Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202317332)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317332

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

7 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns relating to parking arrangements.
2. Handling of the resident’s reporting about the condition that the property was in following a mutual exchange.
3. Handling of the replacement of the resident’s front door.
4. Handling of the lack of a valid electrical installation and condition report (EICR) at the time the resident had moved in.
5. Complaints handling.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secured tenant who moved to the property by means of a three-way mutual exchange in May 2023. The property is a three-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident and her partner have been communicating with the landlord in respect of the matter. For the purpose of this report they will both be referred to as the resident.
The resident has explained that they are vulnerable having Tourette’s syndrome as well as obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety. In addition the resident has explained one of their children has autism and anxiety.
The resident completed a mutual exchange form in March 2023. The resident, who at the time was with a different landlord, had been communicating with the landlord though an intermediary (A).
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 11 April 2023 noted that it had carried out a check on the property on that day. This had “picked up some repairs for door handles, which can be carried out while the new tenants have moved in”. The email also explained that it would be requesting gas and electrical checks to be carried out.
The resident then asked a number of questions about the property. This included questions on the parking at the property. The landlord replied to A on 18 April 2023 to confirm that there was no parking. A had then asked whether the property was in a car free zone. This was then chased with the landlord on two further occasions as while the landlord had responded to other questions including confirming that the gas and electrical checks would be carried out on 28 April 2023, it had not replied to the query about parking. The landlord did state in an internal email on 26 April 2023 that it needed to refit a fire door to the kitchen in addition to fitting three door handles to doors in the property.
The landlord replied via email to A on 27 April 2023 to confirm that “it is not a car free zone. On street parking is available but tenant has to request for a permit from the borough directly and we do not control parking or have designated parking spaces”. The landlord confirmed that it had received the gas certificate on that day and was awaiting the electrical one.
The resident moved into the property on 15 May 2023. Upon moving in the resident noted a list of concerns. The landlord has not provided this Service with the resident’s initial contact with it over the matter, however it did arrange for a surveyor to attend the property on 17 May 2023. Following this appointment, the surveyor set out works required in an internal email to the repairs team. The work noted by the surveyor included patch plastering to the bedroom walls, renewing door handles to the bedroom and the renewal of the hinges and handles to the kitchen units. The surveyor also noted that there were smoke alarms missing and there was no fire door to the kitchen.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 19 May 2023 also requested that an electrical test was carried out on the property which needed to be arranged with the resident. This had followed on from it having discovered that an electrical test had not been previously carried out.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2023 explaining that they had tried to change their existing parking permit to the new address but had been informed that the property was in a car free zone and so they were unable to have a residential permit. The resident explained they had previously been informed by the landlord that the property was not in a car free zone. The resident sent the landlord several emails on 22 May 2023 in which they listed the issues with the property which the landlord’s surveyor had witnessed when he had attended the property on 17 May 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 May 2023 concerning repairs to the “unsafe property” which they had moved into two weeks earlier. The resident explained they had “made a complaint last week and no one has contacted me still.” The resident sent a further email concerning the state of the kitchen which needed replacing as “the units are in a bad state and the kitchen needs to be re designed for optimal space”. In addition the resident raised a repair about the wet room concerning a leak and a smell due to “the pump not working and water sitting on the flooring”. They requested both the kitchen and bathroom were replaced. The resident also sent the landlord a further email asking about the car parking permit and requesting a copy of the electrical certificate.
The landlord arranged to raise work orders for minor repairs to the property following the mutual exchange on 1 June 2023, following an earlier conversation with the resident. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 2 June 2023 confirmed that, as the resident had requested a new kitchen, it removed kitchen works from the remedial works order it had raised. An appointment was confirmed for the resident on the following day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 June 2023 enquiring again about the car parking issue. The resident explained that they had asked on two occasions about whether the property was a in a car free zone and the landlord’s confirmation that it was not had influenced their decision to move.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 7 and 8 June 2023 show that it had requested its specialist for a quote to replace the exterior door as well as several other doors at the property. It noted that the surveyor had conducted a further inspection of the property on 24 May 2023 concerning the illegal electrical wiring, which the resident explained had been carried out by the former resident. The surveyor had informed the resident that they would need to contact the electrical supplier directly to resolve that matter, as the landlord was unable to carry out any electrical works until this had been done.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 June 2023. It stated:
1. In terms of the car parking, the property was in a car free zone and that residents could not apply for a parking permit or transfer previous permits. It added it was the responsibility of the resident to make enquiries about parking and the landlord could not override the decision made by the council over the parking. It added it had amended its mutual exchange process to ensure tenants for the area were made aware of the car free zone by signing documentation about it.
