Kingston upon Hull City Council (202232486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232486

Kingston upon Hull City Council

31 July 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 is about:
1. The accuracy of information provided to the resident about the current property when it was offered to her.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports, specifically the removal of the previous tenant’s personal belongings from the loft area and the damaged fence.
3. The landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s reports of an overgrown rear garden.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the property.
5. The landlord not providing a decorating allowance.
6. The landlord not providing a key to the back gate and garden shed.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
8. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Since 10 October 2022 the resident has been a secure tenant of a 1 bed bungalow with adaptations, she was previously a tenant of another property provided by the landlord and was offered this property via a direct letting. She lives alone and has mobility issues, which the landlord is aware of.
On 1 September 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the way it’s staff had treated her, she felt that she had been “fobbed off” and given incorrect information about properties she was interested in.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2022 after having spoken to the resident about the outcome. The letter explained that it had found the resident had been given the correct information about each property she had queried and the landlord had given her more information about its process during the conversation, which she was happy with.
The resident’s complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 31 January 2023 after she contacted the landlord and said she:
1. Felt “fobbed off” by the lettings team.
2. Was unhappy with the postcode she had been given a property in.
3. Was still waiting for an assessment by an occupational therapist/surveyor to record the repairs and work required on the property.
4. Had not been given keys to the shed and back gate.
5. The back garden remained overgrown.
6. Property from the previous resident had been left in the loft.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 1 March 2023 and said:
1. The property was within the areas the resident chose on her direct let application.
2. She visited the property on 29 September 2022 and had sufficient time to decide on its location before accepting it.
3. On 19 October 2022 the resident made a self-referral to the Council’s occupational therapy team. The referral was assessed and passed to the landlord’s adaptation team. An order was then raised on 19 December 2022 for the fitting of a grabrail. The next day the tenancy officer visited the property and the resident raised concerns about outstanding adaptations. She advised that as the adaptations the resident wanted were different to those at her previous home she should again make a self-referral to occupational therapy.
4. There was no information or orders raised regarding items left in the loft and advised the resident to call the landlord for their removal or refund of any costs she incurred in removing the items herself.
5. There was no information to indicate the communal garden and fence was in a state of disrepair but for the resident to call the landlord to raise a service request.
6. There was no records to indicate that redecoration was agreed and this does not form part of the allocation process.
7. The landlord understood that the resident had now been given a key to the back gate.
The resident remained unhappy and raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 17 May 2023, stating that:
1. She was not happy with the postcode she had been given a property in
2. The living room window cannot be opened due to the ramp grabrail in front of window.
3. The loft was not cleared before she moved in.
4. The garden was overgrown and there was an old rabbit hutch with straw in it left in garden.
5. She was still waiting for the shower curtain rail to be fixed.
6. She did not have a key to the shed or back gate yet.
7. The back fence was not secure.
8. There was wood in the back garden from previous works on the property.
The resident sent the Ombudsman an additional email in February 2024 saying that:
1. All repairs were still outstanding.
2. The property should have been redecorated before she moved in.
3. She had had to pay her son to take the items from the loft and dispose of it.
4. She had paid her son to trim the garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
When bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2023 and in an email dated February 2024, the resident mentioned several heads of repair which, based on the records seen, had not previously been raised with the landlord either as a service request or as part of her complaint. For example:
1. A broken shower rail.
2. Wood left in the garden from previous works.
3. An old rabbit hutch in the garden.
4. Faulty front and back doors.
5. The condition of the kitchen lino.
6. The decorative standard of the internal wall surfaces.
As these appear to be separate issues to those raised in the residents original complaint to the landlord, this is not a subject the Ombudsman can make a determination on at this stage because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects.
The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. Alternatively, the landlord can contact the resident to obtain further details of the repairs and raise works orders with the appropriate priority categorisation.

