to the amount of dust that was present.
On 6 September 2021, the landlord inspected the property and advised the resident that it deemed it ready for his family to return. Their hotel booking ended that same day.
On 21 September 2021, the resident’s legal advisors wrote to the landlord, expressing dissatisfaction at the way it had handled the works. The legal advisors stated that:
1. The decant had initially meant to last up to a week but was extended twice due to works not being completed satisfactorily.
2. On 6 September 2021, the resident was not given sufficient notice of the property being ready and had been forced to leave work in order to arrange to check out of the hotel and transport his family and belongings to the property.
3. On returning to the property, the resident found lighting not working, bedrooms with no flooring and “a coating of dust” posing a health risk to his child.
4. The landlord had offered him no further assistance, so the family had been forced to stay with relatives in unsuitable, overcrowded conditions causing severe disruption and stress.
5. The landlord had made an offer to the resident to replace the flooring to the bedrooms, but only on condition that the resident signed a disclaimer to end his complaint.
6. They requested for the landlord to issue a full written apology to the resident, follow through with its offer to carpet the bedrooms, without the requirement to sign any disclaimer, and award him fair compensation for what he and his family had endured.
On 1 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to inform it he had fitted carpets himself (at a cost of £1,350) after the landlord had failed to provide an update on the matter.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for any ‘hardship’ experienced by the resident and his family due to the repair issues and acknowledged that it should have carried out an inspection of the property prior to approving the exchange. It said it had put in place processes to ensure this happened in future. The landlord stated that, following its inspection of the property, it had assessed that there was no immediate danger to the resident and his family and works could be completed without decanting them. However, it later decided to decant them to a hotel whilst plastering was carried out due to his child’s allergies.
The landlord said that once works had been completed, it had inspected the property and felt the dust had subsided and the resident’s family were able to move back in. It said flooring had been removed to inspect the subfloor, and it had offered to replace this with carpet as settlement of the complaint. It had believed the resident had agreed to this, but later found this not to the case so the carpeting had been put on hold. The landlord said it wished to discuss a ‘settlement figure’ for the resident’s complaint which would include the costs incurred in him fitting carpets.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, providing what it described as a ‘stage 1 review’ response. It offered the resident compensation of £1,850, composed of £1,350 for the costs incurred in fitting the carpets and £500 as a ‘good will gesture’ in recognition of the stress and aggravation caused during the repair works. It said that if the resident accepted this offer, it would represent full and final settlement of his complaint.
On 1 November 2021, the resident told the landlord that he was rejecting the compensation offer as he did not feel that £500 was “a fair reflection of the severe disruption, stress, physical harm and mental trauma” that his family had suffered. He said that he had been originally advised the landlord’s offer of carpeting was not related to the complaint and so requested that it still reimburse him for these costs.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord held a stage 2 complaint panel meeting to discuss the resident’s case. On 6 December 2021, it provided the written stage 2 complaint response. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that an inspection of the property did not take place prior to the mutual exchange, as it should have under its procedure.
2. Stated that, based on the inspection report of 4 June 2021, it did not feel the property was in serious disrepair or unfit for habitation and considered the decision to complete works with the family in occupation to be appropriate.
3. Said that the issues with plasterwork to the wall had been hidden by the wallpaper and so could not have been identified until the resident moved in and stripped this.
4. Felt that it had shown consideration of the resident’s child’s medical condition in suggesting an approach to works to limit the movement and impact of dust, and had decided to decant the family following feedback from the resident that this was not effective.
5. Felt that it had been right in its decision that the property was ready for the family to return to on 6 September 2021, but acknowledged that it could have offered greater flexibility in light of the resident’s child’s health condition by extending the hotel booking for a further week to allow him to prepare the property.
6. Confirmed that it had agreed to gift the resident the carpets, and asked him to sign a form confirming this, but this had been miscommunicated internally leading to the confusion around this constituting a settlement of his complaint, and apologised for this.
7. Said its stage 1 complaint response had been issued outside of the timescales allowed, and it had taken too long to consider escalation of his complaint to stage 2. It said it had recommended a review of its complaints process to avoid such delays in future.
8. Increased the goodwill payment offered to £700 as a full and final settlement of the complaint, along with the separate reimbursement of the £1,350 for carpets.

Assessment and findings

Condition of property

This Service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s mutual exchange procedure. However, its stage 2 complaint response acknowledged a requirement within this for it to inspect the property before an exchange was completed, and that it had failed to do so. Although the landlord submitted to this Service that this was due to restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, a report prepared for the stage 2 complaints panel states that “essential inspections were being undertaken by officers with adjustments in place to be covid secure”.
The landlord’s complaint responses referred to mutual exchanges being completed on the basis the property was taken ‘as seen’. Whilst this is the case with factors such as decorative condition, a tenancy commencing by way of mutual exchange does not absolve a landlord of its repair responsibilities as set out in law and its tenancy agreement.
Although residents would be well advised to carry out their own inspection of a property prior to committing to a mutual exchange, it would not be reasonable to expect them to be able to complete as thorough and discerning an inspection as experienced members of landlord staff – particularly in terms of the identification of repair issues.
Whilst this Service notes the landlord’s comments around some repair issues not being visible until the resident removed wallpaper after moving in, other issues (particularly those with the banister and door frames which the landlord recognised as presenting a risk to health and safety) could have been identified and addressed prior to the exchange, had the landlord completed an appropriate inspection.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered an appropriate apology and took steps to remind staff of the importance of completing property inspections as a part of its mutual exchange process. However, the landlord made no offer of redress for this failure, despite it being the instigating factor for the entire complaint. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance allows for an award of compensation to be ordered by this Service where a landlord “has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident”. This is appropriate in this instance.