2. That under a mutual exchange, residents took over the property in its current condition. It added that damage had occurred between the resident’s visit to the property and the date of exchange. It added that when it had inspected the property prior to the exchange it was in good condition. It did add it would carry out repairs and was liaising with the police to understand how the damage had been caused.
3. In respect of repair delays, a surveyor had attended the property on two occasions and a list of repairs had been raised some of which had been completed and others including the front and rear doors, glass work and windows and electrical works were outstanding. It noted the resident had declined repairs to the kitchen area as they had requested a new kitchen and bathroom. It added it would only carry out repairs as they were “not yet due a kitchen or bathroom replacement” as they were on a planned program which had a number of years to run. The landlord apologised for the time taken to action the repairs.
4. The electrical meter had been “worked on by someone other than the service provider who owns it”. It added it was the resident’s responsibility to contact the supplier and it asked the resident to do this as soon as they started using the supply.
The landlord carried out a satisfactory EICR on 29 June 2023. The certificate set out that the report had followed on from an earlier unsatisfactory report. Despite requesting a copy of this earlier EICR, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with that report.
The landlord emailed the resident about the car parking on 30 June 2023. It added that it had added them to the parking waiting list. It also asked the resident if the EICR had been sent to them. The resident replied on 2 July 2023 explaining that the parking list provided by the landlord was too far from the property and that they had still not received the EICR. The resident set out the repairs which were still due and asked on 3 July 2023 for the complaint to be escalated. The resident explained that some of the information in the landlord’s stage 1 response was wrong and that the issues had impacted their family life and exacerbated their disabilities. The landlord confirmed that it would chase up for the repairs and the EICR. It also confirmed that the parking locations it had previously provided were all that it could offer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 on 6 July 2023. It provided the resident with a deadline for its response of 1 August 2023. It also continued to communicate with the resident over the issue of car parking list locations, as the resident had explained that the spaces offered were too far away from the property and they had been trying to get a residential permit from the council.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2023. The resident explained that they were unhappy with the work proposals for the doors and windows in the property. The resident explained that only the front door and living room window needed replacing and the other doors and the bathroom window could be fixed based on the resident getting someone who was experienced to look at the windows and the doors. The resident added that the landlord had taken so long as it had not “agreed the price of the quotes you have been given because they are expensive”.
The landlord emailed the resident the stage 2 response on 31 July 2023. It explained that it understood the resident was unhappy about the delays in completing the repairs and the level of compensation for the inconvenience. It stated:
1. Appointments had been made in relation to the bathroom and kitchen and it noted the repairs to these issues were nearing completion.
2. Works required for the doors and windows remained outstanding. It added there was a disagreement with the contractors on the “final specification and the prices for the works”. It accepted the delay was not acceptable and apologised for the matter. The landlord offered to meet the resident at the property to “review how the remaining items can be prioritised and completed”.
3. That it was unable to comment on the resident’s request for compensation at that time as it wanted a clear understanding of the outstanding repairs and wanted to assess the repairs carried out to date. It then stated it could make a decision on the issue of compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2023 welcoming the landlord to visit them to see the state of the property. They added that the landlord had been given wrong information on a few issues namely:
1. Repairs were not nearing completion and they had not even started.
2. They had not been offered any compensation.
3. The landlord had yet to provide a reasonable solution for their parking.
Following the visit to the property by the landlord it emailed the resident on 11 August 2023. The landlord explained a further update setting out next steps and a timetable as well as detailing compensation would be issued by the end of the following week. It set out:
1. In relation to parking, that it could offer parking bays on other estates which it had. It noted that the spaces were some distance from the property. however it explained it was “unable to facilitate street parking outside your home. This is a decision for the council”.