The accuracy of information provided to the resident

From the records seen the resident believes she was “fobbed off” by the direct lettings team and has said she was provided incorrect information about the property. Although she has not elaborated on why she felt “fobbed off” or why the information she was given was inaccurate.
However the landlord has not provided a detailed record or log of the conversation/s between the resident and its agent, during which the resident claims to have provided a list of things which needed to be repaired at the property as well as having been given inaccurate information.
The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord may have spoken to the relevant agent/s when investigating the resident’s complaint, however it is important that landlords keep clear and detailed records of such conversations with residents in order for it to provide accurate information and an effective service to them.
Without knowing what information the resident believes was incorrect, the Ombudsman is not able to determine whether or not the information provided was accurate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response confirms the resident was given the correct information at the relevant time and states that during the preceding call it had explained its process a little more, which gave her a better understanding of how each of the teams were involved with the direct let process. It also says that during the call the resident confirmed she was now more informed and was happy with the outcome.
The resident has also mentioned in her stage 2 escalation that she chose areas within a postcode because it was close to her mother, it was not until she signed the tenancy agreement for the current property that she found out it was actually in a different postcode and she was told she would not get another offer as you only get one on direct let.
The landlord’s stage 2 response explains that the property fell within one of the preferred areas the resident had applied for. It also mentioned that on 29 September 2022 she had an accompanied viewing of the property, at that time the landlord’s agent said any adaptations would be made in situ and she had until 3 October 2022 to verbally accept it which she later did.
Overall, based on the above information, the Ombudsman is unable to find maladministration relating to the information provided to the resident about the property because the property was in an area the resident had selected, therefore there was no error. In any case, the resident viewed the property and had the opportunity at the time to say that it did not meet her needs due to its location or otherwise.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports, including the overgrown garden

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s Home Standards policy seen by the Ombudsman states “removal of rubbish from an empty property – We will ensure that any rubbish is cleared from both the inside and outside of the property and also in the garden. The property will also be cleaned before you move in”.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
While the resident indicated that she had spoken to the landlord about repairs at an introductory visit, there is no evidence of this or that the resident otherwise pursued the repairs thereafter.
The resident’s stage 2 escalation is not specific about what repairs she told the landlord about shortly after she moved in and it called to see how she was settling in, it just says “I told her I had numerous repairs….I started telling her the repairs”. The repairs mentioned in the escalation were:
1. The previous tenant’s personal belongings left in the loft.
2. The rear garden being overgrown.
3. Wanting a key to the back gate and shed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response states that prior to the escalation the resident had not raised these concerns with it.
It also said that if any items remained in the loft then the resident should call the landlord to raise a service request or, if she had removed them at her own expense, she should email it to request reimbursement.
Similarly the response states there was no information to indicate the communal garden and fence were in a state of disrepair and asks the resident to call the landlord to raise a service request. While in her stage 2 escalation the resident states she had been told several times before that the garden would be sorted out, no records have been seen which support this.
Furthermore no information has been seen to show the resident contacted the landlord to request the items be removed from the loft, a refund for any costs she had incurred removing the items herself or to raise a report about the garden and fence. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to take steps to enact repairs until a resident had reported and made it aware that there were repairs needed.
That being said, landlords should be proactive in seeking to resolve issues that are brought to their attention. In this case, the resident made the landlord aware of the repair issues in her stage 2 escalation, at which point it could have raised a repair request and/or contacted the resident to get further details if required. Rather than simply asking the resident to contact it about the repairs in its response and taking no further action itself.
In an email to the Ombudsman from February 2024 the resident stated that she had paid her son to remove and dispose of the items left in the loft as well as to trim the overgrown garden, £50 and £40 respectively. Although it should be noted that no evidence of these payments nor that the payments were for the reasons stated has been provided.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to keep adequate records of conversations between the resident and its agents, failing to adhere to its Home Standards policy by not having removed the items in the loft and not proactively taking steps to resolve the new issues raised in the resident’s stage 2 escalation. Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they led to unnecessary delays to the resolution of these issues, which in turn caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as having impacted her full enjoyment of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations

The landlord’s adaptations policy says that once an occupational therapist has visited a resident’s property and assessed what adaptations are required, they will pass this on to the landlord’s adaptations team and the works will be completed within 12 weeks for ‘fast track’ applications and 22 weeks for ‘non-fast track’ applications.
On 19 October 2022 an occupational therapist assessed the resident’s property and provided the landlord’s adaptations team with a list of required actions. Included in this list was ‘place provisions for railing to the front to be lowered so [resident] can open her front window and the corner to be repaired’.
The stage 2 response confirms that an order for this action was raised on 19 December 2022. The landlord’s records contain an email dated 29 May 2024 which states its contractors had advised it the rail which covered the window was not dealt with as part of that order, it was then closed as complete and no one chased them to say this was outstanding. However the contractors explained that the reason they did not alter the grabrail is because there is a standard height for a hand rail under health and safety rules.
While the Ombudsman appreciates there may be certain works which can not be completed at a property for health and safety reason, in this instance the occupational therapist had supported the resident by saying the grabrail should be lowered to allow the window to be opened.
No records have been seen to detail what the contractor said about why the occupational therapist’s recommendation regarding lowering the grabrail was not possible under the health and safety rules.
Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints, as it allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, and provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not limited to, resident repair reports, attendances by contractors, notes of inspections, actions taken as a result of the inspection, details of any complaints received, and its responses to complaints.
As already mentioned earlier in this report, the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out that landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. This applies to works carried out when adapting a property as well.
In this instance the landlord failed to keep adequate records about the works carried out by its contractor when completing the order raised in December 2022. Had it done so and monitored these works it would have seen that the grabrail had not been adjusted and questioned the contractors on why this had not been done at the appropriate time, rather than nearly a year and a half later after the complaint had been raised with the Ombudsman.
Additionally the landlord has not kept adequate records about what its contractor said to justify why it was not feasible/possible to lower the grabrail, as per the occupational therapist’s recommendation, under health and safety rules. This has led to the resident being left without the ability to fully open her window for an extended period of time and has impacted her full enjoyment of the property. Without further information, it was unreasonable for the landlord to give greater weight to the statement of the contractor over the specialist recommendation of the occupational therapist.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to keep adequate records of the works carried out under the order raised in December 2022 and failing to keep detailed records of its contractor’s findings regarding the grabrail. Cumulatively these amount to a service failure as they caused an unnecessary delay in either the work to the grabrail being completed or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be and an alternative solution found. As a result the residents full enjoyment of the property was affected as she was left unable to fully open her front windows.

