Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202417698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417698

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

9 June 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 handling of:
   1. damage to and loss of the resident’s belongings.
   2. the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
   3. the temporary decant for the household.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident lives with her husband, 4 children and her daughter’s fiancé. The household have a dog. The resident’s eldest daughter has a learning disability and one of her younger daughters is autistic. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that it was not aware of any vulnerabilities within the household.
4. In January 2024 the landlord identified that the resident’s property had severe damp and mould. It told the resident it needed to decant the household to undertake the work it needed to complete. The resident was decanted on 29 February 2024.
5. The resident made a complaint on 3 April 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the speed at which the work was occurring at her property. She said they had moved out in February but work still had not started on the property. The resident felt her property had been forgotten about. She said the temporary accommodation that had been provided was not suitable for the size of her family. The resident stated she had not been kept updated on what was happening and she was having to repeatedly contact the landlord. She felt it was unfair. The following day the resident complained to the landlord that the household’s belongings in the loft had been thrown out and been broken.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 May 2025. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said there was a large amount of work being carried out at the property following damp and mould problems. It was also taking the opportunity to renew other items within the property. The work included replastering and redecorating throughout the property, new windows, a new kitchen and floor coverings. It advised the works were classed as high priority and anticipated the works would be completed during June 2024.
7. The landlord said it understood the frustration the length of time and disruption had caused. It acknowledged gaps in the communication and apologised. The landlord appreciated the decant property was not ideal due to its size but said it was the only property available. It said it was sorry for this and the problems that had occurred with the decant property. The landlord acknowledged the hotel accommodation had been a stressful experience. It said it could not address the damage and loss of the resident’s belongings as it was subject to an insurance claim and therefore would be investigated in that process.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 21  May 2024. She was dissatisfied with what her household had experienced. The resident said she felt abandoned by the landlord.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 June 2024. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged communication around the timescales for the works was initially lacking. It apologised and confirmed its technical team would be in contact with regular updates during the remaining works. The landlord acknowledged the size of the temporary accommodation was not ideal. However, the landlord said it had concluded the accommodation was appropriate in the circumstances. This was because there was the limited availability of temporary accommodation and a short amount of time available to organise this. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
10. The landlord stated the resident had moved back into her property this week. It acknowledged there had been some issues when the resident had returned to the property. The landlord said some of these items had been rectified and plans were in place for the remaining issues to be addressed which the resident had been made aware of. It said this situation should not have arisen so offered £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
11. On 19 May 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that she was dissatisfied with how the landlord dealt with the refurbishment of her property and how her family were treated. She said they had moved 7 times in 4 months which had affected the children’s schooling and wellbeing. The resident said it was very stressful, and she had to chase the landlord a lot. She said she felt like her household had been forgotten.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction  

12. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint will not be investigated.
13. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. This Service is unable to consider the report of damage to and loss of the resident’s belongings as the resident did not ask to escalate this matter. Therefore, this issue was not addressed at stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure. This may be as the landlord referred the resident to its insurers in its stage 1 response.

Scope

14. The resident advised the Ombudsman that some members of the household had been unwell for several years including her husband who had been admitted to hospital for pneumonia in 2024. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s property.