2. A new front door, front room window and back door from the kitchen to the garden had been ordered.
3. Bedroom doors were to be replaced. It added it would ask its contractors whether the bedroom window could be tightened.
4. It would ask the surveyor to carry out a post inspection following annual leave on the bathroom pump, skirting board and window handle/locking mechanism.
5. It understood from the resident that they had still not received the EICR.
The landlord’s internal correspondence show that it had raised several jobs between 21 and 23 August 2023. This included the wet room. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 September 2023 chasing its response. They stated the landlord had set out in its correspondence from 11 August 2023 that they would be contacted by the following week which had not happened. A further chaser was sent by the resident on 25 September 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 September 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding, which it stated was down to annual leave as well as following up on the repairs which had been outstanding: It stated:
1. Repairs to the property were now complete and it noted the resident had been satisfied with the work. The landlord enclosed the EICR.
2. The outstanding matter was the replacement doors and window and it was unable to verify if those works were complete. It asked the resident to share any information it had on this matter with it.
3. That it accepted that the resident had been advised street parking was available which had been a deciding factor in accepting the mutual exchange, which was incorrect. It accepted this had caused the resident inconvenience but reiterated it was unable to change the situation as it rested with the council and not itself. It asked if the resident had heard back from the council on the matter. It reiterated the earlier offer for the resident to have a parking bay on its estate should they wish this.
4. It was offering compensation of £400 for the time taken to resolve the matters that arose out of the mutual exchange. No further breakdown was provided for this figure as to what specific issues the amount covered.
5. As a result of the resident’s health concerns a neighbourhood officer would be in contact within 10 days to “best support you”
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 October 2023 asking to meet with the Chief Executive. They explained they had emailed the previous week to discuss their situation but had not had a response. The landlord informed the resident that the complaint was still at stage 2 and so a specific case handler was dealing with it. The resident informed the landlord that it was mistaken and stage 2 had been completed and they remained dissatisfied, hence they had contacted the Chief Executive.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 October 2023. It confirmed that the complaints process was complete but it did understand there were some outstanding issues. It offered to meet the resident together with a senior colleague from its repairs team. It also stated that, in terms of the parking, whilst the estate bays had a weekly rental cost it would provide one free for the first six months. As an alternative it added it would support the resident it they wished to move out via a mutual exchange. It added it would pause the compensation offer until the repairs had been completed.
The landlord and resident continued to exchange emails concerning the car parking issue between 13 and 18 October 2023. The resident had asked if the landlord would move them if they could not obtain a resident’s permit. They also explained that a further quotation was being obtained for the doors as the previous one had again been too high. The landlord raised further work orders to do with the kitchen and the basin which had been leaking.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 October 2023 which followed on from a visit to the property. It stated the repairs to the front door was a priority. It stated if the resident wished to transfer to another property they needed to register with the council for the purpose of assessing the resident’s application. However it added that “it will be likely you will have a low priority as your current home is adequate for you. The lack of parking will not be considered a high enough need to move”.
The landlord and resident continued to discuss the issue of the car parking and the parking bays which the landlord could offer between 27 October 2023 and 20 November 2023. The resident had explained all of the parking bay options offered by the landlord were too far from the property. The resident added on 14 November 2023 that they had been paying every day for parking which at the time was for six months. The resident wanted the landlord to refund these costs. The landlord replied on 20 November 2023 stating it was not able to refund the costs and it had offered six months free to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 November 2023 asking to raise a new complaint about getting their parking costs paid by it, as they were unable to get the permit due to the landlord’s actions. They also completed an online complaint form with the landlord on the same day concerning outstanding repairs and the issue of compensation.
