Wandle Housing Association Limited (202124591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124591

Wandle Housing Association Limited

27 November 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 landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s new home.
2. The landlord’s refusal to carry out work to the bathroom.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident moved into her home in August 2020. It is a 2-bedroom house let to her through a mutual exchange as part of her assured tenancy. On a mutual exchange, no new tenancies are created and no new tenancy agreements are issued. Each tenant signs a ‘deed of assignment’ to swap over the tenancy.
The resident disclosed to the landlord her vulnerabilities of mental health issues that included emotional unstable personality disorder, anxiety and depression.
The landlord has an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy published on its website that commits to ensure it is sensitive and responsive to the needs of individuals and will make reasonable adjustments wherever it is practical to do so.
The Equality Act 2010 ensures individuals are protected from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. Landlords are required to take positive steps to ensure individuals with protected characteristics including disabled residents (and those with long term mental health conditions) are not disadvantaged when receiving landlord services.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement places obligations on the landlord to maintain the property in particular in relation to the structure, fixtures and fittings. There are also obligations on the tenant to make good any damage the household or visitors cause to the premises, fixtures and fittings and pay any costs incurred by the landlord carrying out such works.
The landlord publishes on its website its repairs policy that sets out tenant and landlord responsibilities and priorities for completion of repairs as follows:
1. Emergency (to avoid danger to occupants or property) – within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency – where it has attended the emergency and it may be necessary to complete the full repair – within 7 days.
3. Appointed (minor leaks, fixtures and fittings) – within 28 days. However, it can prioritise some repairs to 7 days.
4. Major repairs – non emergency routine ( over £1000) – within 90 days and in some circumstances, it can form part of a larger programme of works.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It commits to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 25 February 2020, the landlord carried out a mutual exchange inspection of the resident’s new home. No issues of concern were noted in relation to the property condition following the inspection and the landlord provided photographs to support this statement.
On 29 July 2020, the landlord’s records showed a confirmation letter to the outgoing resident which stated the mutual exchange would take place on 6 August 2020 and due to the COVID-19 restrictions in place, the sign-up process would be by video communication.
The resident signed the landlord’s ‘mutual exchange acceptance of condition of property’ form on 6 August 2020. This was to accept the carpets, curtains, wooden flooring, curtain fittings or any other non-standard items left at the property would be the resident’s responsibility. The landlord also stated the resident would have to cover any costs involved in carrying out any improvement work. The landlord said it would not undertake additional works apart from those stated in the report. No additional works were recorded on the form.
The landlord’s repair history showed it raised repairs on 28 August 2020 and 24 September 2020. The landlord’s records do not refer to whether these were requested by the resident or if the landlord had previously identified the work.
1. On 28 August 2020 the landlord recorded the following work details:
  1. Detectors – fire/smoke/carbon monoxide.
  2. Kitchen and bathroom door.
  3. Replacement of kitchen cupboard doors.
  4. Hole in the bedroom ceiling.

Details of the work which was carried out have not been provided to this Service. However, the landlord noted a completion date of 22 September 2020 against this record.

On 24 September 2020 the landlord recorded the following work details:
1. Clear rubbish left outside the property – no completion date was shown.
2. Paint bedroom ceiling after replastering works. Completion date – 25 January 2021.

