Nottingham City Homes Limited (202318636)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318633 and 202318636

Nottingham City Council

8 December 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to be re-housed.
2. Concerns about staff conduct.
3. Reported repairs and the condition of the property at the time it was let to the resident.
4. Associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme sets out that ‘the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
The Ombudsman can consider complaints about a local authority in its capacity as a social landlord. This means that any functions that local authorities have simply because they are local authorities (i.e. irrespective of whether they are also landlords) are not matters that the Ombudsman can investigate. This includes issues that relate to allocations under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996, such as applications for re-housing and complaints about the assessment of such applications; the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify; operation of choice-based lettings schemes, and the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
An assessment of a housing application would be carried out by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority, rather than under its obligations as a social landlord. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of her request to be re-housed which fall outside of a local authority’s social landlord function and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her request to be re-housed.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a bungalow. The landlord is the local authority, and a management agent is responsible for the management of the property on behalf of the landlord.
The resident has a number of complaints with the Ombudsman. For clarity, the landlord’s handling of the reported repairs related to the resident’s previous property and the landlord’s handling of reported repairs after March 2023 will be investigated separately from this complaint and the Ombudsman will issue determinations on these matters in due course.
On 6 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the sign-up appointment for the property she had recently started a new tenancy for. The resident stated she had to make the decision about taking the property during the appointment and her daughter and support worker had not been available to attend the appointment. The resident advised she was given one day to move into the property, when it really required at least 2 weeks because of its decorative condition. She stated she was allergic to tobacco and the property was covered in nicotine. The resident referred to having severe asthma. The resident stated the property had not been deep cleaned and outlined a number of decorative and repair issues including the poor condition of the extractor fans, missing beading and sealant around windows, bent front door letter box, damp on kitchen ceiling, broken air vent, and cut branches being left in the back garden. The resident advised she had not been offered decorating allowance vouchers or told who her patch manager would be.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same date. It referred to previously advising the resident that she could contact the tenancy and estate management team and her query would be passed to the relevant patch manager or team. The landlord said it had arranged for a decorating voucher to be emailed to the resident and advised additional vouchers had been provided to the resident as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord advised the other issues she had raised would be discussed with the relevant teams and it would contact her with an update soon.
On 16 January 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The resident stated she was unhappy with the condition of the property at the time it was let to her. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of reported cleanliness issues, damp, condensation and a number of reported repairs including a leaking kitchen tap and pipes, poor plastering, the kitchen cupboards not closing properly, a leaking toilet, blocked shower, missing roof tiles, a trip hazard on the back garden path and a damaged garage next to the property. The resident stated she had to pay £200 for an extra 2 weeks rent because she had been unable to move into the new property. The resident also advised she had paid £150 for the property to be gutted and completely stripped. As a resolution the resident wanted an independent surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 20 February 2023. It apologised for not responding within its policy timeframes. It advised an in-person sign-up had taken place on 1 December 2022 after the resident had successfully bid for the property and the new tenancy agreement was signed on 2 December 2022. The landlord advised it assessed all of its properties against the Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS), which was supported by its new homes standard. The landlord outlined the criteria for meeting the DHS and advised the resident’s home had been assessed as meeting the DHS. It stated none of the repair issues the resident had reported had been raised during the sign-up process. The landlord acknowledged that there was some evidence of condensation in multiple locations in the property and explained the importance of the resident heating and ventilating the property properly.
The landlord stated it could refer the resident for hardship funding to help with energy costs. It advised that as part of the allocation process, its disability housing advisors had assessed the property and found it was suitable for the resident’s disability and mobility needs. Following the issues raised by the resident concerning the suitability of the property in relation to her health needs, the landlord had contacted the disability housing advisors again, who confirmed the property had met the resident’s physical needs. The landlord advised there was no presence of damp in the property but it had located condensation. The landlord offered to carry out the following actions:
1. Arrange for some box dehumidifiers to be provided to help take moisture out the air, which did not require any power to operate.
2. Arrange for a follow up damp and mould survey to take place in a few months to reassess the situation after the resident had continuously used the ventilation and heating systems.
