Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Accent Housing Limited (202317904)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317904

Accent Housing Limited

10 March 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a house. The resident started his tenancy in April 2023. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for him.
  2. After the resident signed up to the property, in April 2023, he contacted the landlord to report the following repairs:
    1. On 26 April 2023 he reported a hole in a pipe leading to the boiler. The landlord’s records indicate the landlord repaired the pipe on 12 May 2023.
    2. On 7 May 2023 he reported damage to some floorboards. The landlord’s records indicate it repaired the floorboards on 9 May 2023.
    3. On 15 May 2023 he reported the bath leaked when the shower was in use.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 to make he a complaint. He was unhappy with the condition the property was let to him in, and was told by a member of the landlord’s staff the property was “uninhabitable”. He said he was not able to move into the property due to its condition and wanted compensation for this.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 June 2023. It outlined the dates it had completed repairs (as outlined above). It set out that the boiler repair was reported on 2 May 2023. It said it has booked an inspection of the bath for 12 June 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and acknowledged that it was “frustrating” there were outstanding repairs when the resident moved in, but his property was “habitable with minor repairs required”.
  5. The landlord replaced the bath around 9 June 2023, the exact date the works were completed is unclear.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint on 16 June 2023. He felt the issues had not been investigated or resolved.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023 and said it disagreed the property was uninhabitable when let. It accepted repairs were needed, but it was able to do these with the resident in the property. It had found no evidence the resident was told the property was uninhabitable by its staff. When it attended to inspect the bath, works to replace the bath had already started. It did not uphold the complaint.
  8. The resident contacted us on 17 August 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns about the condition the property was let, and the fact it had refused to pay him compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters and external pipes of the property.
  2. The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repair’s and voids policy states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and ‘routine repairs’ within 28 days.

 

Repair to the boiler pipe

  1. A part of our investigation the landlord supplied us with the void standard schedule it completed at the resident’s property before he moved in. The scheduled shows that the landlord checked the pipework in the kitchen and bathroom for leaks and none were found. We have not seen evidence that it specifically checked the pipework leading to the boiler as this is not contained within the void schedule. Due to the lack of available evidence, it is not possible to determine whether the leak was present at the time the resident moved in to the property. It is recommended that the landlord includes the checking of pipes leading to boilers within its void standard schedule.
  2. The landlord’s repair records about this repair are unclear. Some of its records show the repair was reported on 2 May 2023 and others 26 April 2023. The date the repair was marked completed also differs. This is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. We have drawn the reasonable conclusion that the repair was reported on 26 April 2023, and completed on the date contained withing that same record (12 May 2023). This failing led to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response inaccurately stating the repair was completed within 3 working days. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to acknowledge the repair was actually completed in an unreasonable timeframe and offer redress for this failing.
  3. The records provided for this investigation show the resident put the landlord on notice about the leak from the boiler pipe on 26 April 2023, and the pipe was fixed on 12 May 2023. Considering the repair reported affected the resident’s use of heating and hot water, that the repair was not completed with more urgency amounts to a failing. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the repair took place outside of the landlord’s timeframes for an emergency repair.

Repair to floorboards

  1. The resident reported concerns about the condition of some of the floorboards on 7 May 2023. The records provided show the landlord completed the repair 2 days later. This was reasonable in the circumstances and well within its target timeframe for routine repairs.

Repair to leak from bath

  1. The evidence shows the landlord completed some works to the bath before the resident moved in. Based on the evidence provided it is reasonable to conclude that the bath was not in a condition usable for the resident when he moved in. This conclusion is based on the landlord’s own notes from inspections on 15 May 2023 where it described the bath as “not safe” and said it needed replacing. It also described the bath and associated plumbing as “not fit for purpose” at a visit on 23 May 2023. Based on its own assessment of the bathroom so soon after the resident started his tenancy, it is reasonable to conclude the bath was not in a suitable condition at the time he moved in. This was evidently distressing for him as he described not being able to use the bath.
  2. Following the landlord deciding it needed to replace the bath, it did so in early June 2023. While it is not possible to determine the exact date the works finished, it is apparent it was completed within its target 28 day timeframe. This was appropriate in the circumstances and went some way to putting right its earlier failings in relation to the matter.
  3. That it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the condition of the bathroom at the point of the resident moving in was a shortcoming in its response. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning, offer redress, and build trust with the resident.
  4. While the resident was evidently of the view the property was “unhabitable”, the landlord disagreed with this at used its complaint responses to outline its position. It is not for us to make a determination on whether the property was habitable, or not. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, and whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord used its complaint response to outline it was of the view it could complete repairs while the resident remained in the property. It also set out that it had investigated his concerns that a member of its staff had told him the property was “unhabitable”. The landlord explained it had found no evidence to support his claim.
  5. We do not seek to dispute the residents comments. However, we have seen no evidence in the landlord’s records that it was of the view the property was uninhabitable. While the resident was evidently disappointed with the landlord’s position about the property, it used its complaint responses to outline its position with transparency and clarity.
  6. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. We have determined an order for £150 is appropriate to put things right for the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when he moved in.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord includes a specific check of the pipework leading to a boiler as part of its void standard schedule in the future.