The landlord’s records showed a repair order on 29 October 2020 to check for a leak in the loft area. It is unclear if this repair was requested by the resident or whether the landlord had identified the issue. A completion date of 10 November 2020 was recorded.
The landlord provided this Service with a transcript of a call between the landlord and resident dated 19 November 2020. The resident had asked for the bathroom fittings to be replaced and the landlord refused because it said they appeared to have been deliberately damaged. The resident disputed this and said the damage was present when she moved in. The landlord said it would send a letter to the resident to confirm its decision not to replace the bathroom fittings.
Various other repairs are shown within the landlord’s job history that include repairs to the bathroom suite, kitchen sink and cracks to the plaster. The landlord confirmed a sink and bifold doors had been replaced. However, the landlord has not provided records to show when or how these repairs were identified and no completion dates have been confirmed.
On 22 November 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a visit. The resident queried the reason for the visit and expressed how the situation with repairs was impacting her mental health. The landlord explained the meeting was to discuss the case and improve their relationship. An appointment was arranged.
The landlord ordered a repair to the shower on 23 November 2020 and it recorded a completion date of 10 December 2020. However, another repair order for the same job is shown on the same date with a completion date of 15 December 2020. The resident has confirmed that the landlord did not carry out any work at this point.
There is a gap in the landlord’s records until 6 September 2021, when the resident sent an email to the landlord. She asked when she could request a new bathroom as she had been at the property over a year and referred to neighbours who had received new bathrooms. She listed her concerns about her bathroom as:
1. No enamel on the bath and stains from the previous tenant.
2. Taps eroded.
3. Shower eroded and poor pressure.
4. Bath water did not drain.
5. Toilet did not flush properly and in old condition.
On 20 November 2021, the resident sent the landlord another email to explain the situation with her bathroom and was asking for help to try and resolve it. She told the landlord the state of her bathroom negatively impacted on her health and caused her to take time off work.
On 22 November 2021, the resident’s MP sent a letter to the landlord and stated the resident’s bathroom was in a poor condition and had been since she moved in. The letter attached images which showed the state of the bathroom and informed the landlord the resident was very distressed due to the landlord’s allegations of her damaging the fittings. The MP asked for the findings of a recent assessment.
On 30 November 2021, the resident sent another email to the landlord asking it to respond.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint response dated 2 December 2021, the landlord made the following responses to the resident based on its inspection of the property that it conducted on 11 November 2021:
1. The resident had admitted she used a corrosive substance in an attempt to clean the bath and sink. This caused significant damage/staining.
2. The resident initially claimed the damage to the toilet cistern and the broken wash hand basin had been present when she moved into the property.

An inspection conducted prior to her moving in showed no damage to the bathroom. Photographs taken at the time of the inspection showed a substantial difference to the property’s current state.
The landlord asked the resident to make good the damage or pay costs to the landlord for carrying out the necessary works.
The landlord asked the resident to address its concerns and if she was unable to do so, the landlord would bill the resident for the repairs and that non-compliance could lead to further action.
The landlord had made temporary repairs to make the property safe but was not providing a replacement bathroom.

As part of its stage 1 complaint response the landlord recorded the resident had stated during another visit to the property that her son had caused the damage to the wash hand basin and toilet cistern. She expressed the need for adaptations to the bathroom to make it more suitable for their needs. It asked her to seek guidance from an Occupational Therapist assessment and it would take into account medical needs and make recommendation as to what adaptations were required.
The same day, the resident replied to the landlord disagreeing with its findings. The resident itemised a number of issues in addition to the following deficiencies:
1. No fire alarm in the property;
2. No carbon monoxide monitors.
3. No Internal doors.
4. Kitchen cupboard doors and floors were covered in animal urine.
5. There was a hole to bedroom ceiling.
6. Items were left in front, and back gardens and loft area.

She explained that she had stayed in a hotel so that pest control could remove a flea infestation before moving in and that the landlord had only carried out the minimum legal work and that this had taken 6 months to complete.