3. The resident could join one of the landlord’s damp and mould online training sessions.
4. The landlord to make a referral for the resident to receive some energy advice.
5. The landlord could sign post the resident for further advice on reducing condensation.
The landlord advised an independent surveyor was not required because there were no key building components that were in a poor state of repair. It apologised to the resident for the small number of repairs it stated should have been completed while the property had been void (empty). The landlord advised it had undertaken a number of repairs that were not part of the empty homes lettable standard as a gesture of goodwill and had increased the value of the decoration vouchers allocated to the resident.
On 21 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident did not feel her complaint had been properly addressed and she disputed the property had met the DHS. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property. The resident advised she had asked environmental health to look at the garage. The resident stated the landlord were ignoring her health issues and she did not feel she was being treated fairly.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 February 2023 and stated her health issues had not been taken into account when she was offered the property on 1 December 2022. The resident stated she wanted to make an official complaint because she was unhappy with the conduct of the lettings officer during the tenancy sign-up appointment, who had been late to the appointment and unhelpful. The resident stated she felt she had been rushed to sign-up for property and had received mis-advice. The resident stated she had not been able to use the shower and the toilet flush had not worked since she moved into the property. The resident told the landlord that she had ended up in hospital for a week for severe lung issues since moving into the property. The resident also outlined a number of repairs and expressed her dissatisfaction over the condition of the property when it was let to her.
The resident raised another complaint on 7 March 2023 because she was unhappy that she could not go back onto the housing register. She felt the landlord had known about the repair issues in the property before it was let to her and she advised the lettings officer had been rude and useless during the sign-up process.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 16 March 2023. It stated the property was fitted with a number of items to help improve its thermal comfort and was classed as having an EPC level B which was the second highest thermal rating. The landlord advised there was no evidence of condensation when the property was void and it had engaged a specialist moisture company to conduct an assessment around moisture and humidity levels in the property, in order to try and understand why condensation was still occurring. The landlord outlined works it would be carrying out following the assessment, which included drilling holes in the blocked air brick and relaying loft insolation.
The landlord stated there had been no evidence of black mould, rising damp, penetrative damp or of most of the repairs the resident had reported, when the property was void. The landlord had attended on 6 January 2023 and had not found any leaks in the wet room. It stated the wet room was designed for residents with physical disabilities, which means that the wash hand basin was of a non-standard height. The landlord was aware the resident had submitted a request for a discussion with an occupational therapist to discuss any specific issue she may have. It stated the kitchen cupboards were under the resident’s responsibility as per her tenancy agreement and it had previously rehung the cupboard door as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord outlined the repair works it had carried out including, the leaking kitchen tap and waste pipe, re-bedding of rood tiles, refixing of flashing and the slight easing of the rubber strips on the back door.
The landlord advised it would be carrying out a number of repairs including, the clearing of gutters, checking the drain holes in the composite doors and the replacement of paving slabs. The landlord also advised it would remove the garage, which was not part of the resident’s tenancy. The landlord advised the property was not in an unsatisfactory condition when it was let. It accepted that aesthetically, there could have been of a better-quality finish in the property but that did not create a deficiency. The landlord stated it had addressed a number of issues in the property that would be in excess of the agreed lettings standard and it would not be supporting the resident’s request for any further independent assessment.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint points concerning its communication. The landlord acknowledged its failure to provide her with advance notice that its trade colleagues would be attending to carry out exterior work and the delay with providing a stage one response to the complaint. It advised that due to the volume of emails the resident was sending, it was not possible to respond to them all, but a staff member had kept in touch with the resident on an almost daily basis. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its failings around communication and not keeping to suggested response times.
The landlord outlined the following learnings from the complaint:
1. The landlord would be exploring the use of different technology to monitor moisture and humidity levels in its homes.
2. The landlord would review its processes with regards to the quality assurance of works and the use of photographs and videos on completion of works.
3. Over the next 6 months the landlord would be starting a consultation process with residents about timescales for completing works based on risk of harm to the customer and the property.