The landlord explained on 30 November 2023 that it was unable to set up a new complaint as the issues of repairs had previously received a stage 2 response on the matter and so completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It did however state it would forward the issue to the property services team. The landlord sent the resident an email on 1 December 2023 concerning the park parking issue. It explained the issue had been covered under the previous complaint and it reiterated its offer of six months with no rental fee. It also explained that a space in an area the resident had previously expressed an interest in had become available and asked if the resident was still interested in it.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails between 4 December 2023 and 14 December 2023. The resident stated the issues being raised (parking, front door and works for the kitchen) had not previously been raised and the landlord disputed this. It explained a new door had been ordered for the new year and that works for the kitchen had been raised. It also extended its offer of parking in a bay to 12 months from the previous offer of six months. The resident explained on 23 December 2023 that the work to the kitchen was not acceptable, that the replacement front door was still not fitted and, due to their vulnerabilities, opening the existing door had been a challenge.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the lack of communication about the replacement of the front door, an unresolved blockage in the wet room and damp and mould issues following a leak on 12 March 2024. It explained:
1. The replacement door was due for delivery on 24 April 2024 and could be installed on 29 April 2024 however if this was not suitable then the resident should contact the landlord’s contractor about the matter.
2. In terms of the damp and mould issues, it had identified two jobs which had been raised in terms of a leak at the property. One had been in November 2023 and the other in January 2024. It added both jobs had been resolved and it had appointed a specialist damp company to deal with the damp and mould issues. The damp company had confirmed that they had not carried out an appointment as the date proposed by it was not suitable for the residents and an alternative available date for the resident had not yet been provided. It asked the resident to contact the damp company to make an appointment.
3. With regards to compensation the landlord noted £400 had previously been offered to the resident following the previous complaint. It proposed a further £150 in “recognition of the length of time it has taken beyond the initial lead time for the replacement front door installation”.
The resident informed this Service that the front door had been replaced by the landlord on 8 May 2024.
The landlord confirmed to this Service following a visit to the property by its neighbourhood team on 14 May 2024 that it was assisting the resident in trying to obtain a disability badge to assist with the obtaining of a parking permit. This had been on the basis of health concerns for the resident’s daughter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

Since making the original complaint the resident has continued to contact the landlord in relation to a number of different issues. These included asking it to pay for the cost of parking, unblocking a wet room, and damp and mould as a result of a leak for which the resident requested compensation. The resident has also stated they had tried to make further complaints which the landlord had not allowed them to make.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters for which the resident has not yet raised with the landlord or if they have yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Whilst the resident received a stage 1 response on 12 March 2024 it is not clear whether that complaint was escalated to stage 2 by the resident. If the resident had received a final response and remained dissatisfied they would need to raise the matter with this Service, where it would be treated as a new investigation. As a result these issues are outside the scope of this investigation. However the Ombudsman has made a recommendation in respect of this issue which is at the end of this report.
In addition to the above, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that the issues she has experienced have impacted both hers and her daughter’s health. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions.
Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.

The landlord’s contemporaneous documentation from prior to the resident moving to the property, showed that the resident had via their representative made enquiries about the car parking situation at the property. The landlord’s representative had confirmed that the property did not have a designated parking space but did say that the property was not in a car free zone. The resident’s representative had enquired specifically about this issue on multiple occasions with the landlord, which demonstrated that the issue was a deciding factor in the resident completing the mutual exchange.
The landlord had initially explained to the resident that the onus was on them to make necessary enquiries over the issue prior to moving. Ordinarily this would be a reasonable approach to ensure that the property met with the resident’s requirements. However, as the landlord had confirmed the property was not in a car free zone, the resident was entitled to rely on the information provided to them as being accurate.
Despite the confusion over whether the property was or was not in a car free zone, the resident was made aware there was no designated parking space. As a result the resident would have no contractual ownership over any parking space outside or in the nearby vicinity of the property. Therefore any parking may have been a distance away from the property.