On 6 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and advised her she should receive its response within 20 working days.
During January 2022, the resident made several chase ups to her landlord requesting progress on her complaint and on 13 January 2022, her MP sent a letter to the landlord concerned there was little progress with the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 19 January 2022 summarising the following:
1. It apologised for the delay issuing the complaint response.
2. The wash hand basin and toilet had been damaged deliberately.
3. Repairs were identified for the faulty shower.
4. It confirmed its decision not to replace the bathroom remained. A new bathroom would be provided in 2024 as part of planned renewal.
5. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for damage they had caused.
6. It had completed work to repair the shower on 15 December 2021 and no further works were recommended.
7. In recognition of its failure to respond to the complaint within its policy guidelines it offered £50 compensation.
On 22 January 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord and stated it had refused to show her the evidence of photographs it had taken of the damaged bathroom fittings. She referred to the basin being dangerous and she was concerned about the other fittings. The resident stated she was protected by the Equality Act 2010 but didn’t offer further clarification on her point.
The landlord’s records showed the resident had appointed an advocate who sent an email to the landlord on 24 January 2022. This concerned remarks made by the landlord in its complaint response regarding ‘unsubstantiated threats’ about the security of the resident’s tenancy. The advocate said the landlord had failed to provide photographic evidence of the alleged damage. The advocate implied indirect discrimination by the landlord against the resident as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The advocate requested the bathroom should be replaced immediately.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident another stage 2 complaint response. It outlined the following:
1. The move was through a mutual exchange meaning the resident accepted the property as viewed.
2. While the property would be safe and habitable, mutual exchanges were not upgraded in the same way as traditional relets.
3. There was no evidence that the wash hand basin was damaged when she moved into the property.
4. It had replaced some items; (smoke alarms and internal doors).
5. Numerous visits had taken place, it had offered to replace the bathroom and recharge the costs to her, and this was still on offer.
6. It could not see how the bathroom defects had resulted from normal wear and tear and the resident had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate how the damage had arisen. The landlord’s position was the damage may have been caused deliberately, which would be a breach of tenancy conditions.
The resident provided this Service with a copy email dated 28 January 2022 that the landlord had sent to her. The landlord asked the resident if she would attend independent facilitated mediation as it said it could see the complaint process had been difficult for the resident and had impacted her health.
On the same day, the resident’s community psychiatric nurse provided a support letter to the landlord advising how the resident’s housing situation was impacting her mental health and a property inspection was requested. The resident accepted the offer of mediation with her advocate present which the landlord agreed to and it proposed a meeting within the next 10 days.
On 3 February 2022, the resident sent the landlord an email requesting information in relation to housing and equality law advising that the bathroom suite was a danger to the resident and her young child. It also mentions concerns about the handling of the stage 2 complaint, particularly the accusations of deliberate damage.
The next day, the landlord sent the resident an email to arrange to attend the property with a maintenance specialist who had not previously been involved in her case. It proposed a date of 10 February 2022. After the resident chased up the landlord for a response to previous questions, it responded the same day to confirm it wanted the opportunity to move matters forward and asked for support information so it could consider any adjustments it needed to make.
The resident replied the same day outlining the complaint, stating she could not bathe and listed her medical needs. The resident said the adjustments she required was a new bathroom suite. She felt the visit was suspicious as the decision had already been made not to renew the bathroom.
On 4 February 2022, a landlord internal email recorded the bathroom replacement could be brought forward and carried out as soon as possible. It said it would survey the property and ensure the necessary information for the replacement was gathered.
On 7 February 2022, the resident’s advocate responded to the landlord outlining her concerns, referring to the “Equality Act” and the fact that the bathroom suite was dangerous. She was concerned that the purpose of the visit was to replace the bathroom suite at a cost to the resident and spread over a time frame. The landlord responded to the resident the following day and attached photographs from the mutual exchange inspection before she moved in.
Communications continued between the resident and landlord in relation to the purpose of the proposed visit and the resident agreed to a visit but only for the bathroom to be photographed and not to the whole of her home.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that it inspected the property and emailed the resident advising that it would follow up actions within the next few days. The landlord provided a draft letter to this Service (not dated or name/addressed) that confirmed its observations of damage to the bathroom suite. It was concluded that while it was unable to agree how the damage had occurred, it was in urgent need of repair and it would replace the bathroom as part of its replacement programme of works and it would arrange a survey. It went onto refer to observations within the kitchen of plaster works, boiler components that were exposed, the different colour of the kitchen cupboards and a metal strip to the worktop that had come away.
In the landlord’s same draft letter, it confirmed to the resident that the kitchen was in good condition and it would not be replacing it but it would make good the plaster, fit a door/cupboard to hide the boiler and repair the worktop. The landlord also referred to the resident’s tenancy obligations stating it was not its intention to serve a notice of seeking possession as a result of the condition of the bathroom but it did reserve the right to serve a notice if there was a serious breach of a term within the tenancy agreement. It went on to appoint an officer as a single point of contact until the bathroom situation had been resolved.
The landlord’s records confirm the outcome of the meeting with the resident on 16 February 2022. It reported a resolution was reached to prioritise the bathroom for replacement, noting it was in a dangerous condition with the basin and toilet having large fragments of ceramic missing that required to be made safe while waiting for a replacement.
On the same day, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it would be replacing the bathroom and attached a letter to explain in more detail. The resident responded the same day expressing disappointment because she said she had been told by the landlord that she would be getting an electric shower and it appeared that was not the case. The resident made the following comments:
1. The glass shower screen was being taken away and she was concerned because she relied on this to steady herself.
2. She requested a choice in the new floor covering.
3. There had not been a breach of her tenancy.
4. She appreciated repairs to the kitchen ceiling and the electrical cupboard door.