Handling of remedial repairs

The report prepared by the landlord for the stage 2 complaint panel stated that “our records show that [the resident] reported repairs to the balustrade and door frames on 21 April 2021 very soon after he moved in. These were allocated to a contractor on the same day with a 15-day priority. This was chased by the customer services team with the contractor on 23 April and 5 May following contact by the resident. [The contractor] attended on 12 May and reported 5 door frames needing fixing as well as the balustrade and requested approval. [The contractor] also mentioned cracks in the walls which the resident will send photos off. It is not clear why the initial repairs were not progressed prior to the resident raising a complaint on 20 May with additional repairs as needed”.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged to inspect the property on 4 June 2021. The landlord’s inspection report asserts that earlier dates were offered to the resident, who declined these and was happy to wait until this date. The inspection report was completed on 7 June 2021 but correspondence indicates that the landlord did not approve the required repair works until 12 July 2021 – over a month later. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this lengthy delay.
Work within the property did not begin until 9 August 2021. This was despite the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stating it had been agreed to start on 24 June 2021. Although the scale of works required more resource and materials than the average routine repair (which the landlord’s policy says it will attend to within 15 days of it being reported), a delay of over 2 months from the point of carrying out inspection to commencing work was unreasonably long. Again, the landlord has provided no account as to why the delay occurred.
The resident had later been told that work would commence on the 3 August 2021 and taken time off from work in order to give access to the property. He says he was then advised by the landlord’s contractor that works would commence on 4, 5 and 6 August 2021 – with this failing to happen each time. This led to the resident wasting a week of time off from work, waiting at the property for works to begin.
Although the landlord made an offer of £500 (later increased to £700) compensation to the resident in recognition of the “stress and aggravation caused…during the works process”, it failed to address or offer redress for the delays in commencing works. The resident stated that “Even when the dangerous disrepair was acknowledged, I was made to spend countless hours emailing and telephoning various people to get [the landlord] to agree to get the works carried out. I have been pushed from pillar to post. I was suffering from stress and anxiety and felt exhausted”.
In the course of its inspection of the property, the landlord removed the bedroom floor coverings to assess the subfloor. The landlord’s contractor also caused damage to the stairway carpet during works. As a result, the landlord made a reasonable offer to fit new carpets to these areas. However, internal miscommunication led to confusion within the landlord that this was contingent on settlement of the resident’s complaint, rather than a ‘gift’ as originally intended.
This miscommunication was passed on to the resident who incurred time and trouble in challenging it with the landlord directly, and through his legal advisors, before eventually arranging the fitting of carpets himself. Although the landlord appropriately offered to reimburse him the costs of having the carpets fitted, it failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by it failing to follow through on its original commitment to arrange this.

Handling of decant

The landlord’s decant policy states that “tenants will only be decanted if the works required are so extensive it would not be feasible for them to remain in occupation or if the tenant or a member of their household has a medical assessment advising that they should not remain in occupation”. Following its inspection of 4 June 2021, the landlord advised the resident on 8 June 2021 that it felt works could be completed without decanting him and his family.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, issued shortly afterwards, showed appropriate regard for the resident’s child’s allergies in advising that it could make reasonable adjustments by working in only one room at a time, and using measures to prevent dust from travelling. The resident has said that the landlord failed to ensure its contractors worked in this manner, and has provided video footage (taken prior to the family being decanted) to support this. Following this, the landlord appropriately decided to decant the family to a nearby hotel.
Although the decant was originally expected to only last for a week, it was later extended and ended up being significantly longer. The resident’s legal advisors stated that this was due to the works not being satisfactorily completed. Although this prolonged the disruption to the family, it showed an appropriate level of oversight of the works by the landlord to ensure the property was brought up to standard before the family returned.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident around the end of the hotel stay and returning to the property could have been better. Although the landlord had advised the resident in advance that it expected the family to be able to return to the property on 6 September 2021, it was reasonable for him to consider that this arrangement may be altered after informing it of his child’s allergic reaction to the dust in the property a few days beforehand.
The landlord recognised that, in light of the resident’s child’s health, it could have provided some additional flexibility and extended the hotel stay for a further week once works were completed. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered carrying out a clean of the property once works were completed. The landlord’s void standard states that “all properties shall be thoroughly cleaned on completion of works”. Although the property was not void in this instance, it had been uninhabited for several weeks whilst significant works were carried out and the resident had raised concerns about the levels of dust remaining.
As a result of the landlord’s failure to assist him, the resident felt unable to move his family back into the property. This led to him making an initial application to the local authority for housing assistance, and then living in the property alone to carry out cleaning and decorating work to enable his family to return, whilst they stayed with relatives.
In addition to the dust within the property, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the carpets had not yet been fitted, and light fittings in the kitchen and living room were not functioning. The landlord’s position that floor coverings were not part of its void standard, and so should not prevent residents from moving in, was reasonable. The schedule of works carried out in the property did not involve repairs to any light fittings, and so it is reasonable for the landlord’s contractor not to have detected issues with the lights as, in all likelihood, it would only have been working in the property during daylight hours.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered compensation of £700 (increased from the £500 previously offered). According to the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance this amount would be appropriate where a failure has had a significant physical and/or emotional impact. Although the impact on the resident in this case was clearly of such a level, the landlord’s failings in this area span only a brief period at the start of works prior to the decanting the family, and its handling of their return to the property, which was a relatively short period of duration. Based on this, the level of compensation awarded was proportionate.
Throughout its correspondence with the resident the landlord referred to this compensation as a “goodwill payment”. This is not an appropriate labelling of compensation made in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by failings which the landlord has acknowledged. Such a term could be viewed as minimising the landlord’s culpability and making it appear they are ‘doing the resident a favour’, rather than offering them the redress to which they are entitled.