The landlord directed the resident to the council over the issue of parking. Whilst the landlord was correct in explaining that the ultimate decision for granting a parking permit did not rest with it but with the council, it still needed to take accountability for the incorrect information it had provided at the outset to the resident. The landlord has recently confirmed to this Service that, following a visit to the resident on 14 May 2024 where it was made aware of the health issues for the resident’s daughter, it discussed how the resident could apply for a disabled badge which would support with the parking permit. Whilst this was appropriate, the resident had previously made the landlord aware as far back as May 2023 that they had vulnerabilities. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it had tried to ascertain from the resident the detail of the vulnerabilities at an earlier stage and how this could have led it to suggest the disabled badge application at an earlier time. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to provide appropriate support to the resident.
The landlord did offer the resident a parking space and made them aware of the options in terms of locations which it had available, which was a reasonable initial attempt to remedy the incorrect information it had initially provided. However the landlord initially agreed to waive the rental costs of the parking bay for only six months which was later increased to 12 months. Whilst the waiving of the fee was reasonable it was not reasonable to limit this to six or 12 months given the impact of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions. Although the Ombudsman has noted the resident has informed the landlord that they may move via a transfer or a mutual exchange, they remain at the present time in the property. It would therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, be appropriate for the landlord to waive the rental fee for the parking bay for the duration that the resident remained in the property and not cap it at 12 months. This would be with the caveat that, if the resident had been able to secure a parking permit on the basis of disability from the council, or if the landlord had offered the resident an alternative suitable property then this would replace the landlord’s obligation to fund and provide the parking space.
Although the resident has asked the landlord to pay for the parking costs which were incurred by them from the time that they had moved in, the resident did not initially do this until November 2023, some six months after they had initially raised concerns about the parking. The resident’s request for the costs to be covered by the landlord was dismissed by it. This Service has not been provided with any evidence that the resident has provided any details or supporting evidence of these incurred parking costs to the landlord. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation in respect of this aspect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the property.

As part of the mutual exchange process the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. The landlord’s internal correspondence detail that this inspection was carried out on 11 April 2023 and that the neighbouring officer who had attended on that date sent an internal email which picked up some repairs in relation to door handles which it was noted could be repaired following the new resident moving in. However there had been no mention of the lack of a fire door or issues with the front door within that email. The landlord has explained to this Service that, due to staffing changes, it has been unable to locate the inspection report or any pictures from the time. It has however provided handover notes following the resident moving in (on 15 May 2023). These notes set out the property had been in a “good condition” and that it had “only picked up repairs to front door, tree and slaps [sic] in garden, kitchen door not a fire door”. The landlord’s internal email on 26 April 2023 did reference the need to refit a fire door.
The landlord’s handover notes do not appear to tie in with the earlier emails sent on 11 April 2023 on 26 April 2023. There was no mention in the email of 11 April 2023 about issues with the front door or that the kitchen door was not a fire door and the landlord’s works orders do not show that any jobs had been raised on the issue until after the resident had moved in. Whilst this was a failing by the landlord, it did confirm to the resident that, although it was unable to say who had caused the damage, it would carry out repairs to the property. This was reasonable in the circumstances and it has provided evidence that several work orders were raised in terms of these repairs. Whilst the resident requested a new kitchen and wet room, citing the need to optimise space, the landlord informed the resident that the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom were on a planned programme which still had a number of years to run. A replacement of the kitchen and bathroom would have been considered to be improvements and the landlord was not obliged to do this but rather to repair the property. Overall the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.

The landlord has accepted that the front door of the property had needed repairs. It had set out a work order to replace the multi point locks or look at a replacement door on 16 May 2023. The landlord’s internal notes show that its operative had informed it on 7 June 2023 that it would be requesting for a quote for a replacement and, following a visit by the contractor, a quote had been provided to the landlord. It is not clear when the landlord received the quote which was dated 22 June 2023.