On 18 February 2022, an occupational therapist emailed the resident. They confirmed that if the issues with the bathroom were related to repair and maintenance then an occupational therapist assessment would not be appropriate.
On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord about a formal complaint, explaining how she had not received a response and referred to “equality legislation”.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and attached an acknowledgement to her complaint.
Various emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord as she was concerned who was investigating her complaint and whether they were impartial to previous officer involvement. The resident wanted an acknowledgment from the chief executive officer who her letter was addressed to. The landlord acknowledged the email and referred to its previous advice that the chief executive had appointed the head of customer service delivery to investigate and respond.
On 1 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction in relation to the following:
1. The false accusations of damage to the bathroom.
2. Threats in relation to the tenancy and charging for the bathroom.
3. Lies and misrepresenting information.
4. Not taking her mental health into account and protection under the equality legislation or making reasonable adjustments.
5. Not giving decent washing facilities, leaving a dangerous bathroom and not replacing it until 2023.
6. Refusing to show the evidence relied on in relation to the accusations.
7. The required outcome she wanted was:
  1. An apology from all staff who had made threats and allegations against her.
  2. Compensation for expenses in relation to the condition of the property, the way she had been treated and the detrimental effect on her health.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response letter. It stated the following:
1. The resident viewed the property in January 2020; she moved in August 2020 and the inspection was carried out in line with its mutual exchange process.
2. The purpose of the inspection was to identify repairs that may be required and/or alterations to the property made by the outgoing tenant.
3. At the time of viewing, the property was in good condition and there was no further responsibility on the outgoing tenant to repair the property.
4. It acknowledged the unfortunate timing of the exchange during the outbreak of COVID-19 that caused severe delays.
5. It said it had fulfilled its landlord obligations by carrying out an inspection and it had no reason to believe the property would not be exchanged in the same condition when it was inspected.
6. It was reviewing its housing management policy including an overhaul of the mutual exchange procedure.
7. It explained its repairs responsibilities and that damage or repairs which fell under the tenants responsibility, should have been carried out by the outgoing tenant. It advised that such liabilities past to her.
8. It had reviewed the previous complaint responses and said it was unable to make a determination on how or when the bathroom became damaged.
9. The bathroom would be replaced and work was planned for 18 April 2022.
10. It was not the intention of the landlord to take action to repossess the property as a result of its current condition or for any other reason.
On 7 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 in relation to the impartiality of the officer investigating the complaint and she made the following comments:
1. The landlord had failed to acknowledge that she viewed the property months prior to moving in and the landlord failed to view within 42 days of the exchange.
2. The responsibility of repairs did not pass to her after the exchange because the exchange was done remotely due to the pandemic.
3. The evidence of the alleged damage was questioned by the resident.
4. She was entitled to have the allegation redacted and an apology of being wrongly accused.
5. The apology was not accepted as she felt it should be made by those involved in relation to the personal and insulting remarks.
6. Her complaint questions had not been answered in relation to how the situation had impacted on her mental health and she believed she was covered under the “Equality Act 2010”.
7. Specific officers were referred to in relation to them being rude and unhelpful.
8. She wanted an explanation as to why the landlord was now carrying out the works.
The following day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and on 4 April 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response confirming the following:
1. It explained the reasons why the chief executive did not respond to the complaint and why this was forwarded to its head of customer service delivery to investigate and respond.
2. It explained the mutual exchange legislation including the 42-day decision rule and that the inspection took place February 2020 which confirmed it could proceed subject to all other tenancy checks being satisfactory.
3. The resident signed a ‘mutual exchange deed of assignment’ in August 2020 and an ‘acceptance of property condition form’ confirming she was accepting the property in its existing condition.
4. The delay in completing the mutual exchange was because of COVID-19 restrictions.
5. It apologised as “an assumption had been made that the resident had caused damage to the bathroom”. It said that “based on photographic evidence during the inspection in February 2020, it showed that the toilet cistern and wash hand basin were in satisfactory condition at the time”. The landlord said, “It was wrong to make the allegation that the resident had damaged these fittings and it confirmed the resident had requested a redaction of the accusation and it would keep the letter on her records as confirmation that it was incorrect to make the allegation in the absence of clear evidence”.
6. It apologised that her security of tenure was threatened and it caused her distress.
7. It apologised that her mental health issues were not taken into consideration.
8. It clarified that it had referred her to its resident support team and not a 3rd party agency to see if it could provide any additional support. It apologised if she had found it unhelpful and assured her of its best interest.
9. It had reviewed its records and spoken to officers about comments that they had been rude and unhelpful and it was unable to find any evidence but it apologised that she felt the level of service was poor. It also addressed comments about a specific member of staff.
10. The repairs to the bathroom were initially turned down and following a review, factoring the resident’s mental wellbeing it later carried out the repairs as a goodwill gesture and works were due to take place.
11. The resident queried the landlord’s accusation of acid being used to cause damage to fittings. Feedback received following an inspection noted the bath looked damaged as if acid had been used. It apologised that it may have been upsetting to hear and it had confirmed it had agreed to replace the entire bathroom as a gesture of goodwill.
12. It said that this was its final response and gave details how she could progress her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The resident has referred to her medical information in relation to her mental health. She described how the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange and its refusal to carry out bathroom work had impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The resident has also referenced the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the landlord’s handling of ‘reasonable adjustments’ for her long-term mental health conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusion on whether the landlord breached equality legislation as this is a matter for the courts to decide. However, this Service can determine whether the landlord acted appropriately with due regard to its statutory obligations and treated the resident fairly.

The landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s new home.

The resident viewed the property in January 2020 and the landlord appropriately carried out its mutual exchange inspection the following month. Its records of the inspection confirm there were no issues of concern identified.
In late March 2020, COVID-19 restrictions were in place resulting in major disruption to landlord services and the mutual exchange process was impacted and delays were caused. It does not appear that any further visits were carried out and in August 2020 the sign-up process was completed remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Given that the delays were caused due to COVID-19, it was reasonable that the landlord wished to progress matters for all parties and it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out the ‘sign up’ remotely in accordance with national government guidelines at the time. However, the landlord should have completed a further inspection of the property prior to sign up (even if this was remote) to satisfy itself that the condition of the property had not changed.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay from inspection to sign up within the complaint response letters to the resident. It is also reviewing its mutual exchange policy. This demonstrated that the landlord is prepared to learn from the complaint going forward.
It is evident that when the resident moved into the house, she almost immediately started to raise concerns about the poor condition of the property and its lack of various fittings. There is evidence of numerous landlord repair orders from the start of the tenancy to fixtures and fittings (or lack of) e.g., Smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, internal doors, hole in the bedroom ceiling.
Further work was then ordered in September 2020 to paint the bedroom ceiling after plaster work. This was completed at the end of January 2021; 4 months later. The landlord also made arrangements for rubbish to be removed at the property but it has not provided the records to confirm when this occurred. The delay to the plasterwork was outside of the targets set out in the landlord’s repairs policy priority timescales. However, the impact of COVID-19 restrictions were still in place and the government guidelines at the time was for landlord’s to prioritise urgent and health and safety works. Since there was no known health and safety risk associated with the repair, this delay was not unreasonable considering the circumstances.
A work order at the end of October 2020 to check for a leak in the loft confirms the completion date to be mid-November which is within a reasonable timescale in accordance with the landlord’s 28-day timescale.
In summary, delays from inspection to sign up were inevitable due to the pandemic restrictions in place. Although the landlord acted in accordance with mutual exchange legislation by carrying out an inspection and informing the resident of its decision within the appropriate timeframe, the delayed sign up did not take place for another 6 months. Given the landlord failed to inspect the property at a meaningful time, this undermined its ability to have confidence in its assertions that the property was suitable for exchange. When the landlord became aware of the repair issues, it demonstrated that it acted on the resident’s reports and attended within reasonable timescales when considering the restrictions in place.