The landlord not providing a key to the back gate and garden shed

The stage 2 response says the landlord understood that the resident had now been given a key to the back gate. Although it does not address the residents complaint point that she had also not been given a key to the shed, this particular point will be addressed further later in this report.
However the landlord has not provided evidence of having given the resident a key to the back gate, and this is a complaint point that the resident has continued to raise.
While it is unclear when or indeed if the resident has been given a key to the back gate, this key should have been provided to the resident when she moved into the property on 10 October 2022. As such there has been a delay of at least 5 months, if we accept that she was given the key by 1 March 2023, during which time the gate was unusable and the residents access to the communal area was potentially restricted.
Additionally, the fact that the resident is yet to be provided with a key to the shed means that since she moved in she has not had use of this facility.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as not providing the resident with keys to the back gate and shed when she moved in and a failure to keep adequate records of when/if it has now provided a key to the back gate. Cumulatively these amount to a service failure as they have potentially restricted the residents access to the communal area and denied her the use of the shed. As a result this has caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. However if more time is needed then it will write to the resident and let them know when to expect the response.
In this instance the landlord followed its complaints policy correctly and issued its stage 1 response within 3 working days. Similarly while the stage 2 response was issued after 21 working days, the landlord had previously written to the resident to explain that more time was needed and she would receive the response within 10 working days. The stage 2 response was then issued 7 working days after that letter.
However the landlord has not provided a record of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and its stage 1 response does not give a detailed account of what the resident said when she raised it.
The Ombudsman’s Code in operation at the time says a full record must be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident.
Similarly the landlord’s stage 2 response says “I understand you have now been given a key for the back gate”, however no records have been seen to support that the resident had been given a key prior to the response being issued. Not having been given a key is also a complaint point which the resident continued to raise after the stage 2 response was issued.
It is also important to note that neither the stage 1 or 2 responses address the residents complaint point that she had not been given a key to the shed.
The Ombudsman’s Code, operated at the time, required that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to address all points raised by the resident in her complaint and inadequate record keeping which led to uncertainty in regard to whether or not the resident had been given a key to the back gate. Cumulatively these amount to a service failure as they have caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s repair reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s adaptation request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to the residents request for a decorating allowance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s request for a key to the shed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the complaint.
This investigation has also found a service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping standard that surfaced in this case.

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has directly paid the resident £350 compensation comprised of:
1. £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to repair reports.
2. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the adaptation request.
3. £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the request for keys.
4. £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor record keeping practices.
In the absence of evidence of the costs incurred by the resident in arranging for her son to remove/dispose of the items from the loft and trimming the back garden, and subject to confirmation that these tasks have been completed, the landlord should make an offer of compensation in line with the cost it would have incurred by the use of a contractor to complete these works. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has refunded these amounts within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review and implement the occupational therapist’s recommendation to lower the grabrail blocking the windows. If its contractors maintain that adjusting the grabrail in this way goes against health and safety, then the landlord should provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a full explanation as to why this is the case as well as any alternative solutions. In addition the landlord should review its processes and procedures for oversight of work orders recommended by occupational therapists, especially where contradictory indications are received from the contractors, and to ensure the efficacy of any works cancellation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a key to the shed and, if it has not already done so, the back gate. If it has already given the resident the key to the back gate, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman evidence that it has and when. The landlord should also review its procedures to ensure all property keys, including those to exterior gates, are provided at the point of letting.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, within the next 12 weeks the landlord must undertake and complete a review of its practices against the recommendations and findings of the Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). Evidence of the review must be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this letter. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to) the landlord’s failure to keep detailed records of:
1. Communications between the resident and its agents.
2. Resident’s initial complaints.