Following a quote for the work having been obtained, a second quote was requested by the landlord. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to obtain more than one quote for any required work, it needed to balance the time taken for this with any safety concerns relating to the work. The resident has explained that they were concerned that they could not lock the front door properly due to the multi point lock not working correctly and this meant the resident did not go out and leave the property empty whenever possible. This would have caused them a degree of distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s internal communication shows that it had requested a second quote on 1 August 2023 as the cost it had received was too high. This was several weeks after the date of the first quote and it was after the landlord had issued the stage 2 response. The landlord was aware that the delay in completing the repairs was part of the resident’s request for escalating their complaint. Whilst it stated in the stage 2 response that the delay was due to a disagreement between it and the contractor over the specification and price of works, there was no evidence it had done anything between receiving the initial quote to the time it issued the stage 2 response over a month later. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s internal communication had noted on 21 August 2023 that a new door was on order. However when it had contacted the resident on 25 September 2023, over a month later it was unclear as to the status of the replacement door. A further quote was requested by the landlord on 5 October 2023. No reason was provided for why another quote had been required. Based on the evidence provided this further quote was approved by the landlord and the replacement door was ordered by it on 23 November 2023. The landlord’s internal notes noted that there was a lead time of 8 to 10 weeks for the door, although it accepted that it had not kept the resident updated on concerns to the matter. The landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it had not contacted the resident to arrange an appointment for the door until 27 March 2023. Even at that time the door had still not been delivered.
The landlord offered compensation of £400 for its failings as of September 2023 and this was further increased by an additional £150 in March 2024 for the further delay. This total amount of £550 is in the Ombudsman’s opinion appropriate compensation in respect of the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the lack of a valid electrical installation and conditioning report (EICR) at the time the resident moved in.

The landlord’s email to A on 11 April 2023 confirmed that it would be obtaining gas and electric certificates. This was good practice following the mutual exchange. The landlord had confirmed on 27 April 2023 that it was still waiting on the electrical certificate.
Following the landlord’s surveyor having attended the property on 17 May 2023, the surveyor sent an internal email the following day requesting the electrical certificate. This had followed on from the surveyor and the resident having noted there was some illegal wiring at the property (to do with the meter). The surveyor was informed to contact a different area who told the surveyor that “we have never been notified of this job”. This was a breakdown in communication by the landlord and a failing by it in terms of obtaining and having a valid EICR at the time the resident had moved in. However the landlord compounded this error by not undertaking and obtaining a satisfactory EICR until 29 June 2023, around six weeks later. The landlord stated it could not carry out electrical works until the resident had contacted the electrical utility supplier about the matter of the illegal wiring. Under normal circumstances it would have been appropriate for the resident and not the landlord to contact the utility provider as the contractual relationship was between those parties and not with the landlord. However, given the specific circumstances in this case, the landlord could have intervened and ought to have done more, especially as there was no electrical certificate in place at the time.
The completed EICR undertaken on 29 June 2023 recorded under section 3 relating to comments on the existing installation “remedial works carried out from unsatisfactory report”. This would suggest that an EICR had been carried out by the landlord at an earlier time which had provided an unsatisfactory outcome. However the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of this EICR to this Service or to provide any other records to show when the earlier EICR had taken place.
The resident had continually chased the landlord for the EICR on multiple occasions since May 2023. Even if the landlord was unable to carry out any electrical work including the EICR until the resident had contacted the utility provider it should have communicated this directly to the resident. However it did not do this. This was a failing on its part.
Even though the EICR was carried out at the end of June 2023, a copy was not provided to the resident until 25 September 2023, nearly three months later. This was despite the resident having continued to request the EICR on several occasions. The impact of this on the resident would have been to cause them distress and inconvenience, especially as they had been aware at the time that they moved in that there was some illegal wiring at the property. The lack of an EICR being provided until the resident had been in the property for over four months was a serious failing by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by it which affected the resident. The policy confirmed that the resident was not required to use the word complaint for it to be treated as one. The policy explained that the complaints process comprised two stages. At stage 1 the landlord would acknowledge a complaint within five working days and aim to provide a response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint although this could be extended by a further 10 working days in which case it would explain to the resident the reasons why this had happened. It added that in terms of any work which needed to be done “we will engage with the resident throughout the process”. If the resident remained unhappy they were able to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the complaints process. At stage 2 the policy explained it would acknowledge the request within five working days and that the landlord would provide its response within a further 20 working days of the acknowledgement, although this could be extended by a further 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy explained in terms of stage 1 “where a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, these will be incorporated into the Stage 1 response if they are related, and the response has not been issued. If they are unrelated or would unreasonably delay the response these will be logged as a new complaint”.