The landlord’s refusal to carry out work to the bathroom

The landlord explained to the resident that when it inspected the property in February 2020, it was satisfied that there was no damage to the bathroom fixtures. After the resident moved in, she raised concerns to her landlord about damage to the bathroom suite (exact date unknown) and by November 2020, it was apparent that the landlord challenged the resident about the damaged that had occurred.
The landlord arranged a visit to the resident in late November 2020 to discuss its concerns. A repair order was raised for the shower, however, due to the presence of a duplicate work order within the landlord’s records after the proposed completion date in December 2020, it is unclear when the repair took place.
There is a gap in landlord records until early September 2021, when the resident queried when she would receive a new bathroom suite. By this point, she had raised numerous concerns about the bathroom. There is no record of how or if the landlord responded. The next information provided by the landlord was at the end of November 2021 detailing it had received correspondence from the resident’s MP who questioned the landlord on the condition of the bathroom, which was believed to have deteriorated. The MP requested the findings from a recent assessment and noted the resident’s distress due to the allegations of damage to the bathroom suite.
It was not until early December 2021 that the landlord evidenced it responded when it sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It referred to allegations that damage to the bathroom fittings was made by the resident and her son. The landlord stated it had made the bathroom safe and that it requested the damage was made good or for the resident to pay any costs for the landlord to carry out works.
The resident, her MP and support workers continued to express dissatisfaction to the landlord through a number of communications. The landlord’s stance remained that the resident was responsible for the damaged items and it reiterated its mutual exchange policy. The landlord received reports from two of its employees that the resident or her son had been responsible for causing the damage in the bathroom. It is clear the landlord placed emphasis on this information and formed its ongoing policy based on these accounts alone, rather than initiating an attempt to gain a better understanding of the situation from the perspective a vulnerable resident or show an empathetic approach to evidence gathering. As a consequence of failing to inspect the property at a meaningful time close to the mutual exchange sign up, the provability of the landlord’s accusations was never realistic. By failing to realise this point, the landlord acted unfairly towards the resident by maintaining its policy of blaming her for the damage that had occurred.
It was clear the situation was impacting the resident and she described how her mental health was suffering and a request for consideration was made under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to reasonable adjustments. However, specific details were not provided other than the resident required a bathroom replacement. It was appropriate the landlord responded in February 2022, by reviewing the case and requesting another visit with an independent officer to assess the bathroom. A visit was arranged for mid-February 2022 although, the resident had suspicions about the landlord’s intentions. It is apparent that after the visit, the landlord followed up its position by sending a letter to the resident. However, only a draft letter has been provided to this Service, so it is unclear when this was sent.
The letter confirmed it was unable to agree how the damage to the fittings had occurred but it concluded that urgent repairs were required and it would add the bathroom suite onto its replacement programme. During the same letter, it also referred the resident to her tenancy obligations stating it did not intend to serve a notice of seeking possession but did reserve the right to serve a notice if there was a serious breach of a term within the tenancy agreement.
It is unclear of the date it made safe the fittings as the landlord has not evidenced this but it is apparent that work started to replace the bathroom suite mid-April 2022. This delay left the resident substantially impacted and unable to utilise her bathroom properly for an extended period. The landlord has acknowledged it was wrong to make the allegations and agreed to redact the information. It apologised that her security of tenure was threatened, it had caused distress and that her mental health issues were not taken into consideration. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the service failure, the landlord has not offered any redress for the failures that caused significant impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident and this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

