London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202306194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306194

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

27 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The offer of a property.
2. The condition of the property when let.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement was signed by the resident on 1 March 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 25 April 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said she was offered a property in February 2022. She was not given any other options, and she was only allowed to view the property once before signing the tenancy agreement. During the viewing she raised concerns about the condition of the property. She was told that works would be done to it before she was given the keys. She was also told she would be liable for rent as soon as she was given the keys and would have 7 days to move in.
She collected the keys on 1 March 2022 but considered that the property was uninhabitable. The walls were in poor condition and the skirtings had insects coming out of them. She reported this to the landlord. She was told that she could now do works that she wanted to do, and it would supply painting materials for her on 4 March 2022. She was charged rent and council tax on both properties despite being unable to move in. She was concerned that the condition of the property would impact her health. She also had to spend her own money to get the property to a liveable standard.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said during the viewing the resident was advised that works to the property would not include cultivation of the garden, laying of flooring or painting/decorating. It did not recall her raising any concerns during the viewing. It had completed an inspection of the completed void and was satisfied that there were no issues with the property.
It met the resident at the property to sign the tenancy and there were no concerns raised. She was also reminded that rent and council tax was payable on both properties until the keys were returned. It did not consider that painting and decorating or cosmetic work constituted major work, and these works could be carried out whilst the resident was in situ. For this reason, it said that liability for rent would not be removed.
In June 2022, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. In summary she said that she did not feel that the landlord had considered her health conditions within its response. She said that she had raised her concerns about the condition of the property to the landlord, verbally during visits and by email and telephone.
She disagreed that the works required were just decorating. There were a lot of repairs and renovations required before any painting could be done. She did not consider that rent should have been charged from 1 March 2022 to 22 April 2022 when the property was made habitable. She wanted to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred including labour and material costs.
The resident chased the landlord for a response and then contacted this Service in May 2023. We contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023. In summary it said the decorating issues were not significant grounds to stop her moving in. It did agree that health issues had made it difficult for her to move in 7 days. It agreed to rebate one weeks rent to 8 March 2022 in respect of this. It also offered £150 compensation for its delays in its handling of her stage 2 complaint.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the costs she had incurred. She also considered that rent should not have been charged for the period she had to carry out works.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider complaints brought before this Service. In particular, paragraph 41 sets out the types of complaints the Ombudsman cannot consider.
The resident was dissatisfied with the offer of the property. The property was a final offer of accommodation following the landlord’s decision to accept a main housing duty. The resident felt that this should not have been a final offer. She was given the right to request a review of the offer but did not consider the time frame was adequate. She was also dissatisfied that she was only given a limited time to move.
Paragraph 41d states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints about local authorities in England which relate to their provision or management of social housing. This does not include complaints about re-housing applications and allocation of housing by a local authority. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the offer of the property has not therefore been considered in accordance with paragraph 41d. The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about these matters.

Scope of the investigation

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns about out-of-pocket expenses, and any damage to her health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that photographs/videos have been submitted within the evidence from both landlord and resident. The Ombudsman is however limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this Service to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. As a result, we do not generally place significant reliance on photographs/videos in reaching our decisions.

Legislation policy and procedures.

When a property is void, a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards. During the void period, prospective tenants have the opportunity to inspect the property, to see if the property is suitable for their needs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