15. The landlord’s tenancy states it “will look after the property by keeping in repair and proper working order the: structure and exterior including floors, walls, roof, windows, drains and gutters”. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
16. The resident was decanted on 29 February 2024. She was initially told the work to her property would take 3 weeks to complete. However, when the resident chased up the work on 20 March 2024, the landlord advised her that the program of works was waiting to be authorised and sent to the contractor. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to identify how much longer the landlord took to authorise the work, but the delay was acknowledged in its stage 1 response.
17. On 20 March 2024 the resident was told that the completion of the works was likely to be around the middle or end of May 2024. The landlord had not initially advised the resident of the correct timescale and therefore, had not initially managed the resident’s expectations for the length of time the work would take, and her family would be away from the property.
18. On the same date in another email from the landlord, the resident was told her property would be ready to return to in June 2024. The evidence did not show why there was inconsistency in what the resident was told by the landlord about when the property would be ready.
19. In an internal landlord email dated 19 April 2024, it was queried as to why the resident was initially given “such a short and unrealistic timeframe” of 3 weeks when it was evident the work would take about 10 weeks. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to clarify why this discrepancy occurred.
20. The evidence showed it took nearly 3 weeks for the belongings the resident wanted to keep to be removed from the property. However, this did not delay the works starting because during this time the program of works was waiting to be authorised.
21. In the stage 1 response issued on 16 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged poor communication with the resident about the works at her property. It stated the primary reason for this was due to a delay in a department receiving the order for the work which meant that it could not give the resident information on timescales. The landlord apologised for this and acknowledged this would have been frustrating for the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident. The landlord said it was now providing the resident with regular updates and would continue to do so.
22. However, just days later, on 21 May 2024, the resident contacted the landlord because she had visited the property and noticed there appeared to have been no work carried out since 17 May 2024 and she wanted to know what was happening. The landlord replied on the same date advising the work could not continue until the flooring had gone down. It said this was because the heating pipework could not be reinstated until the skirting boards had been removed and replaced and the flooring laid. In this email the landlord also detailed dates that other works were due to take place. This included advising the resident that scaffolding was being put up on 23 May 2024 for the brickwork to be carried out the following week. It was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to have communicated this information to the resident but would have been more beneficial to have done this at an earlier date, so the resident was not concerned when she saw no further progress at the property.
23. The evidence showed the landlord did not provide any further updates and the resident reached out to the landlord again on 3 June 2024 asking for another update. The landlord replied on 4 June 2024 advising that the electrician would be working over the next few days, the flooring was due to be laid from 10 June 2024, and the brickwork was booked in for 13 June 2024. The landlord said the 13 June 2024 was the earliest availability the bricklayer had.
24. While the Ombudsman appreciates that how quickly work can be completed will be dependent on the availability of tradespersons, the landlord should have updated the resident when the availability of the bricklayer meant some work was delayed. The landlord had originally advised the brickwork would start during the week commencing 27 May 2024, but the availability of the bricklayer meant this was delayed by nearly 3 weeks. It would have been reasonable to have informed the resident of this change when it occurred, to have kept her updated and to manage her expectations.
25. The resident contacted the landlord again on 11 June 2024 as she was concerned because the flooring had not been laid and there was still a stain on the ceiling. The landlord replied saying it had visited the property and was also concerned to see the flooring work had not started. It said it would enquire about this and update the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to clarify what the outcome of the landlord’s enquiries were about this matter.
26. In a further email on 11 June 2024, the resident expressed her frustration that she had seen houses built from scratch in 4-5 months so thought it was unacceptable that she had been out of her property since February and the work still had not been completed. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s frustration and said it would get answers.
27. On 13 June 2024 the resident advised the landlord that her husband went inside the property the previous night and was concerned to see the bathroom flooring soaking wet. She said the ceiling in the kitchen had been ruined by the water damage. The resident expressed her concern that the return to her property might be delayed by this.
28. The landlord replied on 14 June 2024. It said the remaining floor coverings would be laid by the end of the day, the radiators would be installed, and the decorations completed early the following week. The landlord stated the property would be ready for the resident to return to on 21 June 2024.
29. The resident and her family moved back into the property on Friday 21 June 2024. The resident had to report some snagging on her return. The evidence did not show what the snags were, but the landlord acknowledged the snags in its stage 2 response. It said it was aware that when the resident returned to the property there were “a number of issues” which should have been addressed. The landlord said some of these had now been rectified and dates had been booked in for the remaining issues. It acknowledged that this situation should not have arisen. In recognition of this the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It was appropriate to have offered the resident compensation for this matter.
30. However, this compensation did not go far enough to put things right. The landlord awarded £300 to compensate the resident for the snagging problems she experienced on returning to her property. It did not award compensation to the resident for the delays she experienced, the misinformation that was issued and the poor communication. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by these matters.
31. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s property. This is because of the delays in the work being authorised, initially advising the resident the work would only take 3 weeks to complete and the poor communication which did not suitably improve despite this being raised in the complaints process.
32. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s property, the landlord should award the resident £300 in compensation in recognition of the delays, misinformation about the length of time the work would take, the poor communication and the distress and inconvenienced caused by these matters. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This compensation is in addition to the amount the landlord has already awarded the resident for the snagging issues.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary decant for the household.