Complaint handling

The resident said that he submitted an online complaint to the landlord prior to his acknowledged complaint of 19 May 2021. However, the landlord has no record of this and the resident has not provided details of exactly when this occurred for this Service to be able to fully consider it.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint made by email on 19 May 2021, but took until 18 June 2021 to provide its stage 1 complaint response. This was well outside of the 10 working days allowed by its complaints policy – as acknowledged by its stage 2 complaint response.
The stage 1 response did not acknowledge the landlord’s failure to appropriately inspect the property in line with its mutual exchange procedure, or offer an appropriate apology or redress for this.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint to complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 27 July 2021, when repair works had still not commenced. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that when a complainant makes a request to escalate their complaint, “the head of service for the area will review these submissions and if appropriate direct the matter back to their team for further action”.
The landlord’s handling of this ‘review’ effectively created a ‘stage 1.5’ of its complaints process whereby it sought to resolve the issues, and even made an offer of compensation, without escalating the complaint. This substantially delayed the resident’s journey through its complaints process and caused confusion over what stage of the process his complaint was at. Only after the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation on 1 November 2021 was his complaint finally escalated to stage 2 of its process.
The landlord’s complaints policy at this time dealt with stage 2 complaints by a panel hearing which it aimed to hold within 20 working days of the escalation request, with the outcome being provided in writing within 10 working days of the hearing. Although the landlord met these timeframes, they were not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time (which allowed 20 working days for a stage 2 complaint response). The landlord has since amended its policy to be compliant with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint and recommended a review of its complaints process to avoid future delays. However, it did not indicate that the increased offer of compensation was made in order to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling, and so cannot be considered to have offered redress for this aspect.
The landlord’s offer of compensation both prior to and within its stage 2 complaint response referred to him accepting the compensation as “full and final settlement” of his complaint. A resident who has completed their landlord’s internal complaints procedure has the right to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman. This right cannot be denied by the landlord and is not lost even if the resident has previously chosen to accept compensation offered. The term “full and final settlement” is therefore inappropriately misleading within this context and should be avoided.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in:
1. The condition of the property the resident mutually exchanged into.
2. Its handling of remedial repairs.
3. Its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolves the complaint about its handling of decanting the resident’s family during works.

Reasons

The landlord failed to follow its procedure and carry out an appropriate inspection of the property before the mutual exchange took place to ensure any repair issues were identified and addressed. Although the landlord acknowledged its failure in this area, it did not make an appropriate offer of redress.
The landlord failed to complete repairs following the resident’s initial reports made in April 2021. It then delayed unreasonably in carrying out the repairs identified in its June 2021 inspection of the property, and failed to sufficiently communicate or explain these delays to the resident. Internal miscommunications around the ‘gifting’ of carpets caused further detriment to the resident leading to him arranging them to be installed himself.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued out of time and failed to acknowledge any failings on its part. It then delayed unreasonably in escalating the resident’s complaint whilst attempting to resolve it at an informal level. Although the stage 2 response acknowledged these failings in complaint handling and committed to a process review, there was no offer of redress made to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged it could have improved the communication around the end of the decant and shown greater flexibility around the resident returning to the property in light of his child’s health. Its offer of £700 compensation for these failings was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance and proportionate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £3,100 composed of:
  1. The £1,350 it agreed to reimburse him for carpeting (if not already paid).
  2. The £700 compensation awarded at stage 2 of its complaints process (if not already paid).
  3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in the condition of the property.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in handling remedial repairs.
  5. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its maladministration in complaint handling.
2. Review its processes and staff training to ensure that it avoids framing compensation awards as ‘gestures of goodwill’ and representing ‘full and final settlement’ of complaints.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its decant policy to ensure that a clean of the property is considered after extensive repair works in cases where a household member has a medical condition which could be negatively impacted by dust, chemicals etc.
The landlord should inform this service of its intentions with regards to this recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.