As part of this investigation this Service has asked the landlord to provide a copy of its lettable standard policy/procedure. The landlord provided a draft void standard policy which it said has not been approved yet. The draft was revised in April 2020, and it is unknown if this is currently being used as a point of reference.
The draft policy states that all void properties prior to re-letting will be checked for the following:
1. Safety
2. Security
3. Cleanliness
4. State of repair (in accordance with the lettable and decent homes standard).
The draft policy states floorboards will be left in a safe condition. Skirting boards will be cleaned and left secure and in a maintainable condition. Wallpaper will not be stripped if in good condition and only small areas of loose or blown plaster will be made good/patch repaired. Large cracks or loose plaster will be repaired. The garden will be clear from rubbish and all vegetation gardens will be cut and left no longer than 300mm. It will identify whether there is a need to supply a decorating pack which it will leave in the property on handover.
We also asked the landlord to provide evidence showing how it had satisfied itself that the property met its lettable standard prior to it issuing the keys to the resident. The landlord has provided a schedule of works with photographs and a short video.
This Service would also expect to see a check list or inspection sheet showing that the property had been adequately inspected against a standard after completion of the void works. Without such evidence this Service cannot see how the landlord satisfied itself that the property met a lettable standard. The landlord said within its complaint responses that it had inspected the property at the end of the void period. The records however do not support the landlord’s version of events.
The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its voids and repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property. The onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the property had been completed to a satisfactory standard. In this case the landlord has not done so which is a failing.
The resident viewed the property on 12 February 2022. This was before the works had been finished. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had advised her of the lettable standard and what it was responsible for. The records however do not support this. Also, the resident queried what repairs in the property would be completed several days after the viewing. This shows that if she had been advised she was still unsure about what action the landlord was taking.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It said works would be carried out in accordance with its standards. This response lacked clarity about what that standard was. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to set out its standards and manage expectations which was a failing.
The records show that the resident attended the property on 1 March 2022 and signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord has also provided a copy of a void satisfaction form which the resident has ticked a box to say that she is satisfied. It is of course unknown what if anything she was advised during the meeting. The resident said within her complaint that she did not have an opportunity to view the property at the sign up as she spent the whole time in the kitchen signing documents.
The resident said that she had selected paint colours and was told that these would be delivered on 4 March 2022. This was not in accordance with its draft policy. The draft states the decorating kit would be provided on handover.
The records show that the resident reported some of her concerns about the condition of the property on 11 March 2022. She explained that her efforts to decorate in particular had not been effective because of the poor condition of the walls. She asked the landlord if the issues could be checked.
The landlord’s response was that it did not provide assistance for plastering. This response was unhelpful and did not show that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed an inspection to satisfy itself that there were no issues that it had missed. This could have also been a further opportunity for it to set out its lettable standard so that the resident’s expectations were managed. That it did not did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship. This was a further failing.
In its stage 2 response the landlord referenced picture evidence and videos taken during the void period. It said that these showed that the property was satisfactory. The issues raised by the resident were however after the void period so to rely on previous pictures and videos was inappropriate. The resident had also provided pictures within her complaint request which the landlord did not comment on or reference within its complaint responses.
The landlord said within its stage 2 response that it would not do works where it was considered cosmetic damage only. It would only do plastering works if there was significant damage that could not be corrected by filler. The records fail however to show how the landlord satisfied itself that the issues were just cosmetic. An inspection would have confirmed any findings.
Within her stage 1 complaint the resident mentioned an issue with insects. The landlord said its repairs team had said that there were no issues during the void period. It said if there had been an issue a treatment plan would have been put in place. It maintained its position within its stage 2 complaint response. This was inadequate. It did not show that the landlord had listened to the resident or taken her concerns seriously. Completion of an inspection to ensure that there were no unfound or new issues would have been a more appropriate response in the circumstances.
In respect of the condition of the garden the landlord referenced its own photographs taken on completion of the void. This approach may have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This is because gardens grow, and their appearance will change after the void completion date. An inspection after this date would not provide a true reflection of the condition at the point the tenancy commenced. It is unclear whether the resident had submitted photographs earlier that it should have considered. However, the fact that it said it would consider her concerns was appropriate in the circumstances.
It is acknowledged that the resident wanted reimbursement of the rent for a 7-week period. She said the delays in moving were due to health conditions and her getting the property to standard. The landlord was clear throughout its communication with the resident that she was liable for the rent on both properties. It did not change its position in respect of this. It considered the issue however within its stage 2 response. It said that in light of her health conditions it would reimburse a further 7 days rent which then ensured it had allowed her 2 weeks to move into the property. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary the landlord’s handling of the matter amounted to maladministration. Its record keeping was poor. The landlord failed to show the process it undertook to assess the property during the void stage, or the works completed to ensure it met requisite standards. There is no record of relevant conversations with the resident. The landlord provided a void standard policy but said that this was still in draft. It is therefore unclear whether the landlord has a void policy/ procedure or lettable standard that it is required to follow to guide its actions. This has been considered in the orders made below.
The resident was vulnerable and had to spend time and effort contacting the landlord. She had asked the landlord to inspect the condition on several occasions which was a reasonable request. She had to continue preparing her property without being given adequate reassurance that it met the landlord’s standard. The landlord missed an opportunity to satisfy itself that it had done all that it could and manage the resident’s expectations.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to stage1 complaints with 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided within its own timescales. It addressed the issues raised and set out its position. However, the records it relied upon did not show how the landlord had fully satisfied itself that it had done all that it could. It was also silent on the picture evidence the resident had provided.
The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 1 June 2022. The landlord took over a year to provide its response on 5 July 2023. The landlord had sent 1 update to the resident in August 2022 apologising for the delay. It said it would respond by 14 September 2022. It failed to do so or update the resident further. The resident had to contact this Service to chase the landlord on her behalf. This Service sent several chasing letters to the landlord before it sent its final response.
The landlord did appropriately acknowledge its delays in its stage 2 response. It apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation which was appropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not really depart from its findings within its stage 1 response. Again, it was silent on the pictures the resident had provided. It referred to the same records but did not consider if it could have done more. It did however go slightly further in its response by setting out some of its responsibilities. It also revisited its position in respect of the period of time it charged the rent.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The complaint process was protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing its complaint response, and the resident was cost time and trouble in needing to seek assistance in getting responses. The responses demonstrated a lack of in-depth investigation and curiosity.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation for the delays of £150. This amount however does not include that it could have done more to investigate how it handled the matter. By not doing so it failed to put things right. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns without receiving a detailed response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the offer of the property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
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.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £600. £150 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
  2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. A timescale for implementing its void standard policy.
2. Whether it should implement a void procedure which could include an inspection form or checklist against its void standard.
3. Whether it should consider a post void procedure to ensure it is responding appropriately to any concerns raised for a specified period after sign up and commencement of the tenancy.
4. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store information accurately.
5. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.