33. The landlord does not have a decant policy. It has advised the Ombudsman there is a decant policy in a draft format which has not yet been signed off. As the landlord does not have a decant policy to state the size or location of the temporary accommodation the resident could expect, the Ombudsman will assess if the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances.
34. The resident and her family were decanted from the property on 29 February 2024 and were not able to move back into the property until 21 June 2024. During this period the evidence showed the household were moved into 6 different temporary accommodations, totalling 7 moves in just under 4 months. Some of the accommodation the resident and her family were only living in for a few days, before moving again. Two of the properties the household lived in were only available for a week each. Another property the household had to be moved out of as it was identified the property they had been placed in had a significant problem with rats.
35. In January 2024 the landlord identified the property required work that meant the household would need to be decanted. The evidence showed the landlord contacted its insurance accommodation provider on 20 February 2024. It was not clear from the evidence why the landlord waited until 20 February 2024 to source temporary accommodation.
36. The resident received a text from the insurance accommodation provider on the morning of 29 February 2024 to advise her about temporary accommodation booked for that night. She advised the Ombudsman that she only discovered that her and her family needed to leave the property that day when contractors arrived earlier that morning at the property to carry out some work. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to share details of the decant at an earlier time. The decant of the family should have been appropriately managed and communicated with the resident but this did not happen.
37. The resident repeatedly expressed concerns about the suitability of the properties she was provided. Except for 2 weeks when the resident and her family were accommodated in 3-bedroom properties, the rest of the time the resident and her family were accommodated in either 1 or 2 rooms in a budget hotel or 2-bedroom properties. The resident repeatedly advised the landlord that this was not enough space for a family of 7 plus a dog.
38. In its stage 1 response issued on 16 May 2024 the landlord acknowledged it was not the ideal size for the household but stated this was the only accommodation available at the time. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated it felt the accommodation was appropriate given the limited availability of temporary accommodation. While the Ombudsman appreciates the limited availability of temporary accommodation, the resident lives in a 3-bedroom property and the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to decant the resident and her household into a property like-for-like. Therefore, it was not reasonable or fair of the landlord to place the household into 1 room and 2 rooms at a hotel or into 2-bedroom properties, especially given the length of time the resident was decanted for.
39. The resident frequently expressed how repeatedly having to move was affecting the household especially the wellbeing of her young children, one of whom was autistic. She also explained that her eldest daughter works from home and that being in a hotel room, overcrowded houses, and Wi-Fi issues had affected her ability to work which has caused problems with her employer. The resident said she was almost losing her job because of the circumstances they were going through. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord addressed how the circumstances were affecting the resident and her household, particularly her children.
40. In several emails to the landlord the resident explained the impact the circumstances were having on the household’s time with longer journeys to school and on finances with additional costs such a travel costs, Wi-Fi costs, and repeated disconnection charges. In an email dated 23 May 2024 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had not offered any support with these matters. In response to this email, on 7 June 2024 the landlord said it was willing to cover these costs and asked the resident to submit receipts. This was reasonable. However, 2 months later, on 6 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord stating she had not received reimbursement for these costs. The resident should not have needed to chase up this matter.
41. When the household was placed into a budget hotel for the second time, the landlord provided a £250 restaurant voucher, and it paid for 72-hour Wi-Fi access for both the rooms. This was appropriate.
42. The evidence showed that on some occasions when the availability of the resident’s current temporary accommodation was coming to an end, it was left until the last minute to arrange new accommodation for the resident and her family. The resident moved on 8 May 2024 to different temporary accommodation, but this was not confirmed until that day. The resident expressed her concern on 8 May 2024 stating she needed to know what was happening regarding accommodation for that night as she needed to pick up her children from school in 59 minutes. Leaving the resident with uncertainty about their accommodation was not reasonable and was unfair on the household. The landlord knew the dates the resident’s accommodation was no longer available so should have forward planned providing the resident with sufficient notice to be able to prepare accordingly.
43. A similar thing happened with the accommodation that the resident and her family needed to vacate on 23 May 2024. The next accommodation was only booked the day before, on 22 May 2024. The resident chased the landlord about this on 20 May 2024 saying she was contacting it again as had not heard back about the next accommodation.
44. On 21 May 2024 the landlord replied. It proposed that the resident’s eldest daughter and partner were moved into a hotel and the rest of the family be rehoused elsewhere. The resident told the landlord this was not acceptable as they were a family and did not want to be split up especially with everything they had been through. She also explained that her eldest daughter has a learning disability which was why she still lived at home. The landlord may have suggested this as an attempt to address the overcrowding. When the landlord was informed of the reasons why this could not happen, it accepted these.
45. When the landlord submitted evidence for this investigation, it advised the Ombudsman there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. However, on 10 May 2024 the resident told the landlord one of her younger daughters was autistic. On 21 May 2024 the resident advised the landlord that her eldest daughter had a learning disability. There was no evidence to show that the resident’s household was identified as vulnerable by the landlord or that a risk assessment was carried out.
46. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management, recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not do this.
47. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant for the household. This is because the resident was not given sufficient notice of the decant, was not appropriately rehoused for a family of 7, was not given adequate notice of where their next accommodation would be and there was no acknowledgement of how the multiple moves affected the household.
48. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant for the household, the landlord should award the resident £400 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused during the decant.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

49. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
50. The resident raised her complaint on 3 April 2024, but the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 16 May 2024. This was 30 working days after the resident raised her complaint and considerably more than 10 working days as stated in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
51. The landlord agreed 2 extensions with the resident. One on 16 April 2024 which was a 10-working day extension and one on 1 May 2024 which was a 5-calendar day extension. The landlord then wrote to the resident again on 13 May 2024 advising that due to unforeseen circumstances and the complexity of the case it was extending the deadline by a further 5 calendar days. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not discuss this with the resident and did not get her agreement as stated in the Code. The Code states, “If an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties”. The landlord’s complaint policy also states that the extension must be agreed with the resident.
52. As the landlord was delayed in issuing its stage 1 response, the resident was delayed in being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, she was also delayed in being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
53. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2, it replied stating that it issues stage 2 responses within 20 working days which would be 20 June 2024. However, it stated that as the member of staff allocated this complaint was on annual leave during this period the deadline was being extended to 27 June 2024. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by advising her of this extension. However, it may have been more appropriate to allocate the complaint to another member of staff who was not on leave. This would have prevented the resident from experiencing further delays.
54. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the delays the resident experienced in receiving the complaint responses from the landlord.
55. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of the delays experienced at stage 1.

Determination

56. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of damage to and loss of the resident’s belongings is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the temporary decant for the household.
59. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

60. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the refurbishment of the resident’s property.
    2. £400 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant for the household.
    3. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
61. If not already done so, the landlord must reimburse the resident for the costs she submitted receipts for. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service.
62. If not already done so, the landlord must pay the resident the £300 it offered the resident in its stage 2 response. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service.
63. The landlord must produce a temporary decant policy to clearly define a framework and standards. The policy must include how the selection and offers of temporary accommodation are to be made, considering the size of a household and any vulnerabilities. The landlord must provide a copy of the signed off/approved temporary decant policy to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.