On 17 March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response to her second complaint. The landlord advised it advertised properties when they provisionally became available for letting and these properties would usually still require some works to be carried out before they were ready to let. It stated works to the resident’s property were carried out before the voids manager had confirmed it was ready to let. The landlord advised that as the resident had recently moved and the property had been assessed as being suitable for her needs, she would not be eligible to join the housing register but she could submit a new housing application.
In relation to the resident stating she had felt pressured to accept the property, the landlord advised its lettings officer may have been trying to set a realistic expectation surrounding the waiting time for another property if she had refused her current property.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 27 March 2023. She was unhappy the property had not been deep cleaned and she had not received her decoration vouchers. The resident reiterated she was unhappy with the conduct of the lettings officer. The resident stated she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reported repairs and she would be seeking damages for the impact on her health and for the additional heating costs.
The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 21 April 2023. It referred to its stage 2 complaint response of 16 March 2023, which had addressed all the issues raised concerning the condition of the property and the reported repairs. The landlord stated the resident’s lettings officer had emailed her on 6 December 2022 in relation to the decoration vouchers and the resident had later confirmed to the lettings manager that she had received them. The landlord advised the lettings officer was not currently at work and that while it could not confirm conclusive findings regarding the signup appointment, it would reinforce with the lettings officer, the professional and respectful standards it expected from its staff at the earliest opportunity.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 27 April 2023 because she felt the landlord had not taken her complaints seriously and had lied to her. The resident did not feel the lettings officer had followed procedure during her sign-up appointment. As a resolution the resident wanted reimbursement of the £250 she paid to gut the property and the landlord to provide evidence it had trained its staff in customer service and in dealing with residents with support needs.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the condition of the property was having a severe impact to her respiratory condition. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the impact on her health. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, especially for those with asthma and other respiratory conditions. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of reported repairs and problems with the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. The Services’ decision not to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint is within accordance of paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, which says ‘the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’. The Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states it will consider discretionary compensation where it failed to meet its own service targets (e.g. failed to attend an appointment, carry out a service within the agreed timescale, or keep the customer informed throughout a process). The policy states the landlord will take into account the impact of the service failure and whether it had a high, medium or low impact on residents. A high impact would be a resident experiencing serious or prolonged service failure or loss of facilities that has resulted in severe distress, disruption, inconvenience or loss of income. A medium impact would be in instances where there was a succession of service failures and/or the problem was not resolved within a reasonable timescale and a low impact were for service failure that resulted in mild inconvenience for a resident.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards states it will try to get to an get to an emergency repair within 24 hours. The landlord will aim to attend priority repairs within 7 days or within 30 working days as maximum. The landlord will aim to attend to planned works at a resident’s convenience or within a maximum of 90 working days.
The tenancy agreement states residents must report any repairs for which the landlord are responsible and any damage to the property as soon as they notice them. Residents are responsible for some repairs, including:
1. Unblock sinks and baths.
2. Repair door furniture such as handles, letter boxes etc.
3. Repair or replace toilet seats.
4. Ease door and window hinges.
5. Replace plugs and chains.
6. Repair any minor plaster cracks and internal decorations.
7. Repair electrical faults arising from the use of faulty appliances.
8. Repair or replace electrical plugs, fuses or light bulbs (not wall sockets).
The tenancy agreement states residents must also take responsible steps to keep the property well ventilated, in particular the bathroom and kitchen. In order to help to avoid moisture and mould growth building up. The landlord is responsible for:
1. Keeping the structure of the property in repair.
2. Keeping in proper working order all of our installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation and waste pipes.
3. Keeping in proper working order our installations for room heating and hot water.
4. Keeping in proper working order all our fixtures and fittings.
5. Keeping the shared areas of the neighbourhood, including play areas, clean and well maintained.
The new homes standard states the landlord will aim to carry out all necessary work to a resident’s home before they move in, although the landlord may need to carry out some repairs afterwards. It also states the following:
1. All sheds, gardens and garages will be structurally safe, clean and tidy and if not, they will be removed.
2. All internal and external doors will be in good working order.
3. All floors will be swept or mopped and all woodwork will be wiped down, including skirting boards and door frame.
4. Depending on the condition of the resident’s home, the landlord may provide a resident with decorating points for you to use to order materials so you can start decorating your new home through the landlord’s ‘You decide, we provide’ scheme.