The resident had initially contacted the landlord on 19 May 2023 to express their dissatisfaction. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when or if it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was despite it being in regular contact with the resident over the repairs. It issued the stage 1 response on 13 June 2023, some 16 working days after the complaint was made. This was slightly outside the timescales contained in the landlord’s complaints policy and, whilst the landlord has not provided any evidence it had updated the resident as to the reasons why it had needed additional time, there was no significant impact on the resident caused by the slightly late response.
Following the resident escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 3 July 2023 the landlord did acknowledge it and provide its response in line with the timescales contained within the complaints policy. The stage 2 response did indicate that some repairs remained outstanding and that it wanted to meet with the resident to gauge an understanding on the nature of the works. It also set out that, in terms of compensation, it would address this once it had an understanding of the outstanding repairs. This was appropriate given the works had not been completed at that time.
The resident explained that they had tried to raise further complaints with the landlord which it had failed to log. From the evidence provided to this Service the resident raised a complaint about asking the landlord to pay for the parking costs they had incurred since they moved in from May 2023 on 23 November 2023. In addition the resident asked to raise a complaint about making the front door more secure as well as the issue of compensation. Both of these issues had been following the landlord having issued the stage 2 response. The landlord did not raise a complaint for these matters at that time as it stated the issues had previously been covered under the first complaint the resident had made.
Whilst the issue of parking had been previously raised the resident had not raised the issue of asking the landlord to pay their parking costs. Instead the complaint had concerned asking the landlord to resolve the issue of a parking permit. Therefore this was a separate complaint which the resident was making and the landlord should have raised it as a complaint. In terms of the repair and compensation the landlord did eventually raise the issue of the repairs (in respect of the lack of communication) as a new complaint on 28 February 2024, some three months after the resident had raised the matter. This was a failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident would have been to cause a degree of distress and inconvenience at a time when they had been still looking at the landlord completing repairs, some of which had been outstanding for a considerable period of time.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the original inspection including photos which it carried out on the property prior to the resident moving in to the property in May 2023. Whilst it did provide this Service with handover notes which it explained were taken at the time the resident had moved, the information in these notes did not fully tie in with the other contemporaneous evidence from the time of the initial inspection. This was important as the inspection should have identified further issues of repair and could have identified the issue of the tampered meter. In addition the landlord was unable to provide this Service with a copy of the EICR which had been carried out prior to 29 June 2023, following the previous resident having moved out. The subsequent EICR had referenced that remedial work had been carried out which was indicative that an earlier one had been undertaken.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in respect of this complaint. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the parking arrangements.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the lack of an EICR at the time the resident had moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £300 in respect of its handling of a lack of a valid EICR at the time the resident had moved in.
3. Pay the resident an amount of £100 in relation to its complaints handling.
4. Pay the resident an amount of £150 in relation to its record keeping.
5. Pay the resident an amount of £550 as set out by its correspondence of 25 September 2023 and 12 March 2024 in relation to its handling of the repairs/replacement of the front door.
6. Arrange to cover the rental costs of a parking bay for the resident until the earlier of the resident moving out of the property, being offered a suitable property by the landlord or the resident having obtained a parking permit for the property.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should undertake a review of its process to ensure that it holds a valid gas and electrical certificate for all properties, and that its records are easily accessible should there be a change in staff. This should form part of any handover prior to a new resident moving into a property or undertaking a mutual exchange.
The landlord should review the concerns raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in September 2023. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss these concerns and any further assistance it can offer to them.
The landlord should reconsider its position on covering the resident’s parking costs from the point that they had moved into the property, if the resident is able to provide it with supporting information/evidence of these costs.
The landlord should review its internal record system and ensure the vulnerabilities of the household are fully reflected on the records.
If the resident is offered an alternative property, the landlord should consider providing reasonable support and financial reimbursement for the cost of moving.