The resident complained to the landlord late November 2021 and the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure early December 2021 within its 10-working day timeframe. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not evidence that it acknowledged the complaint.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response the same day, denying the allegations about the damaged bathroom and she referred to the poor condition of the property when she moved in. In early December 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within its 5 working day timeframe. However, it delayed sending its stage 2 complaint response to mid-January 2022 (6 weeks later). The landlord’s delay prompted the resident to chase up a response in the interim period.
The time taken to respond at stage 2 was outside of the landlord’s complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which also states that a response at stage 2 of the complaints process should be completed within 20 working days. However, the landlord does have the opportunity to extend this response by a further 10 days in exceptional circumstances but it must contain a clear timeframe to the resident of when it will respond. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it did this.
When the landlord responded, it did recognise its delays, and offered the resident £50 compensation.
As the resident’s dissatisfaction progressed and communications continued, the landlord sent a further complaint response at the end of January 2022 that reiterated its position in relation to the damaged items and the mutual exchange process.
It was clear that the resident and landlord relationship had become strained and at the end of January 2022, the landlord offered mediation with an independent facilitator. This showed the landlord was prepared to work with the resident to move forward and resolve the issues and improve their relationship.
Early February 2022, it was clear the complaint had not been resolved and the resident had raised a new complaint about the conduct of staff. The landlord registered this complaint mid-February 2022. It acknowledged the complaint within 3 days and responded to the resident early March 2022. The landlord confirmed it had reviewed the previous complaint response. It was appropriate that the landlord registered a new stage 1 complaint as a new issue had been raised.
The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction and requested a stage 2 complaint early March 2022. The landlord demonstrated that it appropriately acknowledged the complaint within 1 day and issued its final complaint response letter April 2022 within its 20-working day timescale.
In summary, the landlord recognised its failure in its delayed stage 2 complaint response and offered £50 compensation. However, this does not adequately compensate the resident given the failure to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint and the failure to keep the resident informed on its delayed stage 2 complaint response and its expected timeframe for responding. This no doubt caused the resident frustration and inconvenience by the numerous chase ups to the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s new home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s refusal to carry out work to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out a further inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange ‘sign up’ process taking place. Given there was a 6-month delay in the mutual exchange due to COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord could not be certain of the property condition without a further inspection.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving the issue of the damaged bathroom suite at the resident’s home. It was unreasonable for the landlord to delay replacement of damaged bathroom fittings on the basis of its false belief that the resident had caused the damage.
The landlord failed to evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s first stage 1 complaint. It also delayed in responding to the first stage 2 complaint and there is no evidence that it agreed a new response time or kept the resident updated.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £650 (including the £50 it had already offered if it has not already done so) as follows:
1. £300 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s new home.
2. £200 in relation to the landlord’s refusal to carry out work to the bathroom.
3. £100 in relation to the associated complaint handling and the level of compensation.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders and recommendations within the timescales set out above.