One of the key aims of the landlord’s void policy is to ensure that individuals are allocated a property that meets a minimum lettable standard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about staff conduct

The resident complained about the conduct of her lettings officer. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of the letting officer’s behaviour during the sign-up visit. However, the landlord has given a different account and in the absence of any evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman cannot determine what happened. However, we have assessed whether the landlord properly investigated the complaint and took appropriate action based on its findings.
When a resident makes a complaint about staff conduct, the landlord should investigate and provide the resident with a timely response that clearly sets out the outcome of its investigation. If the resident’s concerns are justified the landlord should acknowledge the mistakes and take appropriate action to put things right.
From what can be seen, the landlord has demonstrated that it has acknowledged and appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns. The landlord sought to provide an explanation to the resident’s complaint, which was reasonable considering the limited information it had because the staff member was not at work during this time. The landlord acted reasonably by speaking to the staff member when it had the opportunity to do so and reminding them of its expectations when working with residents. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct issues was acceptable. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct toward the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reported repairs and the condition of the property when it was let to the resident

The landlord’s new homes standard advises a property may require some repairs after it is let. This is common practice among landlords due to the extremely high numbers of people awaiting social housing allocations and the need to fill vacant properties as soon as possible. The landlord provided evidence that it did an inspection of the void property in October 2022 and a final clean was carried out in November 2022. Therefore, taking the appropriate steps to ensure the property met its new homes standard.
After accepting the tenancy, the resident raised several repair requests, both internal and external to the property. She was also dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the property when she moved in. The resident was dissatisfied with the cleaning of the property. Once notified, the landlord was required to carry out the works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its repairs policy.
The landlord took appropriate steps to identify what works it was required to carry out by initially attending the resident’s property on 8 December 2022. The landlord’s repair record show it had carried out a number of repairs between December 2022 and March 2023. The landlord also agreed to carry out repairs to the kitchen cupboard that were over and above its strict obligation, which was fair under the circumstances.
The landlord has demonstrated it had responded in an appropriate and fair way in response to the resident’s concerns relating to the condensation in the property. It had a specialist moisture company to conduct an assessment around moisture and humidity levels in the property to try and find the cause of the condensation. Its decision to rely on the findings from the specialist was reasonable and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence from a similarly qualified specialist to indicate these findings were incorrect. It was also reasonable of the landlord to remind the resident of her own responsibilities to ensure that the property was properly ventilated to help prevent additional condensation.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that a small number of the reported repairs could have been completed when the property had been void. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. As a result, there was no maladministration on its part in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents, which it had been unable to resolve to tenants satisfaction’. The policy states it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code, as published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
The landlord provided its stage one responses 25 and 18 working days after the resident’s initial complaint submissions, which is slightly over its committed response time. In relation to the resident’s second complaint, the delay occurred as a result of the landlord’s initial failure to recognise and log the complaint, which the Ombudsman finds unreasonable.
The landlord initially failed to open a new complaint after the resident complained on 21 February 2023. The resident made it clear that she wanted to make a complaint about the conduct of its staff member. The landlord should have investigated this matter as a formal complaint in the first instance. The landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint led to a delay in the landlord carrying out an investigation into the conduct of its staff and with providing the resident with a complaint response. The code states ‘landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate’. This would have caused further frustrations and distress to the resident, which may have been prevented if the landlord had followed its complaints policy correctly.
The landlord acknowledged its service failings in communication with the resident and the delay in providing a stage one response. It offered the resident a total of £150 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of these failures and to put the issue right. The Ombudsman finds the amount of compensation offered as part of the overall complaint is sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which recommends compensation in this range is awarded in recognition of service failures which had impact on the resident for a relatively short duration. The landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable as it is in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reported concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of reported repairs and the condition of the property at the time it was let to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the concerns about its complaint handling satisfactorily.